Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Use Wikipedia with dynamical search help in all languages ...

Wikipedia - How to create a page

Administrator instructions

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

  • If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, do not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
  • If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. For non-controversial cases, place a technical request; if a discussion is required, then start a requested move.
  • If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. Please do not use this as the only reason to delete a redirect. However, redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted, so that is not a sufficient condition for keeping. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Please do not change the target of the redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for both potential closers and participants.

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

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

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

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

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

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

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

Reasons for deleting[edit]

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

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

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

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

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

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

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

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Tag the redirect.

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

  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RfD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page ("Publish changes").
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect you are nominating is in template namespace, consider adding |showontransclusion=1 to the RfD tag so that people using the template redirect are aware of the nomination.
List the entry on RfD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current list[edit]

November 26[edit]

MediaTek Camera Application[edit]

Delete or change to appropriate target (if it exists) as it is not mentioned at all at the target page (target page basically only talks about the company in terms of its CPU manufacturing) ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

C10H14N2 (film)[edit]

Has history, but not mentioned at target and all other mentions on-wiki appear to be talking about any of the chemical compounds with this sum formula. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
14:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Restore version before redirect was applied, and tag as requires update. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Five years later, this film appears to still be awaiting production. I don't see any indications that it's notable at this stage. Either the redirect can be kept (but with a mention added to the target), or restored and moved to Draft. – Uanfala (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death[edit]

Not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Champion: It used to redirect to the Eco-imperialism article, which no longer exists. Jarble (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Champion: This redirect page needs to be updated: it should point instead to this section, which describes the book with this title. Jarble (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Actually that section makes a passing reference to the author but does not describe the book. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-(Wikipedia)-notable book by an author without an article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


Only used in a passing mention at Faker (gamer). ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
00:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Radio supernova[edit]

Not mentioned at target. Other mentions on-wiki consist only of descriptions of apparent instances of this class, as well as unrelated radio stations. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
20:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 20:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Haroon Shahid[edit]

Not mentioned at the target, not appropriate to list there unless an article can be created at this title, in which case we would not have a redirect. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Redirects from Eastern Arrernte[edit]

We do not normally create redirects in languages other than English unless the language is especially relevant to the topic. Certes (talk) 16:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Dewe (disambiguation)[edit]

The only Dewe at the target before I cleaned it up was Colleen Dewe, which didn't belong there as it was a human name rather than an ambiguous term, and was a different word. It's now listed in a see also at Dew (surname), though it doesn't seem appropriate to retarget this there. Suggest deletion. Paul_012 (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Superficial sympathy[edit]

delete, very unlikely search term. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep the term is in the article lead as a synonym for crocodile tears and it appears to be used elsewhere, off-wiki to the same effect. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 20:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

British influence in India[edit]

Needs a better target. Peter Ormond 💬 13:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Lack of sense of responsibility of psychopaths[edit]

delete, very unlikely search term. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Lack of guilt in psychopaths[edit]

delete, very unlikely search term. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Indifference to others' suffering[edit]

delete, very unlikely search term. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete or find another home for it. It doesn't necessarily refer to psychopathy and is not always permanent. It may also refer to apathy, desensitization, or caring very little for or not at all when the other's suffering concerns someone the person strongly dislikes or hates. It's also not as popular a search term as something like "psychopathy", "sociopathy", "apathy", and from there onward. It's not even a term. GBFEE (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Traumagenic system[edit]

While "traumagenic" is mentioned at the target, "traumagenic system" is not, and is a term that turns up zero search results on Google Scholar. I think that deletion is in order unless evidence of this term's use in the context of DID can be provided. N.b. that there's also Traumagenic neurodevelopmental model of psychosis, an article about traumagenic hypotheses for the development of psychosis, which is likely related but not quite synonymous with what I think this redirect was getting at. At any rate, my assessment is that this is a too-broad, potentially novel term without an appropriate existing target, so deletion to allow for search results seems like the proper course of action. signed, Rosguill talk 21:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  • As Wizzito says, this is indeed a term used in the plural community. For a very unscientific bit of evidence, I searched the logs of a plurality-oriented Discord server I'm a member of: Out of ~181,000 messages, 67 have contained the words "traumagenic" and "system" (Discord doesn't allow forced-word-order searching) and another 142 have contained just the word "traumagenic", which comes out to a pretty high frequency for a four-syllable word. Anecdotally, I would say that the traumagenic/endogenic distinction is a major aspect of plural identity and plural culture and, to an extent, of scholarly understanding of plurality/multiplicity. That distinction is key here, though. In the past few years the plural community has moved to assert itself in terms largely independent of scholarly research into DID and related conditions. This is all well and good, but brings about the side-effect that there isn't much discussion of the plural community in the sorts of sources Wikipedia articles are based on. That in itself is fine for our purposes at RfD—redirects are not bound by WP:RS, and many redirects exist for terms of comparable nicheness—but the question is if we have anywhere worthwhile to point the sort of reader who searches "traumegenic system". The current target does discuss the "traumagenic model", and a person who has DID under that model would indeed be a traumagenic system, but I'm not sure it's what our readers are looking for. They're looking for an encyclopedic discussion of the concept of some systems (read: people with DID, OSDD, and perhaps UDD, and perhaps, depending on whom you ask, some people who do not meet any of those diagnostic criteria) being that way as a result of trauma, and implicitly of others being that way through some other mechanism.
    So, give readers an incomplete answer adjacent to what they're looking for, or give them no answer at all? There's an irony that I've written all this and now find myself arguing with myself. There are definitely some people who would be offended by the current target. There are others who might be misled into thinking that the two things are the same when they aren't. And it strikes me as unlikely that the English Wikipedia will, anytime soon, have substantial coverage of the fairly niche intra-community term being referenced here. I think I come down as a weak delete, because on a medical or medical-adjacent topic it's important that we not send readers to the wrong place. But I think I've also made a decent case for keeping as well (again, the irony's not lost on me), and hope that others find this bit of insight into the plural community helpful. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

F. W.[edit]

I think this page should redirect to FW, which seems to be a more suitable target for people wikilinking to "F.W." It would also make it possible to remove the hatnote at F. W. de Klerk, thereby making the page cleaner. JBchrch talk 18:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose. F. W. de Klerk is the only notable topic that appears on the first four pages of google searches for "F. W.", making them unquestionably the primary topic. Removing hatnotes is not something that should ever be a goal it its own right. Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I do not get the same results at all. The majority of my results are related to F.W. Webb Company. And I think it's pretty clear from my proposal that I do not regard removing hat notes as a "goal it its own right"... JBchrch talk 19:48, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Interesting, F.W. Webb Company doesn't appear in my search results until the penultimate spot on page 10, well below plumbers, builders merchants, a funeral home in Great Malvern (I'm in London, a little over a 100 miles away as the crow flies), dictionary definitions, stone masons, serial numbers (for dishwashers, disco lights, "sensor heads" and inkjet printers), even the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. Hits related to F.W. de Klerk are in the majority of every page (except 1 and 7, where no one thing is in a majority). Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the disambiguation page. Anything abbreviated "FW" is pendantically spelled as "F. W." if you follow traditional grammar rules -- (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[edit]

Why should the name of a website redirect to the page President of Italy? "" is not a search one could possibly do on Wikipedia when actually meaning "President of Italy". Yakme (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Carolyn Mitchell[edit]

Redirect target is a surprise link. This name is mentioned exactly once in the destination article and has to be searched for to find it. A person with this name was an alias of someone married to Rooney and that is it. Better for this to be deleted than point to some destination with basically no useful information about the person named. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Refine to § Marriages and create Barbara Ann Thomason with same target. There's three sentences on Thomason at the target article, as well as four sentences on her death at Milos Milos. It would be preferable for a woman's murder to not only be discussed at the articles on her husband and her murderer, but that's what we've got for the moment. I'd be interested to see whether Murder of Barbara Ann Thomason could be turned blue, but for now I think this redirect is worthwhile. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


This is not a different capitalisation, it is simply the name of Greek Old Calendarists in all capital letters. Therefore, I think this redirect should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep this is a very old {{R from move}}, having been performed in November 2003. Indeed it is so old that it was not recorded in the history of the target page so this page needs to be retained for attribution purposes. It's also completely harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    Attribution of what exactly? ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
    16:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RCAPS. Greek Old Calendarists have no affinity with the capitalized variant, and it thus fails the "likely alternative capitalization" purpose of redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    • For the second time in about as many days you are completely ignoring licensing issues, and there is no vandalism aspect to complicate matters here. The page was created at this title in good faith and the move away from it is not recorded anywhere else. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I am not ignoring licensing issues, I am disagreeing with your interpretation of them. -- Tavix (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
        Then show me where, in the legal text of the GFDL or cc-by-sa license, it says we can choose which edits require attribution and which do not. The right to be attributed for your edits is in practice* the only absolute right one has on Wikipedia (*the other "right" commonly cited is the right to vanish, but that's not available in every circumstance and in practice is not actually very vanishy). Thryduulf (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I do not have the burden of proof, but the logic for my position is quite simple: there is no blanket restriction against deleting pages moved before June 2005. If you would like there to be one, I recommend starting an RfC. -- Tavix (talk) 16:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per Travix. Not a plausible miscapitalisation, not a useful search term. I also don't agree with the argument that this needs to be kept for attribution purposes, there's no substantial content in the page history, the page history in it's entirety consists of the redirect being generated automatically as the result of a page move, some redirect categorisation and this RFD. Changing the capitalisation of a title probably wouldn't even reach the threshold of originality to qualify for copyright anyway. (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely search term. Avilich (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's something to be said for respecting our wiki's early history. If an ancient redirect isn't hurting anything, I don't think it should be deleted. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 00:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, it is highly unlikely that anyone would use the all-caps variant as a search term. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 8#Rachmanianof. Wretchskull (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per all above, not particularly common to warrant a redirect. Avilich (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per J947. I could see thinking it's spelled this way, and indeed at least one newspaper has thought that. @Susmuffin, I'm just gonna out and say it, because it's been on my mind for a month or two now: Could you please stop conclusorily stating that search terms are improbable? Without any accompanying analysis of why a term is probable or improbable (as J947 has provided), such a !vote really adds nothing more to the discussion than your signature. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Just in general, there are a lot of RfD participants who !vote quickly without doing 30 seconds' research. It really isn't much just to check whether one's gut feel matches up with reality. Go to all-time pageviews, WhatLinksHere, and a quick google search for the string and that's sufficient. J947messageedits 02:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
      There's a remarkably low quantity of results with that misspelling, and it seems the redirect had virtually no traffic before this nomination brought it to prominence. Avilich (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
      Yup. It's still enough for the redirect to be useful. J947messageedits 19:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep per my spending several seconds just now trying to figure out which of the two was a mispelling. It resembles the kinds of mistakes I might make when guessing at a transliteration from Russian. Rusalkii (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep per J947, Tamzin and Rusalkii. It's clear this is a plausible misspelling with a single clear target, so the redirect is both useful and harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria[edit]

I do not wish to delete this redirect; however I am suggesting either a retarget to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria or disambiguating to Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria. My reasoning is that while it does make some sense for "inclusion criteria" to refer to "the criteria that determines what should be included in Wikipedia", based on a search it appears that the vast majority of the exact term "inclusion criteria" on Wikipedia is referring to list inclusion criteria. Indeed, I only came across this redirect when searching for WP:Inclusion criteria, looking for the specific project page regarding list inclusion criteria. My reasoning for including Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not in the proposed dabpage is that this used to redirect there and it seems reasonable enough - I would not object to a dabpage without that on it. Best, eviolite (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Either of those options sound good to me. AFAIK since I created it, it's never been an important redirect to Wikipedia:Notability. ··gracefool 💬 03:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The redirect has had an extremely long standing consensus remaining in effect without issue for the past decade. Changing it now affects the fundamental meaning of other discussions that have currently been taking place: diff. Also, it doesn't make any sense to disambig WP:Inclusion criteria when we know it will impact other conversations and we also already have the WP:Inclusion disambig which already exists to work from where we could just add both Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria to that existing disambig page without affecting the meaning or the long standing consensus of the other... Huggums537 (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Huggums537: Is there a discussion that demonstrates that a extremely long standing consensus exists for this to go to WP:N, or is it just that it has stayed for a long time? (This is a genuine question -- I was not aware of any discussion of this redirect occuring anywhere.) Also, I hadn't seen that specific VP thread you linked before, but it seems that specific usecase is neither related to notability (in Wikipedia's terms; i.e. whether a topic belongs as its own article) nor list inclusion criteria (since it's not about stand-alone lists, but about sections within articles), so I'm not sure how that relates to your comment at all. I certainly don't see how the target of this redirect affects a discussion about something related to neither options. eviolite (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
      @Eviolite, that is a valid question, but no discussion has to take place. Consensus is presumed. So, having a lengthy history of staying a long time without any objections is implicit consensus. The longer it stays that way, the stronger the consensus is implied. See WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Also, the reason my comment is related is because if the target of the redirect gets changed, then the meaning of my comment gets changed in the process. That is why I suggested we edit the existing dabpage since it is very similar anyway (only one word away from being exactly the same actually) and no meanings where this redirect is being used would be changed and the consensus would not be affected. Also, adding your suggested targets to the existing dabpage do not affect any meanings anywhere the existing dabpage is being used because it is already intended to convey multiple meanings anyway... Huggums537 (talk) 05:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
      • In that case, the fact that I am bringing it to RfD, i.e. expressing an objection to the status quo, shows that there is no consensus. Consensus can be presumed to exist until disagreement becomes evident. By that logic, nothing could ever change since the current version would always have "implicit consensus". The whole thing about bringing a completely different page into this discussion (WP:Inclusion) is patently silly as those are completely different pages. If I go to the Wikipedia project page for "Inclusion criteria", there is no reason for me to assume that what I'm looking for is actually hidden on an arbitrarily different page. How will changing WP:Inclusion change the fact that WP:Inclusion criteria links solely to something that is not the main meaning of that term, unless WP:Inclusion criteria is changed to redirect or link to WP:Inclusion? The statement about there just being one word different is rather confusing since the pages in question have only one and two words in the title anyway. To me, the insistence that a singular usage of this link, used in what reads to me like a petty comment about something you admit to be the finer points, that nobody has even replied to, outweighs, among others, nearly two thousand instances of "inclusion criteria" referring directly to list inclusion criteria (being in talk pages of lists) that would be confusing to somebody who does not know what "inclusion criteria" means in that context is frivolous. eviolite (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
        How will changing WP:Inclusion change the fact that WP:Inclusion criteria links solely to something that is not the main meaning of that term, unless WP:Inclusion criteria is changed to redirect or link to WP:Inclusion? As I mentioned below, the fact that we have so many other similar redirects targeting the same guideline is ample evidence that this redirect does target the main meaning of the term. Furthermore, the more than 44,000 who are also using almost exactly the same terminology to redirect to Notability far outweigh less than 2,000. It's not just me using this link, and it's not just this redirect that is the only one saying it is the main meaning of the term. There are several other redirects just like it saying the same thing, and thousands upon thousands of editors also saying the same thing. The thing that would be frivolous would be to disrupt a well established redirect pattern that has been replicated by the community several times as being the main meaning and used by thousands in one of the redirects when there is no good reason for it except that a single user performed a piss poor search and now has an objection to the established redirect pattern after a decade of consensus with no issues... Huggums537 (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Looking at WhatLinksHere, this doesn't seem useful to redirect to WP:N, there are a non-trivial number of uses with a different or unclear intent. Also, there are only 29 links here, it's not going to be seriously disruptive to disambiguate this. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
    I've offered an alternative that wouldn't be disruptive at all. There's no reason whatsoever why we shouldn't add the suggested targets to the existing dabpage and spare users whatever "non serious" disruption you perceive it would be to disambig this. Actively encouraging any kind of disruption is a bad idea when you have a non disruptive alternative. Huggums537 (talk) 05:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that there is nothing wrong with this redirect in the first place. The OP even acknowledges that it does make sense for WP:Inclusion criteria to refer to "the criteria that determines what [articles] should be included in Wikipedia" (Notability). Further, the search that was conducted by the OP doesn't yield any better results at finding the list selection criteria even when you replace the terms "inclusion criteria" with more relevant terms such as selection criteria or list criteria. This suggests the fault lies with improper search parameters as opposed to a faulty redirect. This is especially true when you consider the fact that the original search includes needless Discussion pages along with other needless File, Template, Category, Draft, Module, and Gadget pages in a search for list criteria. The selection criteria can be found very easily when a more proper search is conducted. Are you quite sure you were looking for the specific project page regarding list inclusion criteria? Huggums537 (talk) 11:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Huggums537: You are misunderstanding what I said. I typed WP:Inclusion criteria into the search bar, like I said, expecting there to be a shortcut to the list inclusion criteria. Then, when researching for this RfD, I searched for "inclusion criteria" in all non-article namespaces to see which was more common; as expected, it was for lists. Redirects are meant to sent the reader to a page they would expect. eviolite (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
    This redirect is the page you would expect when you compare it to the nearly identical one Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion that is being used by over 44,000 who will be confused and disrupted by the change since we also have WP:Notability criteria and WP:What wikipedia includes redirecting to Notability as well. These very strongly suggest that Wikipedia expects all of these similar type of redirects to send a reader to Notability and this redirect should remain WP:STATUSQUO to avoid any disruption to that expectation or to avoid disrupting the meanings of current discussions as I pointed out earlier... Huggums537 (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
    I don't care about this redirect enough to debate this any further, especially when my attempts at due diligence have been characterized as disruptive and piss poor based on misunderstandings. It's clear that I have my opinion on where this should go, and you have yours; one person does not constitute a consensus so we'll see what others have to say. eviolite (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
    To be clear, any comments I made about disruption were in response to a point brought up by another editor, and so it was the other editor who characterized this action as being disruptive. I have merely agreed with that point and suggested the disruption is a bad idea. I have no idea what "misunderstanding" either one of us base this assessment/characterization on. At any rate, I do apologize for using "piss poor" to describe your search even though I still think it was not a very good one even in spite of any misunderstandings that have occurred. Also, when the whole community has intentionally developed a grouping of extremely similar redirects that all point to the same target, (essentially saying there is a community consensus that these types of redirects have this type of meaning) then saying, "one person does not constitute a consensus" is far more of an unfair characterization. (Note that every redirect of these types were each created by a different person.) Huggums537 (talk) 17:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
    To be clear, my comment said that the change would not be seriously disruptive. It did not say that I thought the change would be disruptive at all, only that I thought that it would at least not be seriously disruptive. I don't actually agree that the change would be disruptive, but I don't like making overly-broad claims when they're not particularly relevant to my argument. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
    I think your comment was perfectly clear and succinct when you wrote it the first time, and I find it to be telling you came after the fact with this translation of "what you really meant", but thanks for clearing it up for us anyway. At least now we can see what you are intending more clearly. Huggums537 (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we disambig the redirect, or do we keep as is, and enhance the already existing disambig page Wikipedia:Inclusion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep and enhance existing disambig page because all the other redirects similar to this one support the idea that this redirect is expected to point to Notability. There is way more evidence to support this idea (44,000), than there is for any minor ideas about it being expected to point to list inclusion criteria. If we want to mention a rather small possibility (by comparison) of pointing to list criteria, it should be done from the existing disambig page, not from destroying an existing redirect actually expected to go somewhere else. Just because this particular one isn't used as much as the other similar ones, doesn't make it any more or less part of that group of redirects that are all expected to point to Notability. Huggums537 (talk) 12:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC) Changing vote to just keep because I just now noticed that Wikipedia:Inclusion already disambiguates to WP:LISTCRITERIA!! Huggums537 (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Mount St. Halenas[edit]

double typo that could refer to either Mount St. Helens or Mount Saint Helena, and perhaps other targets, suggest deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Move and retarget. This was created when the Hurricane Jeanne article was moved to that title from here in 2004. As best I can tell, it was page move vandalism but because page moves were only recorded in the history of the source page back then it's tricky to be certain. Even though it is vandalism, this being the only record of that page move does mean we need to keep it around for attribution purposes though. I agree it's not a useful redirect to the current target, or to the hurricane, in it's present form and nothing notable includes "Halenas" as far as I can see (only usernames, a non-notable possibly sole-trader clothes retailer, and very occasional French pages (wikt:halenas informs that it's the second-person singular past historic of halener, meaning "to exhale" or "to scent")). So I suggest moving it, without a redirect, to a name that's a useful redirect for the hurricane and retargeting it there - the modern logging of moves and showing up in whatlinkshere for the hurricane will make it as easy as possible for someone to find if they need to. Maybe moving an then separately deleting the resulting redirect (rather than suppressing the redirect) will allow for log entries to be even clearer? Anyway, that necessitates finding a useful redirect to the hurricane that doesn't already exist - Hurricane Jeanne 2004 or Hurricane jeanne are the most obvious to me, with possibly a marginal preference for the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as a ambiguous typo. I strongly oppose Thryduulf's proposal. The idea that attribution would be necessary for page move vandalism is—frankly—ridiculous and sets a dangerous precedent. -- Tavix (talk) 00:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    It might sound ridiculous to you, but nowhere I've ever seen in either the GFDL (which applied at the time) or cc-by-sa attribution requirements is vandalism distinguished from any other edit, despite what an essay might imply. Thryduulf (talk) 03:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    Nowhere I've seen that all page move vandalism before 27 June 2005 must be kept, which is what you're implying. Vandalism need not be attributed—quite the opposite in fact because vandalism is prohibited. -- Tavix (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    You are correct that vandalism is prohibited, but I've seen nothing in either the GFDL or cc-by-sa licenses' attribution requirements that distinguishes between prohibited edits and allowed edits. We don't get to choose which bits of the law we follow, so unless you can show me where, in the legal text, it says vandalism is exempt from attribution requirements we don't have a choice to keep this. Thryduulf (talk) 05:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
If the contributions have been removed (not meaning from the database, just from the article), then the requirement to attribute the article's text does not include people whose contribution have been removed from it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Unless I'm missing something, I kind of doubt that page move (or any other) meets the threshold of originality. Rummskartoffel 17:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
    The only time moving a page to another title would arguably not be a significant edit would be when doing simple substitution of similar characters (e.g. hyphen to endash). Moving "Hurricane Jeanne" to "Mount St. Helenas" is far more significant than a typo fix in an article and we always ensure to maintain the attribution of those edits. Thryduulf (talk) 04:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
While I don't think we necessarily need to preserve that bit of confusing old history and simple deletion would be fine, I don't think there is any harm in Thryduulf's proposal either. In that case I think the redirect can just be suppressed when doing the move along with a detailed edit summary rather than doing a move/delete. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Unnecessarily preserving vandalism is harmful. -- Tavix (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
We wouldn't be preserving vandalism, we would just be preserving the record that it occurred with page history, which is a normal occurrence. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 12:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  • @Thryduulf:, would a link to the user who did the move and a brief description of what they did in the edit summary of a dummy edit be enough for attribution? That's basically what the current system does anyway in regards to moves. If so then I absolutely believe a delete is warranted. eviolite (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: By which of the ways do we achieve attribution for a probable page move vandalism that happened here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

William Taylor(Nights: Journey of Dreams)[edit]

Back when Will had an article in June-July 2008, the page was at this title for nearly a month before it was moved to the correctly formatted title, then that was redirected to the current target less than a week later. I don't really see why we should keep this WP:UNNATURALly formatted title that isn't used much when the correct one exists. Regards, SONIC678 00:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

November 25[edit]


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


This redirect needs to be deleted, entirely my fault, i meant to merge, and for some reason, i moved it, so i moved it back, and now tivetshall redirects to tivetshall st margaret, when the two tivetshalls really should be merged, sorry for wasting your time. Erik Sergeant (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

  • It should be an article about the civil parish that was formed from Tivetshall St Margaret and Tivetshall St Mary in 2019 but I'm fine with deleting so that it shows up as a red link. Prior to the CP formed it could have perhaps have been a set index listing the 2 villages and Tivetshall railway station but now that a CP exists with that name an article would be more appropriate. The 2 village/former CP articles shouldn't be merged as defunct divisions remain notable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps use it as a disambiguation page, leading to both articles. Erik Sergeant (talk) 13:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Question Team[edit]

Per "redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject", the Richard Ayoade article only mentions Question Team in a table row, where it says that it's the name of a television show that he hosted for 8 episodes in 2021. Lord Belbury (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


Retarget all to Canon (fiction), as all titles more closely relate to canon in literature/fiction than their current targets. I wouldn't expect Biblical canon when wikilinking, and they might not represent a WP:WORLDWIDE view of the topics (though I have no idea of the topic). Non-canon and Fictional canon redirect to Canon (fiction), making Non-canonical differ. For Literary canon, I suggest the already-existing hatnote in Canon (fiction) suffices to navigate to Western canon if they are looking for it. If Literary canon is kept (because of the large number of links to it), the hatnote distinguishing it with Canon (fiction) should stay. SWinxy (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, this is just nonsense - Canonical is a train wreck of a page, and redirecting a noun like "Literary canon" to a lengthy (rather over-lengthy) disam page for an adjective will almost always be a bad idea. "Non-canonical books" is a basic concept in Biblical studies, but must be extremely rarely used for other types of fiction - see this search. Google struggles to find any uses that aren't about the Bible. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Canonical looks like pretty much every other disambig page, I see no train-wreck. I guess no one would object if you sorted it alphabetically, putting Religion above Science (plus ça change !). Literary canon is certainly a special case and I withdraw that part of my agreement. [It needs a separate discussion, it certainly should not redirect to Canonical (disambiguation) and certainly not to Canon (fiction). Canon (disambiguation) maybe but that seems pointless atm if just ends up going to Western Canon anyway.] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Per talk:Canonical#Not a dab page, I have seen the error of my ways and repented. That part of reply withdrawn. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Interesting results from 'general' google search for plain "non-canonical": Science trumps religion. Searching has similar results if we include Linguistics under Science. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Maybe, for "non-canonical" in science contexts, but how can you justify "Non-canonical books", where all these fall away? Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Why would I (or anyone) want to do that? You may as well just specify "non-canonical books of the Bible" and be done with it, since "of the Bible" maybe taken as read. Ah, ok, at which point I realise that I missed the thrust of your argument: the specific redirect in question is "non-canonical books", not "non-canonical" + "books". Hmmm, I think you have a valid point, which I accept. Another one bites the dust. Two down, one to go. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Many of the "Non-canonical books" are of great interest to Judaism too. I don't think the term is used at all in Hinduism. You have to twist definitions somewhat to say "The largest English speaking country in the world is India"! Indians form a significant part of our readership on the en:wp, but certainly not the largest group. Johnbod (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
So we will bias the generic redirects on Wikipedia to favor IslamicJudeoChristianity above other concerns? As Indians form a significant portion of the readership, that is a very good reason why these redirects should not be biased towards Western Civilization and IslamicJudeoChristianity. "India" was an example used. "non-canonical books" (and similar terminology) are in entertainment, especially when part of a media franchise's corpus is decanonized by the Intellectual Propery Owner when moving forward with new major works. All generic redirects should be generic, and not implicit Christian/American/British redirects. -- (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Redirects should serve the readers who encounter the redirected term. In the case of "Non-canonical books" this is almost certain to be someone reading a biblical or related article. Can you find any Indian topic where Non-canonical books is used as a redirect? I bet not. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Redirects should not favor one group of the readers over other groups of readers. If multiple topics on Wikipedia cover concepts of the terminology from different cultural/regional contexts, then no single region should be favored. "Non-canonical books" is not just the content of Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible and other IslamicJudeoChristian apocrypha. As you can see all over the entertainment sector, non-canonical books/literature/history, can refer to works of fiction in media franchises, or the literary canon of a culture. Fractality and Variability in Canonical and Non-Canonical English Fiction and in Non-Fictional Texts [2] [3][4] -- (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
So apart from the first, non-RS fan sites, none with anything to do with religions in India, so a red herring then. If at some future date any of those result in an actual article, we can revisit but right now their relevance is not obvious. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
It is not a red herring, it is an example of an English speaking region that is not Christian or Judaic. We should keep in mind that the world is not solely IslamicJudeoChristian, and should never think that all redirects should default in this manner. If we are discussing canonical religious works of Indian religions versus non-canoncial works, we have all manner of such [5][6][7][8]; my examples were indicating that non-canonical books extends far beyond religion, entering works about fiction canon. -- (talk) 04:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I asked for uses within Wikipedia, ie where a redirect might actually be used. I don't think there are any relating to Indian religions. Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Canonical (disambiguation) should only link to articles containing the word 'canonical'. Canon (fiction), Western canon and equally Biblical canon, do not belong there and never did. The should only be listed under Canon (disambiguation). I will move Biblical canon now: if hard cases make bad law, then irrelevant cases make even worse law. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There appears to be less support for the nomination of retargetting to Canon (fiction), and while there is partial support for the Canonical disambiguation page for some redirects, there is opposition to it as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget all to Canon (basic principle), I think. Second choice, retarget the first two to Canonical and the third to Canon (basic principle). Oppose keeping the third one at Western canon; the phrase "literary canon" is also used to refer to other literary traditions, e.g. [9]. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose the second per Johnbod, possibly convert it to a disambiguation page if any other particular books are an equally likely target (which I do not expect). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Just One Person[edit]

Seems like it would be a better fit for Snoopy! The Musical, where a song of that exact title appears. It is also known for it's appearance on The Muppet Show, so it could also redirect there. (Oinkers42) (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or disambiguate, in which case a draft DAB will help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Common attributes[edit]

Left over from a page move, these redirects seem rather ambiguous to me and don't seem to be particularly strongly related to this religion. A few WP:BEFORE searches turn up all kinds of uses, by far the most common being related to programming and markup languages. I'm unsure what the best course of action is here. (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete as vague at best --Lenticel (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


Not actually mentioned at the target, which simply describes Kafiristan. A GScholar search suggests that kafirism is used in other contexts, a Kurdish movement in the late Ottoman Empire [10], and as a descriptor of a demographic of Trinidadian Muslims [11], both of which may be notable or at least potentially better covered at a different article. The redirect as it stands may even be a neologism in reference to the current target. As it stands, I think that deletion is best, although redirecting to Kafir would also be an improvement over the current target. signed, Rosguill talk 22:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Eel on Musk[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Review/Message boxes[edit]

I don't understand why it redirect to TfD. Q28 hope you pay attention to TFD 00:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep, outdated name for the venue. See Special:Permalink/13879634. Harmless; and deletion would only increase confusion. J947messageedits 00:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It's not clear to me from the history that this was ever used in practice to refer to TfD, but it's not harming anything, so keep. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it's not clear for me either, but I'm not going to go on an full-fledged archive search. J947messageedits 04:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment AFAIK, WP:Votes for Deletion was the venue for deleting templates before TfD and the other XfDs was set up -- (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

November 24[edit]

The Mechanisms[edit]

This is the name of a different, completely unrelated band from Mechanism, and all of the links using this redirect have been mistaken links from The Mechanisms rather than the target. I'd make an article for the real The Mechanisms, but while they have an enthusiastic cult following I'm not sure if they're notable by Wikipedia's standards. Rusalkii (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Heh, not a band I ever thought to see show up at RfD. I'm slightly biased here, perhaps, having quite liked the one album of theirs I listened to, Once Upon a Time in Space. But I think I can set that aside... /lh
    I see where IP65 is coming from, but I disagree. If they're notable enough to redlink, then they should be redlinked without disambiguator. Google results suggest (yes, even Incognito to avoid personalized results) that the main usage of "The Mechanisms" is in reference to the band, so this seems like it would be a WP:SMALLDETAILS situation, like Atlantic / The Atlantic. So either we should delete this per nom under REDLINK, or we should say that this band isn't notable and retarget to the DAB and unlink all backlinks. Looking at search results, I'm afraid I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, but maybe I've missed something. Defaulting to retarget to DAB and un-backlink, but remain open to being convinced that there's article potential here (in which case I'd switch to !voting redlink). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
If as Rusalkii stated, it isn't sufficiently notable, then the base name should point to the dab page. The redlink can serve to point to whatever other article the band ever appears in as a subtopic, if such were written. As it is, we could just point it to the space pirates list, instead of being a redlink. Or keep it as a redlink, waiting for such a more substantial overarching article to be written. Surely there should be a list of bands of X where a listentry could be built for it? Then the redlink could be converted to a redirect to that list. -- (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Tourism in North America[edit]

Shouldn't this point to Economy of North America#Tourism? Not sure why we'd point to Wikivoyage when this is an encyclopedic topic we have a section about. Hog Farm Talk 19:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Disambigute/set indexify/listify (not really sure what this would fall under). The template at the bottom of page shows that we have a lot of encyclopaedic content on this topic, but it's organised by country rather than continent. I think this title would make a reasonable list of articles, which could also include links to wikivoyage and other projects. (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep as the best choice among a bunch of bad options. Economy of North America#Tourism is a single unreferenced paragraph. Pointing it to Category:Tourism in North America would be a disorienting WP:CNR. Listifying wouldn't provide information beyond what's provided by the category or the navbox. The information most likely to be helpful to readers is at Wikivoyage. The best outcome would be an article on the topic, so I suggest tagging the page as a {{r with possibilities}}. - Eureka Lott 23:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • A redirect to Wikivoyage with a navbox is not something I've ever seen before, but I think here it gets the job done better than any proposed alternative. Keep but set navbox state to expand just to emphasize our own offerings a bit more, without prejudice against any future editor boldly retargeting to Economy of North America#Tourism if that section is expanded to have a significant amount of well-referenced encyclopedic content. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak keep – certainly an unconventional choice, with the soft redirect and the navbox, but I think it's fine. I support Tamzin's suggestion of expanding the navbox. Also support retargeting to Economy of North America#Tourism if that section is improved. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

String vest[edit]

None of the historically proposed redirects here fit the subject matter. This is a unique subject and should be redlinked until such point as an article is written for it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. Very surprisingly (to me) we appear to have all-but no content about this topic. There is a sentence at Colin Bertram, but redirecting to a biography of someone who was just "involved with" its invention would be a major WP:SURPRISE. Undershirt (the American English term for what British English speakers call a vest) or less-specifically Undergarment should make better targets, but nether of them mention it. We don't even seem to have any images on Commons. Also a courtesy ping to Overlordnat1 who commented on this back in January and Rothorpe who did so in 2013. Thryduulf (talk) 02:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for drawing my attention to your suggestion of removing the redirect of string vest to sleeveless shirt. I think this article should actually be several different articles: sleeveless t-shirts, sleeveless ‘undershirts’ (‘vests’ in my British English), sleeveless tops/dresses, ACTUAL sleeveless shirts (ordinary shirts without sleeves) and perhaps ‘string vests’ (though this could be included in a sleeveless undershirts/vests article along with ‘A-shirts’). Also pictures of sleeveless t-shirts (aka ‘muscle shirts’), actual sleeveless shirts and string vests would be good - though there might be copyright issues with pictures from Google Images of shirts without sleeves or images of Rab C Nesbitt in a string vest. In short, I agree that the redirect of string vest to sleeveless shirt, as the article currently stands, is pointless and should be removed (or the main article improved). Delete.Overlordnat1 (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Dindu Nuffin[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Delete as a clearly offensive or abusive term that is not in wide use. Dindu nuffin does not exist, so there is no reason to have the capitalized version which could be confused with the more unambiguous Dindu Nuffin (song). WP:RNEUTRAL specifies that an "established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources [to describe the article subject]" may be kept, which this is not. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Retarget to Doja Cat#Controversies per WP:DIFFCAPS; with hatnote. Create the dindu nuffin redirect, redirecting to this target. So it redirects to a page which explains it as a term. Similar to what mainstream media have done. It isn't used by mainstream media, but it is mentioned (use–mention distinction). And if all non-neutral redirects were required to be used by mainstream media, then the alt-right echo chamber would only develop as those encountering the term can not see it being described in a neutral manner on Wikipedia.
    In terms of wikilawyering about WP:RNEUTRAL, I don't see where to describe the article subject is implied in the sentence referenced in the nomination. Paraphrasing; the term is established, even if not in established sources, and perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is not a sufficient reason for their deletion. J947messageedits 20:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    The use–mention distinction is exactly the reason to delete. Per WP:RNEUTRAL, The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms ... For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. This is what is meant by "used in multiple mainstream reliable sources".
    DIFFCAPS is largely irrelevant since Dindu Nuffin (song) already exists. Loss of this fringe term will not harm readers' ability to search for it in the encyclopedia. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    There is encyclopedic information, referenced to reliable sources, right in the article. It makes zero sense to not have an unambiguous redirect that directs readers to information on the topic. Dindu Nuffin (song) is an {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}; an {{R from avoided double redirect}} in regards to Dindu Nuffin. J947messageedits 20:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    The reason is given by WP:R#DELETE #3. Several other phrases mentioned at Alt-right#Use of memes do not exist as redirects, such as "Rapefugees" (see earlier RfD) and "We wuz kangz n shieet". Readers are unlikely to stumble across these terms in legitimate, mainstream sources; the only people who regularly use them are alt-right trolls. So I see little value, and potential WP:FRINGE and WP:PROMO issues, in making them into redirects. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    Readers are very likely to stumble across the term in many places (even if not mainstream) and are very likely, if having not heard of it before, to search it up on Wikipedia. I think it's very short-sighted to claim this isn't a common term. J947messageedits 23:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    That's what the search function is for. What are some examples of sources that use (not mention) the term "dindu nuffin"? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    This seems faintly ridiculous. A term does not need to be used in mainstream media to be widespread, as this one is. The underlined: The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. This is very likely to be useful to avoid readers being sucked into the alt-right wormhole. As we do seem to be wikilawyering rather than using our brains: Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. Your interpretation makes the first sentence untrue. We have articles about many non-neutral terms unused in mainstream media, and apparently we can't have redirects about such terms if they aren't quite notable. The second sentence also runs contrary to your argument. The redirect may be non-neutral, but it is neutral. Also, the search function is notably unreliable and not accessible for all ways of finding content. J947messageedits 00:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    There's a difference between a term being "non-neutral" and outright racist abuse. Whether a term is widespread in the public at large is not the issue. The relevant standard per WP:RNEUTRAL is an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources. These are not. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with J947's overall logic, but I oppose DIFFCAPS situations where the difference is just the first letter of the second word of a two-word term. In an era of keyboard autocorrect and searchbar auto-capitalization-correct, I think such differences tend to surprise readers more than to help them. Thus keep and add hatnote to both Doja Cat#Controversies and Doja Cat discography in the relevant section. Create title-case variant per J947. (And FWIW, five months later I still feel the "rapefugees" RfD went the wrong way. Again, it's a plausible search term that's explained at the target, the quintessential situation to allow a non-neutral redirect.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Granadan nationalism[edit]

Granada is one of the eight provinces of Andalusia. The existance of an exclusive "Granadan nationalism" seems WP:OR to me, or should it exist, it is probably a very fringe movement. This redirect was created seemingly for no reason (no pages link to this redirect, no edit summary was provided) not too long ago. Super Ψ Dro 17:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete to be honest, the redirect is confusing. If Granadan Nationalism were a thing I would expect it to be a movement that would want Granada to be its own country, not a support of Andalusian Nationalism, which would not result in Granadan independence. It would be like redirecting Orkney nationalism to Scottish nationalism. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 23:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Chicago Fire ommissioner[edit]

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

Pig/Rhino (zodiac)[edit]

Pigs (now referring specifically to the domestic variant per a recent RM) and Rhinos are very different from each other. So, this redirect does not make sense and should be deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete - The redirect was created due to vandalism from a joke article move. There is no evidence of Rhinos being involved in any zodiac. Dl2000 (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • delete as confusing. --Lenticel (talk) 01:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Third Geneva Convention (1929)[edit]

The Third Geneva Convention from 1949 is an amendment to the one from 1929 and as such this redirect doesn't appear to make any sense. Lennart97 (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep When I moved the page I stated 15:16, 21 March 2006‎ PBS "moved Third Geneva Convention (1929) to Geneva Convention (1929): Not sure of the numbering" however AFAICT this redirect does no harm and it may help people when searching for Geneva Conventions that cover POWs etc because they are likely to search on "Third Geneva Convention" when looking for such information. "Redirects should be created to articles that may reasonably be searched for or linked to under two or more names" (WP:AT) -- PBS (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, people are likely to search for "Third Geneva Convention", but "Third Geneva Convention (1929)" specifically is not a very likely search term. If people do search for it, are they looking for the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War (1929) or for the Third Geneva Convention? Just letting them see the search results, which show both, seems more helpful than taking them to one or the other. Lennart97 (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per observation about the search results being more helpful. Seems to agree with the first reason listed under WP:R#DELETE. The second reason also applies: in this case Geneva Convention (1929) = Andrew B. Smith, Third Geneva Convention (1929) = Adam B. Smith, and Third Geneva Convention = Adam Smith. The only reason under WP:R#KEEP is the one concerning some people finding it useful, but it would actually harm people who landed on that page if the search results would be more useful and the redirect itself confused them away from Third Geneva Convention. Knr5 (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Michael de Leon[edit]

No longer with the Reds organization so redirect is not necessary Spanneraol (talk) 01:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: I don't have a strong opinion right now, especially since he's still mentioned on the target page, but I'm also adding Michael de León here. Regards, SONIC678 15:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Cutting head[edit]

Delete as unhelpful nonsense. Nothing links to this redirect. Coastside (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete: This title seems nonsensical. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Tunnel boring machine where the "cutting head" or "cutter head" is the business end of that machine. --Lenticel (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • There appear to be quite a few tools we describe as having a "cutting head". The thing is, they're of such a wide variety that I don't see a suitable article to target that would cover them all, while disambiguation wouldn't make sense since these aren't different things called "cutting head", and I don't think there's enough material for a broad-concept article. My current thinking is that the best approach is to delete and let the search results take care of it, but if anyone can think of a better solution, please ping me. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Softredirection to Wiktionary the cutting head is the rotating portion of a device that cuts (like a weedwhacker, a drillsaw, a drill rig, a tunnel boring machine, etc), so create an entry on Wiktionary for it. -- (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that Wiktionary wouldn't consider it purely sum of parts (a head that cuts). Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Hrm, when I originally made by comment, I was thinking of all the rotating cutting heads, now that I examine it, I was thinking too narrowly, so indeed, I am mistaken, and it would be rejected by Wiktionary, as some cutting heads don't rotate. If it were just rotating heads, then it would probably pass spec on Wiktionary. -- (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • There is no wiktionary entry for cutting head. Coastside (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
That's why I said create an entry for it. -- (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Per point by Thryduulf, I have withdrawn my opinion, after further thought. -- (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Bit heterodox, but now what I'm wondering if we should do is point to Head (disambiguation)#Technology and have an intentionally WP:DABONE-violating entry that lists the various tools in the search results I linked. That section does already link Recording head, which mentions cutting heads for creating phonograph records. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 18:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Another possibility would be to create a set index of tools/other things that have cutting heads. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
      • An SIA makes more sense than listing in a dab. These are really partial title matches more than disambiguated topics called heads. To me it's not really a matter of Cutting Heads, though, but more about Tool heads. Lots of tools have working ends called heads. Some of these tools cut things. The issue here is that the term head refers to the head of the tool. There are lots of terms with more specific names, including "cutting heads", and they are ambiguously referred to as heads, but listing them all in a dab isn't the right way to address that. It might make sense to create a set index article for Tool Heads rather than for Cutting Heads, and then the latter would be a subcategory for Cutting Tools. If there were such an SIA, then an entry at Head (disambiguation)#Technology for Head (tool) that redirects to the SIA would make sense. I did notice that there is an SIA for screwdriver tool heads already: List of screw drives. The article belt grinding refers to grinding head and regulating head. The Pulaski (tool) has two tools in one head - an axe and an adze, which are more "chopping" tools than "cutting" tools. Coastside (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is an ambiguous expression with no one suitable target. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    That's why disambiguation and set index pages are a thing. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Katarina Du Couteau[edit]

Not mentioned at target; otherwise only used in a passing mention at Tara Platt, as well as entries also linking to the current target at the Couteau disambiguation and Katarina (given name) pages. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
19:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


Not mentioned at target, proposing deletion to allow the creation of an article on the subject matter. Loafiewa (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Just noticed that megalomania is mentioned at narcissistic personality disorder, so that might be an appropriate redirect. Loafiewa (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
How does it satisfy WP:GNG? I have yet to see signficant, in-depth coverage of the specific term. As Xurizuri pointed out, there seems to be nothing solid out there upon which to build an encyclopedic article. Paradoctor (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
There is a disambiguation page listing a number of uses of the term, so deletion is out. Paradoctor (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Narcissistic personality disorder and tag with {{R with possibilities}}. We should keep to maintain attribution for the merge and this is where we currently have the most content, unless someone can make the case this is an {{R from alternative name}} for some other article (possibly grandiose delusions). Meanwhile, anyone remains free to create an article in place of the redirect. Moreover, we can't delete this because there is Megalomania (disambiguation) which currently has the mental disorder as the primary topic; if we decide there is no good content on WP about the mental disorder then the situation should default to moving the dab page to its base name instead of deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Delusion of grandeur.
Disambiguate to Delusion of grandeur (as primary). The American Psychological Association relates Megalomania to delusion of grandeur. See definition here. "Megalomania as a highly inflated conception of one’s importance, power, or capabilities, as can be observed in many individuals with mania and paranoid schizophrenia. In the latter, megalomania is often accompanied or preceded by delusions of persecution. See delusion of grandeur."
SEE NEW COMMENTS BELOW Wiki-psyc (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Delusion of grandeur is a redirect to Grandiose delusions, so I assume you mean retarget there? I would be fine with that, but this needs to be mentioned/defined at target to make it clear readers have arrived at the right place. Then tag with {{R from related topic}} and {{R with possibilities}}. It looks like half of the relevant hatnote got left behind when it was targeted away from there, so that should be fixed too. Mdewman6 (talk)
  • Note. My first, and strongest, opinion: it does not have possibilities. I'm saying it here rather than responding to individual comments because it's been mentioned in 2 places. It's not mentioned in DSM5, ICD10 or ICD11. It comes up on an Ngram search, but nowhere near as much as narcissistic. It lacks a clear (or any) scientific definition. Megalomania belongs as a separate topic in a dictionary, but this is an encyclopaedia. It isn't a separate academic, medical, or lay concept. Genuinely, read the lead of the megalomania article pre-redirect.
    Which brings me to my opinion on the way forward: Disambiguate. This term can refer to many different related concepts. And I noticed that we already have Megalomania (disambiguation). The disambiguation page should be moved to Megalomania, and then it can point to grandiose delusions, narcissism, malignant narcissism, NPD, etc. No reader confusion, no ongoing retargeting. That being said, if anything out of those options raised here is the primary, then its narcissistic personality disorder per the checks on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Pointing to NPD is reasonable. I would still say the term is excessively ambiguous to choose one over the other given the medical context, however. --Xurizuri (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Moving the disambiguation to Megalomania makes sense, but if there is going to be a primary, I would think "Grandiose delusions" makes the most sense. This is what we have on the disambiguation page currently and what is stated on Wiktionary and as mentioned earlier, the American Psychological Association. If we are seeking better option than "Grandiose delusions", I don't think "Narcissistic personality disorder" should be primary. Narcissistic personality disorder is a very specific clinical condition. Megalomania is an archaic clinical term that has been re-purposed as a criticism of very powerful, who have made unpopular or uncaring decisions. Bertrand Russell differentiates the narcissist and megalomaniac as one who want to be adored vs. one who wants to dominate. Wiki-psyc (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. In this recent revision of the page, there are ten full title matches and three WP:PTMs which should be included. Narky Blert (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Note:There were a series of edits that changed the redirect into a disambiguation page while this discussion is ongoing, which was then reverted. I have added the content from the most recent version of the disambiguation page below the redirect content as a draft dab page. Also, I'd like to point out that Meglomaniac is a redirect to Narcissistic personality disorder; that and possibly other redirects may need action depending on the outcome here. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, the draft dab page is now just an expanded version of Megalomania (disambiguation), because it was derived from a cut-paste move during this discussion which was reverted. Votes of "disambiguate" here hence are really votes for moving the dab page to the base name and declaring there is no primary topic. If this is the consensus (and we don't want to rehash things at an RM), then those improvements should be made to the existing dab page prior to moving. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to delusion of grandeur. The delusion is clearly the primary topic, pretty much all of the others are named after it. The current target is clearly wrong, megalomania is not the same thing as narcissism at all. JIP | Talk 01:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate There are several topics with this exact title, so the only question left is if there is a primary topic. Seeing as there are different psychological definitions of the term in use, there is no clear target. E. g., the APA definition linked by Wiki-psyc is clearly different from the one in The Cambridge Dictionary of Psychology (2009) ISBN 978-0-511-63157-3: "An extreme form of grandiosity and self-centeredness in which all things are believed subservient to one’s self and are seen only in relation to one’s self".
As long as there is no proper article / section specifically on the term as used in psychology, we have little more than a WP:DICDEF to point at, so there is no primary topic, and the dab page should occupy that slot. Paradoctor (talk) 11:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Good discussion. While the APA and Cambridge Dictionary of Psychology are both similar and different, it could be argued that both would suggest that Delusion of grandeur / Grandiose delusions as primary. [Science Direct] defines Megalomania as Grandiose delusions. I think either way (with primary or without) is reasonable, though. Wiki-psyc (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
According to Sam Vaknin, megalomania is a historic name for NPD[1], so there is that. I'd say this makes "megalomania" a clear case of WP:XY, i. e. no primary topic. Paradoctor (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. I am persuaded by the discussion that the content at Narcissistic personality disorder seems to describe a historical use of the term, whereas Gradiose delusions seems to describe the closest thing to a modern use of the term, so these two meanings should be disambiguated. There is a draft dab page underneath the redirect as I describe above. If disambiguation is the consensus, procedurally the easiest thing would be to keep the draft dab at Megalomania and then blank and redirect Megalomania (disambiguation) there, but that would technically involve keeping a cut-and-paste move. It might be better to just move the existing dab page to the base name and then improve as necessary. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    • SetidexifyDisambiguate or update/create article. The problem with "disambiguating" or making there be no primary topic is all the incoming links, many of which are trying to link to some sort of psychiatric content.The simplest way around this is to create a WP:SETINDEX which could differentiate between and link to Delusions of grandeur and Narcissistic personality disorder, among other things. A draft of this could be created underneath the redirect in place of the draft updated dab page. I would be okay with restoring and improving the article as suggested below, but agree it would need a lot of work and improvement. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
"differentiate between" That process is called disambiguation.
A set index is not appropriate here because, best I can tell from the sources presented so far, "megalomania" is either used in a non-technical sense to mean a desire for "greatness", or as synonym for two distinct concepts that have their own article.
"trying to link to some sort of psychiatric content" I doubt that. I most cases, the term is used in the non-technical sense, and no link or a link to Wiktionary is the appropriate solution.
In the cases where one of the technical meanings is intended, the incoming links need to be disambiguated, rather than pointing them at a list, and letting the reader guess which entry was intended by the article.
Set index articles are useful when the encyclopedic content can be collected in one place. But in the case of megalomania, the content exist in two different articles, which a set index article would merely replicate. This creates maintenance issues, as we'd have to maintain both the standalone articles and what amounts to a merge of the two. Paradoctor (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, links in articles should not point to disambiguation pages. If the consensus is to disambiguate, that's fine, but someone would need to manually go through all the links and decide whether to delink or link/pipe to NPD, grandiose delusions, or somewhere else.However, pointing to a setindex where the different potential meanings are not just disambiguated but are described would be an acceptable solution, at least in so far as the RfD is concerned. Later discussions could always occur to improve things further. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Mdewman6 You could just soft redirect Megalomania to wikt:megalomania and create the dab page at Megalomania (disambiguation). ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Mdewman6: "someone would need to manually go through all the links" It doesn't have to be someone. This is Wikipedia, after all. Also WP:WIP.
"an acceptable solution" Not at all. For the purposes of linking to it, there is no difference between a disambiguation page and a set index. Either a link goes directly to the specific meaning of the term, or it goes to topic (disambiguation), to show that the link is intentional, like Mills Creek and Mills Creek (disambiguation). Paradoctor (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Qwerfjkl: "soft redirect" That's a hard No. WP:NOPRIMARY: If [...] there is no primary topic, then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page.
@Mdewman6: I agree that disambiguation doesn't help readers. I also agree with your issue regarding incoming links. Linking to a disambiguation page that sends readers to other articles that don't define "megalomania" is just sending the reader on a wild goose chase. "Megalomania" is a non-clinical term (like "crazy" or "maniacal") that appears far more often in textbooks of history (and comic books) than in textbooks of psychiatry. And while Freud wrote about the term in the early 1900s, there has been no consensus use of the term in 70-100 years. It seems to me, we either make an article (and clear up all the confusion) or delete it altogether and let readers use a google search if they need a definition. And lastly, I suspect the association of the term to earlier DSM editions and Narcissistic Personality Disorder may have been invented (or at least amplified) at Wikipedia. Wiki-psyc (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Wiki-psyc: "delete it" We cannot delete it. We have multiple notable topics titled "Megalomania", so deletion is out. The only question here is whether there is a primary topic that could usurp the place of the disambiguation page.
"clear up all the confusion" If the sources are confused, we point out the confusion, and that is the most we can do. Anything beyond that would be WP:SYN. We don't decree scientific consensus, we just report on it, or the lack of it.
"make an article" I asked the question before: WP:GNG? We need multiple reliable sources providing in-depth coverage of the concept the proposed article is about. So far, we have only dictionary definitions and examples of use. The term is not used in psychology other than as a synonym for several different topics that already have their own articles. Which is exactly the situation disambiguation pages are for! Paradoctor (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Paradoctor: I believe it is possible to delete it. All the other uses of Megalomania are songs and we could disambiguate to "Megalomania (songs)" of "Megalomania (music)", or... Wiki-psyc (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I modified my vote above. I agree a setindex doesn't fit here, as we are trying to differentiate between terms that are not similarly worded. Disambiguating would be fine but my comment about the links still stands. A soft redirect is also a possibility; might be a good compromise, but not sure if it would be best. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Wiki-psyc: I already mentioned it three comments previous: WP:NOPRIMARY: If [...] there is no primary topic, then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page. Whatever happens, deletion is out. Paradoctor (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Paradoctor: Our opinions are just opinions and not facts nor rulings and shouldn't be stated as such WP:neutral - let's all stay in bounds and work through this. Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOPRIMARY is not an opinion. It's the community consensus on how to do things. 🤷 Paradoctor (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WP:NOPRIMARY is an opinion - and besides, no one is debating it here. Do you have the ability to let it go for the for the greater good WP:LETITGO? I do. Wiki-psyc (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Huh? Let go of what? Opposing deletion? That is not merely my opinion, as I pointed out. I did not interpret the guideline, I quoted it verbatim. Unless and until you provide evidence to the contrary, community consensus is the "greater good". Paradoctor (talk) 01:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Revert to July 8, 2013 article This has been an interesting discussion. Megalomania gets 200-250 views a day and there are close to 500 Wikipedia article linked to it. In reconsidering this matter in light of the comments above, I think it is worth considering reverting to the article that was in place in 2013 (created in 2003)and improving it. The article is not bad and I would be willing to help clean it up.
There is a lot of use and a lot confusion about the term. There seems to be, for example, many who believe it was listed in an early version of the DSM and replaced with Narcissistic Personality Disorder - it was never in the DSM. Wiki-psyc (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Since December 2003, there have been at least four different merge proposals, and at least two actual merges, both to narcissism, based on the theory that megalomania is a synonym of it. From what I've seen, an article seems defensible. But considering the two decades(!) of to and fro, first we should have a rock solid sourced discussion in the article of the distinction between megalomania, narcissism/NPD, and delusions of grandeur proving the term's notability. Otherwise, the current wasteful chaotic confusion will go on. Right now, the dab page seems our best bet. Either way, whatever is decided here should be stickied on the talk page. Paradoctor (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
It's certainly valid to ask why the article didn't turn out better after 18 years of editing. I think two things may be contributing 1) the meaning of the term has changed significantly in 700 years; and 2) the term is not often used today and not a lot is written about it. Megalomania was originally used to describe those "obsessed with power" (mega - grandness, mania - obsession). It was also used later used in psychiatry to describe a normal stage of child development development (similar to narcissism, but not narcissistic personality disorder). Still later it was used in psychiatry by describe a pathology (similar to narcissistic personality disorder). But by the first DSM 60 years ago, it was out of use in psychiatry except for occasional hyperbolic use. If you look at the articles linking to it, there are supervillain, historic figures, and songs.Wiki-psyc (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
the meaning of the term has changed significantly in 700 years [...] not a lot is written about it. Which kind of makes my point. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Proposed stub for megalomania (link) - a restart (based on July 8, 2013 version) might help this article (and this discussion). While I agree with your points and have made the same argument in other cases, I think that sometimes an article doesn't come together over years because it started from a weak stub. The Historic examples subheading should attract other famous megalomania events. The history of the use of the term in psychology, should attract the ebbs and flow of the terms definition and be helpful to readers who are trying to understand it in the many contexts that it may be used. Note: The psychology section needs to be cleaned up - I didn't want to invest more time until a consensus was reached here. Wiki-psyc (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that is WP:SYN at most. Where are the in-depth secondary sources establishing notability? The material in that draft is useful at Wiktionary, no doubt. But I don't see an encyclopedic topic. There is no unifying theme for megalomania that is discussed in a secondary source, addressing whatever literature may exist. When I go through the references, all I see are dictionary entries / definitions, and examples of use.
"sometimes an article doesn't come together over years" Possibly, but here, it seems that there is simply nothing out there that could support it. The various different concepts labeled as megalomania are well served by disambiguation, as opposed to forcing them into a single box. Paradoctor (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
"Megalomania" ... "there are close to 500 Wikipedia article"
I found only 386, which reduces to 186 after accounting for links from project pages. Sampling a dozen of these, it becomes clear that pretty much all of them need disambiguating / unlinking along the lines of wikt:megalomania.
I wouldn't go so far as to call megalomania an essentially contested concept, but it is definitely in the general vicinity. Paradoctor (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks. This is a voting process. I'm explaining my reason for my vote to the group to stimulate the conversation and the thought process. I don't think it is constructive to systematically judge everything another editor writes as wrong and invalid. I don't see this decision as black and white, either. I don't think any of the suggestions above (disambiguate, redirect, or create an new article) would be dead wrong.
One member. One vote. Wiki-psyc (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
"stimulate the conversation" You succeeded. Paradoctor (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I think you may be misunderstanding consensus if you think this is about voting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xurizuri (talkcontribs) 00:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I would add a further comment that this draft reads a lot like an over-extended dab page, mixed with a dictionary definition. In particular, every example used in the History section is people using their vocabulary to describe a concept, lay-people using one of the dictionary definitions of megalomania, or psychs using megalomania as an outdated term for a modern concept. All of which can easily be captured in a dab page, and mentioned in the history of the modern concepts. And despite all of this, you still haven't actually demonstrated that megalomania is a distinct concept, outside of a dictionary definition. You mentioned before that the meaning of the term has changed a lot - which is pretty standard for normal words just as much as for actual concepts. You also mentioned that not a lot is written about it now. That's true. But what you haven't said there is that there was never much written about it - because if there was, there would be sufficient RS to meet WP:GNG. And yet. --Xurizuri (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


  1. ^ "The Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is not a new psychological construct. In previous centuries it was called "egotism" or "megalomania"."

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Moving heated discussion to more highly visible log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
16:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is not much support for the nomination of Deletion. If this is going to be a disambiguation, does it have a primary target? The currently drafted page is a combination of a Set Index and a Disambiguation (a copy of the corresponding DAB page), and would require fixing if we go with either.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Oriental Orthodoxy in France[edit]

There is no mention of Oriental Orthodoxy in France in the page the redirect links to, so the redirect should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Veverve, that would be the best solution, thanks. Sorabino (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


Not mentioned at target; mentions elsewhere on Wikipedia appear to be referring to postal codes. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
19:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. Obvious target is Tesla Model S, except that no one has added it there ([12]). MB 20:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The most prominent use on Wikipedia is APT-69420, other uses include postcodes in France and Texas, a slowly rotating minor planet, a Star Wars action figure's product code, an NER Class N locomotive and the SeaLifeBase taxon identifier for the Australian sea lion. The minor planet is the only one of these I think that would work as a redirect target, although the locomotive and hacking group would be fine on a disambig. Google adds the Tesla thing, a substring of Pi, the postcode for Kazlų Rūda, Lithuania, a song by non-notable band Lossheep, and an ordnance relating to a historic district in St. Louis, Missouri. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


Misleading wikilink; maybe a better redirect would be to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Easily confused terms but there could be other things that people are searching for (such as English transliteration of Arabic script). —AFreshStart (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

November 23[edit]


Not mentioned at target, but described at Pronunciation respelling for English#Notes and Phonetic notation of the American Heritage Dictionary, so possibly retarget to one of those? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
21:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to the pronunciation respelling page.  Nixinova T  C   19:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A new target has been proposed as of late...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Retarget to OO until such a time that a better target arises for it. Seemingly a combination of U+4F, U+35E, and U+6F. Originally considered suggesting a refine ro List of Latin-script digraphs#O but that is seemingly no better than the other suggestions which have been put forth. If it can be demonstrated that this is nonsense because of the 'COMBINING DOUBLE MACRON'—"bar"—character above the letters, then perhaps deletion is due. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

List of digraphs[edit]

Digraphs aren't limited to the Latin script, and we do have a List of Cyrillic digraphs and trigraphs as well, though more writing systems are listed at Digraph (orthography)#Examples. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
22:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The rd is a leftover from when I moved the page. It could, of course, be a dab instead; there are no incoming mainspace links to worry about. If we keep it as it, we should have a hat note at 'List of Latin-script digraphs' -- but without incoming links, why clutter that article? Best I think to turn it into a dab page. — kwami (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I think this goes to what the end-user would expect. If you were writing in the see also section and typed in "you can find other examples at the [[list of digraphs]]", what would you expect to link to? A list of Cyrillic digraphs? Arabic? Ge'ez? No, you would expect that to be digraphs in the writing system for the "en" Wikipedia, i.e. the Latin script. The second question is whether a user would realistically use that particular link for that purpose, and I would have no doubt that someone who doesn't routinely work in non-Latin scripts (i.e. 99% of editors) would do so. Lastly, the question is whether other content should go here, e.g. a disambiguation page, and although that is a possibility, unless a significant amount of editors would expect this link to be to a disambiguation page for lists of digraphs in several scripts, or the number of alternatives becomes unmanageable, this is better handled by a hatnote at the target page if even one editor were to express that expectation. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 22:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I would suspect some would want digraphs from any script, not just Latin, as a whole over different scripts. -- (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I honestly cannot come up with a plausible use case for that. If someone is talking about digraphs outside a specific script, they're going to link to the concept of digraph, not a list of digraphs from multiple scripts. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 06:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate to all articles or sections of articles that lists them -- (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
    What about Digraph (orthography)#Examples itself as a target? It links both lists that exist as well as adding information for some more writing systems. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
    10:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
    That would seem to be a reasonable target. -- (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per above. -- FMM-1992 (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Digraph (orthography)#Examples since it already has a list of digraphs from many scripts with links to the Latin and Cyrillic links. Any dabpage would necessarily be clumsy as it would need to link to that section anyway for non-Latin non-Cyrillic scripts (so it might as well just send you there for everything), and anything more on that page would be essentially just a content fork. eviolite (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate: As per above, many articles/article sections this could refer to. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Christmas parade car crash[edit]

  • Delete or setindexify there have been many vehicular accidents during Christmas parades over the decades. It is not that rare for being to be killed during parades. There was a non-fatal incident in 2018 at Disney -- (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Love of Corey (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

SUV attack in 2021[edit]

  • Delete there have been many SUV attacks in 2021, several in Afghanistan, Nigeria, etc. This also doesn't distinguish between using an SUV on attack and being attacked in an SUV, both of which have happened many times in 2021. And SUV carbomb attacks. And political attacks on SUV usage for environmental destruction -- (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Far too ambiguous for a dab. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why would anyone attack a SUV? WWGB (talk) 07:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    There is a lot of hate for SUVs, especially in urban areas, from many environmentalists and cycling activists (at least in the UK). Others may choose to attack an SUV because of its occupants. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete: as ambiguous, we shouldn't assume everyone wants the US article. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete - Vague and unclear title. --Sable232 (talk)
  • Delete per everyone else. Love of Corey (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Nancy Utley[edit]

Former exec for an unclear amount of time, is mentioned at the target but only in a WP:COATHANGER-y capacity that should probably be removed or at least rewritten. Deletion to allow for search results seems most appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 19:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Orthodox Archdiocese of Classis[edit]

This name is not mentioned in the article or on the official website of the diocese. I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Tryst With Destiny (film)[edit]

Not mentioned at the target or List Of SonyLIV Original Programming, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Regulatory law[edit]

Retarget to Primary and secondary legislation. In fact, the term Regulatory law can have two meanings: delegated law or administrative law. I am not a lawyer, but as far as it seems to me, the first meaning is more common. Alternatively, disambiguate between the two options. --Northumber (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


Retarget to Wikipedia:Project namespace#Historical pages, and remedy the less than fifty occurrences of this redirect (~45) that already exist. The proposed target is more closely associated with the notion of historical projectspace pages. WP:DEMOTE does not currently exist, and would as a fitting alternative as a shortcut for the current target (WP:Demoted exists, reasonably, as a redirect to Wikipedia:Former featured articles; WP:DEMOTED should be created and redirect there as well—however, that only currently has four linked occurrences, making it easily malleable as well). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 11:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate it can cover demoted policies, historical records, etc, by being a disambiguation page -- (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Demoted could serve as a disambiguation page perhaps. However, projectspace shortcuts are by rarely unambiguous; such a solution is only implemented in select cases that are very likely to lead to severe confusion, and this does not seemingly meet that bar. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
WP:Historical could serve that then, and redirect HISTORICAL to it, as the shortcut is supposed to be allcaps. WP:DEMOTED/WP:Demoted would be a subcase of HISTORICAL, and not the other way round. -- (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Darrell Brooks[edit]

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

Template:Poptoday 1/testcase[edit]

We don't need this redirection because we're missing the letter S. Q28 left a message at 07:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Keep, there isn't any point in deleting it; deleting {{R from move}}s sometimes cause problems so just leave it. J947messageedits 18:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Embarkation Room[edit]

This redirect was caused by a series of merges. In 2005, someone had created a stub about the Embarkation Room in Stargate, which is the room where the characters travel through their Stargate on Earth. In 2006, the stub was merged into Stargate Command, which was merged into Stargate Program in 2008, which was merged into List of Stargate SG-1 characters in 2019. However, the Embarkation Room is not mentioned in the article at all. I'm not sure what the best action to take is, but it certainly shouldn't be left as-is. There isn't a great place to retarget this to. The best place I can find is List of Stargate SG-1 characters#Recurring Stargate Command personnel, which contains a paragraph about the base in which the Embarkation Room is located, although it does not currently mention the room itself. Another option is deletion. The redirect is not used very frequently, having only gotten 9 views between November 22, 2020 and November 22, 2021]. It may also be worth mentioning that the room was also called the Gateroom, but no redirects titled Gateroom, Gate room, or Gate Room exist. Evil Sith Lord (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete (assuming it's not required for attribution) unless an article can be found that mentions the topic. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


implausible typo for target, not mentioned at target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. Mdewman6 (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The page has seen only 4 hits this year (excluding those since the nomination) and the occurrences as Google hits appear to be cases of OCR mistakes in scanned texts, where e has been recorded as c. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Mike Turnbull that the few search results can be attributed to incorrect OCR. eviolite (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I did not consider this might be a common OCR error for the alternative spelling phaeophytin. As such, I'd be fine with keeping as long as it is properly tagged with {{R from misspelling}}, but deletion is fine too since it gets so little use. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
I have added the proper rcats below the redirect so it's there if kept. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep. Redirects are WP:CHEAP and this one doesn't create any ambiguity. In fact, when I looked this term up, I found several papers incorrectly referring to this compound as "phacophytin", probably due to the aforementioned OCR mistakes. Someone may look up phacophytin on Wikipedia reading one of these papers, and will find the correct spelling and the compound. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 02:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further consideration of the late keep !vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Zoe Margaret Colletti[edit]

She was in different films, why redirect to this? It contains almost no information about her. (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: I moved this entry to the top of this list. New entries go on top at RfD unlike on talk pages. (JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 21:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ISO 639:none[edit]

The target of the redirect is already a dab page, but I think he should re-redirect the other pages. Did Q28 make a mess today? 10:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. The best information we have about the zxx code is in the table at ISO 639#Relations between the parts which, especially if we were to add an anchor to the relevant row (the second last) would make a better target than either ISO 639-2 or ISO 639-3 (cf WP:XY), but the disambiguation page at zxx does provide a very simple explanation (but could do with a link to the section of ISO 639 also) and so is also better than either of the -2 or -3 articles. However none of these targets include the word "none" in a relevant place, which might be confusing? I am seeing evidence of "none" used in the real world though so I'm opposed to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear what decision needs to be taken…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete – Redirecting to this disambig page doesn't help get a user closer to the content they're looking for. (Besides the fact that with only two items on it, why isn't this handled via hatnotes?) It's not clear what a user might be searching for with this term, but if it's about ISO-639 (how could it not be?) then after deletion, ISO-639 will be the top result for such a search, so no inconvenience to the reader wrt number of clicks. As for Thryduulf's comment about evidence, can you please add what you are seeing? What I'm seeing for this search] is very close to nothing, and certainly nothing helpful. (Dropping the minus-wikipedia term demonstrates that almost all results for this search are at Wikipedia itself, and that's definitely not what we want when someone searches for an expression.) All of this argues for "Delete". Mathglot (talk) 02:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
    Found this one oddball result from LoC, but it has to be a mistake (see first table row). Mathglot (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete "ISO: none" means there is no ISO code, not that the ISO code is "none". We don't need to link s.t. if that s.t. doesn't exist. And as Mathglot's find shows, "ISO: none" or "ISO: (none)" could refer to any language that doesn't have an ISO code. I suppose we could rd it to "ISO:MIS", but better IMO just to delete. — kwami (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


Cryokenesis is a misspelling of Cryokinesis, which is a superpower to manipulate ice. One of H2O's characters apparently has this power, but 'Cryokenesis/Cryokinesis' is never mentioned at the target. This R was created when some H2O fan made a poorly-written unsourced article about how the power was used in the show, another editor redirected it to the show instead. This could WP:ASTONISH someone looking for an article on the fictional superpower; we wouldn't redirect X-ray vision to Superman. There are three possible actions:

1. Create article about this power (this isn't needed as Wiktionary has a page on this word)

2. Delete

3. Retarget to Cryokinesis on Wiktionary

(JayPlaysStuff | talk to me | What I've been up to) 02:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per Xezbeth. If we had material at Cryokinesis, it would make sense to point it there. Retaining a misspelling of a nonexistent target isn't helpful. - Eureka Lott 15:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete per Xezbeth. --Lenticel (talk) 07:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


Not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
15:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, plus it doesn't get very many pageviews. We don't want to mislead readers into thinking there's encyclopedic content on this character when none exists. Regards, SONIC678 17:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
    Funnily enough, "low pageviews" and "confusing readers" appears to be a contradictory argument. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
    18:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

November 22[edit]

Madam Gandhi[edit]

Retarget to Indira Gandhi, keep as is, or retarget to Kiran Gandhi? I reckon keep as is because of Madame Gandhi (not solely because of Sonia, who gets many less GHits than Indira for me due to my location outside India). J947messageedits 19:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. The term is NEVER used out of context, i.e., without first explicitly mentioning the person's name (Indira Gandhi, Sonia Gandhi, Kasturba Gandhi, etc.). Alternatively, as a less preferable option, retarget to Kiran Gandhi as a misspelling of the subject's nickname "Madame Gandhi". — kashmīrī TALK 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Kiran Gandhi per Tamzin. --Lenticel (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the surname, where various madams named Gandhi are located -- (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Santosh Gupta (actor)[edit]

Santosh Gupta (actor)Actor  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ] 

I am waiting for an article here. I have currently targeted the redirect to Actor, which is a broad category. Here, I am listing my own redirect at RfD. Neel.arunabh (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete I'm pretty sure no one is ever going to search for this particular actor when they actually wish to read about the general concept of actors. PianoDan (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Neel.arunabh, if you want the redirect to be deleted, you can have it deleted under the G7 speedy deletion criterion. Is that what you want? Sdrqaz (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Same (Camila Cabello song)[edit]

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

National Coffee Ice Cream Day[edit]

Various food days, not mentioned at target and otherwise only listed as passing mentions at the September article with links back to the list at the redirects' target. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
21:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment So? Add them! Remember to source 'em reliably! Here's a couple for "National beer Lovers Day" to get ya started!
  • USAToday (Yup, we have our fair share of drunkards! [mostly with battered wives and sad kids that can just about start to hear the mournful sound of CPS vehicles fast approaching, but I digress.) Americanfreedom (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I merged the National Eat a Hoagie Day discussion into this one. Hopefully that helps. Regards, SONIC678 02:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to the corresponding section in September. Unlink the entries from September to avoid the self-redirect. Jay (talk) 05:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Restore this version of List of food days before a chainsaw was taken to it last July. Limiting a list like this to wiki-notable entries is silly. The vast majority of verifiable National Food Days are not notable enough for an article, but they are noteworthy enough to be on a list like that to get a sense of how ridiculous (for a lack of a better word) this topic is. Once that version is restored, I do agree the truly unverifiable entries should be removed—but it does have a sizable reference section so I don't think too much work would be needed. -- Tavix (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    The culling of the content at that article was briefly discussed at Talk:List of food days#Mass deletions, or a.k.a missing pecan cookies. – Uanfala (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    Pinging Drmies regarding Tavix' proposal. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 03:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
    • User:Tavix, as I explained, particularly in edit summaries, that list was trash, and sourcing for the entries I removed was non-existent or unacceptable--and by "unacceptable" I mean either the kind of little local newspaper articles which can never establish nationwide notability, and frequently just parrot the PR from the local or national trade organization, or the press releases of said organizations. Nothing but marketing, along the lines of "pumpkin squash capital of the world".

      I mean, you are going to proclaim February 5 as "World Nutella Day" because of this, a piece of nothing on a nothing blog based on a commercial stunt that isn't even listed on anymore? Seriously? World Nutella Day? Drmies (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

      • Yup, that's usually how these things get proclaimed. That's part of the "fun" of this topic. -- Tavix (talk) 19:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

U.S. Army Intelligence[edit]

Why would similar titles with the differences only being the lack of dots and capitalisation link to different articles? At least one of them needs to be retargeted or something. twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 12:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Unify at United States Army Intelligence and Security Command, which, if I'm reading the articles correctly, is the broader-topic article of the two, and which is referred to simply as "Army Intelligence" by the ODNI here. That said, I wouldn't be strongly opposed to unifying at the other. The important thing is that they have the same target. Whichever the result, the target should have a hatnote to the other, although ideally their ledes would make the relationship clear enough as to make a hatnote unnecessary. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Azerbaijanis in Sweden[edit]

Delete, not mentioned on target article. Geschichte (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. There seems to be several "Azerbaijanis in X articles" and an "Sweden" article might be created in the future. --Lenticel (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Paul Hallows[edit]

Delete, unless there is an appropriate local target for this page. Sending readers to non-English content is not helpful. Additionally, the plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (along the lines of the sentiment expressed at WP:SOFTSP). See here for precedents. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom and WP:REDLINK. He is mentioned in several articles, but as he was a notable player for several seasons for both Rochdale and Bolton Wanderers (and at a cursory glance neither spell was more or less notable than the other) redirecting to either team would present XY issues, and also disguise that we lack an article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. As I recall, the only reason we don't have a CSD for soft redirects to other languages is that they're too rare; I really can't think of a situation where one would be beneficial... The closest I can think is if we soft-redirected to an article on a wiki whose language is mutually intelligible with English, but even that would bring REDLINK concerns. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Madame Prime Minister[edit]

Was R3'd, but doesn't qualify for it. Obviously, keeping it as it is isn't an option. Weak retarget to List of elected and appointed female heads of state and government, but deleting it isn't the worst thing (even if it does lead to unhelpful search results). J947messageedits 08:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an Internet search engine and we're not expected to wild-guess responses to such non-specific queries. — kashmīrī TALK 10:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget as suggested by the nominator. That will take readers to a list of people that includes all those who could be referred to by this title, while the search results are pretty unhelpful. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget. Too new to say how many people will use this search term, but it rings like a plausible one to me. Whomever a reader had in mind, the proposed target ought to get them there. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • retarget per nom -- (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Prime minister, just as Madam President redirects to President (government title). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Maiorano (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G14

Maiorano (surname)[edit]

There are only two: Stefano Maiorano and Nick, a Survivor: Kaôh Rōng contestant. Maiorano currently redirects to the former, where there is a hatnote for the latter. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete, no reason to flood Wikipedia with such name redirects. Geschichte (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was confused by this as the current target lists four people with the same surname, however that surname is Maiorana while this redirect is Maiorano. Given that Mairoano is a different surname this is confusing, as we don't have a surname page for Maiorano there is no suitable alternative target. Thryduulf (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Listify, convert Maiorano to a surname article, and repoint this there. Aside from Stefano and Nick, there is a saint, San Lorenzo Maiorano, Argentine Minister of Justice Jorge Luis Maiorano -- so there are atleast 4 persons with coverage as topics in some articles -- (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Aurelion sol[edit]

Not mentioned at target; otherwise only a passing mention at League of Legends World Championship. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
15:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Dominion: The Crystal Scar[edit]

Not mentioned at target; only search result on the English Wikipedia is a ref at Multiplayer online battle arena. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
15:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


WP:GAMECRUFT not mentioned at target; only has a passing mention at League of Legends World Championship. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
15:53, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Alternatively, it can be Weakly Retargeted to Orn as a plausible misspelling. --Lenticel (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Nunu and Willump[edit]

WP:GAMECRUFT redirects with no mention at target; otherwise only described as passing mentions on pages like Brian Sommer or Davide Garbolino. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
16:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Extinct canid stub[edit]

Implausible WP:XNR, not sure what to do about the page history though. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)
23:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete XNR to non-content template. Target is not readership material, and the redirect name is not a readership related title. -- (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get an opinion about the page history.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)