Eisspeedway

User:Awesome Aasim/rfd rewrite

Copied from WP:RFD with few changes

"WP:RFD" redirects here. For other requests for deletion, see Wikipedia:Deletion venues. For requests for discussion, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion
XFD backlog
V Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
CfD 0 0 52 0 52
TfD 0 0 19 0 19
MfD 0 0 6 0 6
FfD 0 0 8 0 8
RfD 0 0 68 0 68
AfD 0 0 7 0 7

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

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

Please do not unilaterally rename or change the target of a redirect while it is under discussion. This adds unnecessary complication to the discussion for participants and closers.

Before listing a redirect for discussion

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

The guiding principles of RfD

Shortcut
  • 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 a redirect be deleted?

Shortcut

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

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain non-trivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old (or is the result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is possible that its deletion will break incoming links (such 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

Shortcuts
See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § Redirects

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" (itself a redirect to "Article"), it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is legitimately discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 and G3 may apply.) See also § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting "Apple" to "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, were an exception to this rule until they became their own namespace in 2024. (Note also the existence of namespace aliases such as WP:. Speedy deletion criterion R2 may apply if the target namespace is something other than Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, or Portal:.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8. You should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first and that it has not become broken through vandalism.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. (Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion criterion R3, if recently created.)
  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. Shortcut
    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

Shortcuts

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

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

Neutrality of redirects

Shortcut

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

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim 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

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

Shortcut
STEP I.
Tag the redirect(s).

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

  • Please 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.
  • If you are nominating multiple redirects as a group, repeat all the above steps for each redirect being nominated and specify on {{rfd}} the nomination's group heading from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
STEP II.
List the entry on RfD.

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

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:Rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:Rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
  • If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done.
STEP III.
Notify users.

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors of the redirect(s) that you nominate.

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

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

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

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

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

Current list

March 5

GPT-5

This SEEMS too soon at a glance, but considering the fact that reliable news sources have mentioned a GPT-5 coming out, this actually makes a surprising amount of sense.

So, then, why am I nominating this redirect? Simple. Because it's not mentioned in the article. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 06:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Branislav Regec

Unhelpful redirect. Name is only mentioned once at the target, and no further information is provided on the subject. This was redirected as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Branislav Regec, where I explicitly opposed redirecting for the same reason. CycloneYoris talk! 05:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Xiyonji

Very novel synonym to target article. I get Xiyouji for being the pinyin pronunciation, but Xiyonji is just implausible to be a redirect for the average reader. MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Stages of grief

The five stages of grief are not widely accepted in all communities. Maybe retarget to Grief. Interstellarity (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

  • Retarget Stages of dying to Stages of human death, where Stages of death redirects (and which people might be looking for). Dying isn't the same thing as grief, and grief can arise from many other things in addition to death. Tentative keep the other two at the current target, though—this model may not be universally accepted, but its target is the closest title match we have here (correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the case). Regards, SONIC678 01:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

March 4

Achiever

Like achieving, also a super common word. Maybe retarget to achievement? Duckmather (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  • Retarget - 'Enneagram of Personality' is already linked at 'achievement'. Good catch. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Achieving

"Achieving" is a very common word, so this is a big surprise. Maybe retarget to achievement (a dab page)? Duckmather (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  • Obvious retarget to achievement per nom; a common word with a plain-language meaning should not target a musical album containing a non-Wikinotable song by that title. Carguychris (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

National Memorial Museum

This was left pointing to the wrong target (Bangkok National Museum) for 16+ years. I just fixed it to what is most likely the intended target, but I'm finding only a handful of sources that refer to the place it redundantly as "National Memorial Museum". Most search hits are instead partial matches for other places that include the phrase as part of their names, e.g. Oklahoma City National Memorial Museum, Katrina National Memorial Museum, and National Memorial Museum of Forced Mobilization under Japanese Occupation. There's also a National Memorial Museum in Karachi, but it doesn't appear to have a Wikipedia article. Maybe this should just be deleted. Paul_012 (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or set-indexify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Jacob Hornberger

This should be deleted or retargeted, as the person who is the subject of the redirects is more likely known for his 2020 Libertarian presidential primary win. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Land of flowers

extremely vague, maybe delete or dabify? Duckmather (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Kinda vague; it could also refer to the Netherlands. ⇒ Aerrapc they/them, 20:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
  • DABify Pascua Florida includes the statement Florida is now known as the "land of flowers" because of the connection to Ponce de Leon and Pascua Florida., cited to (Hatch, Jane M. (1978). The American book of days. The H. W. Wilson Company. ISBN 0-8242-0593-6. OCLC 953162536.). I do not have access to that book, but it looks like a reliable source for this redirect. The first page of Google hits for "land of flowers" includes mentions of books by Elisabetta Dami, the Netherlands, Zamboanga City, Florida, and some fantasy fandom sites. - Donald Albury 21:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Scottish America

unclear what this means; could potentially refer to Scottish Americans or Scottish colonization of the Americas? Duckmather (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Scottish Americans. "Scottish" most frequently refers to Scottish people, and "America" most frequently refers to the United States. @Duckmather, "Nova Scotia" means "New Scotland" in Latin, but I seriously doubt that most English speakers outside Canada (or within Canada!) know this, and although many people of Scottish descent live in NS, I don't think the connection to its namesake is very meaningful today, as with most "New _____" place names. Mexican America doesn't redirect to New Mexico; German Canada doesn't redirect to New Brunswick; Danish Oceania doesn't redirect to New Zealand. Carguychris (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment it should mean colonization, like other such articles, British America, French America, Spanish America, etc -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
    British America discusses the colonization effort by Great Britain broadly rather than addressing Scotland in particular. The British colonization effort wasn't distinctly Scottish in character (or English, Welsh, or Irish, for that matter). If you're arguing that a distinct "Scottish America" article about Scottish colonization should be created, WP:WTAF applies—a logical target exists today, so we should choose it in the interim. Carguychris (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget to History of Nova Scotia#Scottish colony (1629–1632) I agree with the anon on the definition here. I suggest retargeting to where the Scottish colonization is more thoroughly discussed. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

City of DC

This also looks ambiguous (there's also Bogotá, Distrito Capital and Dubai City), so I suggest retargeting to DC (a dab page) Duckmather (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep, Washington, D.C. is easily the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Is there evidence of other places being referred to as "City of DC"? -- Tavix (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Compared to below, where there's at least some argument that someone might occasionally mean something other than the U.S. capital when they say "Washington (city)", in this case I see no evidence that this ever means anything other than that. Even with personalized results off, Googling "city of DC" -washington still just gets me results about the U.S. capital, with the exception of the phrase "The Gotham City of DC's Absolute Universe", which cannot be shortened to "City of DC". Even adding several more U.S.-related terms to ignore, the results are still all about the city on the Potomac River. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - Cristiano Tomás (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Washington City

there are several cities named "Washington", so i suggest retargeting to Washington#Places Duckmather (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep. Washington, D.C. is the primary topic among cities named Washington. -- Tavix (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Washington (city). None of the other Washingtons are remotely as well-known as D.C. On WikiNav, no other cities called Washington make the top 10 for outgoings. It looks like the most populous city called Washington, other than D.C., is Washington, Utah, pop. 28k. I really doubt people are typing in "Washington (city)" looking for that, and if they are, that's what the hatnote's for. I think that's enough to make this a valid WP:PDABREDIRECT. Weak retarget the other two. D.C. isn't frequently called these, and while you could picture some ambiguity in how to parse a phrase like "Washington city officials", in practice sources usually use "District of Columbia" in that context. That said, I do think D.C. is probably still the primary topic for these, just not as clearly primary, hence the weakness of this sentiment. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - no reason to adhere to the rules so strictly Red Slash 18:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
  • keep - This is by far the most known city of Washington. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep - "Washington City" was a common term in the 19th century for the US capital, back when D.C. had multiple municipalities. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

"NJ"

see above for similar issues with "NH" and "RI" Duckmather (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Novum Eboracum

not sure whether this refers to New York (state) or New York City, maybe retarget to New York (a dab)? Duckmather (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Idea: Whatever the decision ends up being, it should include the genitive Novi Eboraci as well. ⇒ Aerrapc they/them, 20:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I think it's relevant as it is on the new york city seal Seal of New York City.

It could be useful for people trying to find it. I redirected it accordingly. Mechachleopteryx (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Mechachleopteryx Please do not change redirect targets while they're at RFD. I have reverted your change. mwwv converse∫edits 17:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

N hampshire

could also refer to North Hampshire (UK Parliament constituency) and is also a partial title match for numerous non-notable roads according to google, so maybe delete or disambiguate? Duckmather (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

"NH"

similarly to "RI", I'm also torn between whether or not this should be retargeted to NH (a disambiguation page) or deleted Duckmather (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Gray equals sign= Neutral; I'd say redirect to the disambiguation page. It's kind of strange though; it could just be deleted anyway. ⇒ Aerrapc they/them, 19:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

"RI"

Looks unnatural; I'm torn between retargeting to RI (a dab page) or deleting Duckmather (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  • Is unnatural. Delete per precedence. mwwv converse∫edits 22:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Nexua

Not sure what this means (google search brings up a ton of random stuff, including eyeglasses, a kind of software, and a word in Nahuatl), so maybe delete? Duckmather (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I say delete it. Doesn't appear to be meaningful. –jacobolus (t) 19:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Annular form

Not sure what this refers to; google search results suggests it might have a medical (???) meaning Duckmather (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

An annulus is a ring in Latin (cf. Annulus (mathematics)). This shouldn't redirect to circle, and should probably just be deleted. The one inbound link comes from Laurel wreath and that wikilink should probably just be removed. –jacobolus (t) 19:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikipediya

Created by Eubot as an avoided double redirect (though not tagged as such) to Wîkîpediya (since deleted). I'm not sure whether this is more likely to be a misspelling or a reference to a foreign-language Wikipedia though Duckmather (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Johann Hertel

There is also Johann Christian Hertel. 1234qwer1234qwer4 21:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 13:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

British genocide

The term "British genocide" can refer to different events in Kenya, Tasmania, New Zealand, etc. Its use in relation to the Irish famine is rare compared to its primary use for the Kenyan and Tasmanian atrocities, and the single use in the article (in a footnote) is a quote from an historian who is skeptical of the label. This redirect inappropriately points to a minor POV use of the term and is systemically bias against Black and indigenous ethnic groups. DrKay (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Dab. This term is ambiguous per @DrKay; This redirect is inaccurate as the Irish Potato Famine was not a genocide.. Mast303 (talk) Mast303 (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Delete as misleading. British genocide would be genocide of Britons. The events discussed above would be Irish genocide, Mau Mau genocide, Tasmanian genocide and Māori genocide. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC).
  • DABify - The heading of the DAB can clarify any misleading nature of this term-- but we need this term because reliable sources use it, as nom has demonstrated. And reliable sources use it for different things, so we need to disambiguate the meaning that they use it for. Or is that technically a set index? Fieari (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Disambiguation draft requested Fieari (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
    @Fieari: First draft at Draft:British genocide (disambiguation). DrKay (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the draft disambiguation?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 13:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
  • DrKay's draft looks good to me, but it's not written as a DAB, rather as a SIA. Pushing it back in the DAB direction would mean removing the footnotes, and the footnotes are a useful inclusion for a controversial topic, so I've tweaked it a bit to make it more clearly a SIA instead. With that done, I support mainspacing it at British genocide. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Index of statistical mechanics articles

Target does not contain an index of statistical mechanics articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I tried to delete the article but that failed. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Keep -- the template "statistical mechanics", which is on the statistical mechanics article, contains what is essentially an index of statistical mechanics articles, which is why it was merged. Redirects cost nothing and this one is useful. Mrfoogles (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
That's a rationale I haven't seen before. A template transcluded to various articles isn't really a good reason to keep a misleading redirect title to one specific article which isn't an index. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
And why aren't we targeting the template itself then? (I guess I don't actually know if it's possible to XNR to a navigational template, but this does not seem like an ideal workaround.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
It is possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete create an index instead -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
  • As Christian75 rightly observed at the redirect page's history: afd closed as merge, but was redirected by an admin. The admin Guerillero who was the AfD closer, had added the merge tag to List of statistical mechanics articles which was the title of the page while at the AfD, until Mrfoogles had muddled up the AfD with a pagemove while it was in progress. While Wbm1058 reverted this wrong merge tagging, and rightly tagged the new title of the redirect page, Guerillero removed it without explanation, making this a BLAR. Revert Guerillero's edit, unless there is an explanation. Jay 💬 18:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
    It is a BLAR because of the AfD discussion -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
    How? The AfD closed as "merge‎ to Statistical mechanics". Jay 💬 19:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Statistical mechanics#Index of statistical mechanics topics. The consensus of the AfD was "merge‎ to Statistical mechanics", not "blank and redirect". We wouldn't be wasting our time here had the closing admin simply taken the time to implement their close. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
I agree with wbm1058, except that I don't think that carrying out the merge is the closing admin's personal duty. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Noting that I mistakenly relisted this nomination myself, when I should not have. You commented on the relisted version, which I have now removed. I transferred your comments over from there and I wanted to ping and mention this for full transparency. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
It is not, but adding the {{merge}} tag would be a minimum, which the admin did, but at the wrong page. The larger issue here is the admin removed the tag that was added at the right page. Jay 💬 09:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Very divided. Keep, retarget, or restore the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 13:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

List of Jewish United States Supreme Court justices

I'm not sure which target of these two redirect should be the proper target for both. Both redirects should be targeting the same target, but I'm not sure which. Maybe a merge is needed somewhere? Steel1943 (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Point both to Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States#Jewish justices, as the more informative target. The list article is just a list, whereas the demographics article provides a list but also provides a substantial historical account of how the circumstance came to be. I don't see a need for a merger of anything. Two article can cover part of the same ground from different angles. BD2412 T 17:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 13:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

LGBTQ+ production of family

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This is just very odd phrasing. I might understand having one redirect, but having multiple iterations of this phrasing feels off to me. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete not a natural search phrase, admittedly neither is the article title but I still don't see this redirect being of any use. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment As the creator of these redirects, I have nothing against them being deleted. But I will say, if they do get deleted, LGBTQ+ Production of Family should probably get deleted as well, since I created these redirects based off the existence of this redirect, since I felt that someone searching it like this would search it with the terms I used for the redirects. If anyone disagrees with this, please let me know. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, JeffSpaceman! I've added this one to the RFD. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  • LGBTQ+ Production of Family has a long history and more importantly has been merged, so I don't think it may be deleted for attribution purposes (could perhaps be deleted after a history merge though, as as a title/search term it is not worth keeping). Fram (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the page history?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes (talk / cont) 11:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 13:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Doo (pseudonym)

There is no mention in the example of "Doo" being used as a pseudonym. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep. Mention inexplicably removed by IP restored. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 05:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Mention is of John Doo, and we have the redirect John Doo. Is Doo by itself used as a pseudonym? Jay 💬 11:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'll go with Cyclone - delete. Jay 💬 10:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
  • On the other hand John Doe is listed at Doe. Weak keep I guess. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per *shrug*. Unambiguous, obvious to the reader once John Soon was restored to the article. Not particularly useful but WP:CHEAP.Rusalkii (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Confusing redirect. Not entirely clear that "Doo" is used as a pseudonym. CycloneYoris talk! 08:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 13:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 13:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete, as the pseudonym only seems to be used as the full name. And even still, with the disambiguator, this is a wholly unlikely search term; you'd have to already know what it is, and at that point, there's really no extra detail at the target that provides any value. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Apache shirt

Appears to refer to shirts commonly worn by the Parisian criminal Apaches (subculture) rather than the Native American tribe. A quick search suggests the most common use by far is a shirt worn by or referencing the Native American Apaches. Rusalkii (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep. There doesn't appear to be a Wikipedia article about the shirts made by Apaches. You could make a dabpage with Traditional Native American clothing or Buckskins, but that seems like a stretch to me. 162 etc. (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. Apache shirt could refer to either the buckskin war shirts traditionally worn by the Apache tribe, or the striped shirt worn by criminal gangs in Paris 16:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 53zodiac (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Not mentioned at all at Telnyashka. Not discussed with enough substance at Apaches (subculture) to warrant a redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per Pppery. Jay 💬 19:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate. The dab has already been written, and it seems useful enough. I'd want to see some evidence that the term is not used to describe the gang shirts before deleting this. The disambiguation is, imo, a bit too big for a tidy hatnote. -- asilvering (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 13:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Jewish Israeli Aramaic

Not mentioned in target and this appears to be a completely invented usage - the phrase appears nowhere else on the internet. Rusalkii (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  • Perhaps redirect to Judeo-Aramaic languages#Modern dialects? 2601:642:4F84:1590:B4BC:9F58:E79E:AF6 (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
    This seems likely to misleadingly imply that there is a dialect called Jewish Israeli Aramaic. Aprzn (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The redirect creator changed the target to the IP's suggestion, and I have reverted it. Notified that target of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Greenhouse gas emissions from streaming music

NOTE: This has been RFD'd before, but that one was closed as keep as at the time the section was still there. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_6#Greenhouse_gas_emissions_from_streaming_music ).

The reason I'm re-nominating this redirect is because the section no longer exists, and as such we no longer have any information on the greenhouse emissions from music streaming. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 10:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Cotton ribbon

what is this doing here anyway? was about to retarget to ribbon since cotton isn't mentioned in the current target but is mentioned there, but it's only mentioned in passing in the lead, so is it even worth it? consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 20:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Old-fashioned typewriter ribbons were made of inked cotton. This magazine describes the manufacturing process. This book describes how it worked (and says that the IBM Selectric, which is what I learned to type on, used a plastic substitute). You can use those sources to expand Ink ribbon if you'd like to.
The redirect could become a disambiguation page, since ribbons made of cotton are (well, mostly "were") used in apparel. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Sonic movie

There are, in fact, multiple Sonic movies. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 20:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Note: the creator @Plutonical suggests retargeting to Sonic the Hedgehog (film series) 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 20:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. At the time the redirect was created, there wasn't a series yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Retarget to film series per Plutonical. Carguychris (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Retarget to Sonic the Hedgehog (film series). The upcoming redirect target is more sense giving that there's currently three Sonic feature films (becoming four in 2027). 103.111.102.118 (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Retarget to List of Sonic the Hedgehog features. There are other Sonic movies besides just the ones in Sonic the Hedgehog (film series). ⇒ Aerrapc they/them, 20:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Orabueze

In addition to this section mentioning Ngozi Orabueze, we also have Florence Orabueze. Not sure if it is better to retarget to Florence, delete, or disambiguate, but this target is clearly inappropriate. Thoughts? Rusalkii (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Listify as a {{surname}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

F�r

Arbitrary mojibake example, no more deserving of a redirect than any other. � by itself is useful, but that's as far as this needs to go. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep (i'm User:Someone-123-321 by the way, but due to reasons the reply system I'm using doesn't work on Chrome :[). �, as you implied, is a plausible rendering of �, and the article mentions a "f�r" as an example so... 65.181.23.139 (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Delete. Being mentioned as an arbitrary example in the article does not make it a less arbitrary example for purposes of the redirect's plausibility. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Exa Dark Sideræl

Not notable person that fails WP:BLPNAME and WP:NONAME. Same discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 3#Xavier Musk. Absolutiva (talk) 01:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Max max 4

The film is neither called "Mad Max 4" nor "Max Max" RanDom 404 (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Older

Old business

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Awesome_Aasim/rfd_rewrite