This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 28, 2025.

• VLCS → SLC27A2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Incorrectly nominated for WP:PROD by user Abvdj (talk · contribs) with rationale: The very long-chain acyl-CoA synthetase (VLCS) comprises 6 isoenzymes: SLC27A1, SLC27A2, SLC27A3, SLC27A4, SLC27A5, SLC27A6. It is not logical to redirect it only to SLC27A2. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• History of metaphysical naturalism → Metaphysical naturalism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Incorrectly listed for WP:PROD by Chrisahn (talk · contribs) with following rationale: History section has been removed from Metaphysical naturalism in 2023. No more incoming links to this redirect. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Guido Quaroni → SolidThinking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Guido Quaroni is probably notable in his own right, and is a voice actor in the Cars franchise. As such, he's a blue link in the cast list in our article on Cars 3 and probably other articles. But the link is this redirect to SolidThinking, a graphics company (and its product), which was bought by Altair Engineering. The SolidThinking article does associate Quaroni with the company, but I can find no evidence to support this, apart from more recent things that look as though they probably got the information from Wikipedia. The original source for the founders mentions the two brothers Mazzardo but not Quaroni. This redirect, which was originally an article about Quaroni (and converted to a redirect I think because of poor sourcing) is now inappropriate because (1) there is no evidence to connect Quaroni to the redirect target, and (2) even if it did, the target gives no information about Quaroni, and doesn't reflect his potential notability. To be honest, I think it's worse than getting rid of it and accepting that Quaroni should be a red link until someone gets round to writing a proper article about him. Elemimele (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• New name → Nomen novum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

"New name" more commonly refers to name change or geographical renaming instead of the renaming of species. Mia Mahey (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this hopelessly ambiguous placeholder title. Might as well have nominated New article. Steel1943 (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe it should be retargeted to Rename (or Renaming if an article is ever created with that title)? PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 08:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I suggest a disambiguation page. In the context of biological taxonomy, "new name" is definitely used as an English term for nomen novum – see for example the entry in the Dictionary of invertebrate zoology – although "replacement name" is more common in botanical contexts, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not familiar with this discipline, but the fact that "new name" is in bold at the top of Nomen novum tells me that it's a conventionalized English rendering of that technical term. People who change their names are more likely to say that they "changed their name" than to say that they have a "new name." It is true that when geographical features are renamed, we often speak of its "new name," although I find it hard to believe that someone looking for the notion of renaming geographical features will search for it as "new name" with significant frequency. I think it could be reasonably argued that when a user searches New name, the topic that they are most likely to be specifically looking for is Nomen novum. This supports Nomen novum as the primary topic of New name via WP:PT1. However, the technical concept of Nomen novum is much less widespread, giving it less notability and educational value than Name change or especially Geographical renaming; therefore, WP:PT2 definitely does not support Nomen novum as the primary topic of New name.
  
  If it can be determined that Nomen novum is the primary topic for New name, then I don't think a disambiguation is needed. We could just replace the {{distinguish}} hatnote with {{redirect|New name||Rename}}, which will look like this:
  "New name" redirects here. For other uses, see Rename.
  However, if there is no primary topic, we should probably disambiguate. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• disambiguate per Peter coxhead -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Curtiss-Wright Model 2500 Air Car → Hovercraft  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I belive this redirect should be removed as the generic article for Hovercraft has nothing on it aside a single image. While there is an edit history it doesn't seem to be possible to view any previous versions anyway I am the pootis man1 (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2^61-1 → Mersenne prime  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This particular prime number does not seem to need a redirect. Tagged as an "r to section" but no such section exists in the redirect. "61-1" is not mentioned at the article for the Mersenne prime, among the many other prime numbers that could possibly exist. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of Mersenne primes and perfect numbers. It is indeed a Mersenne prime (one of 52), and is indeed mentioned in the article, but the list is a better target. StAnselm (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @StAnselm:, could you point out to me where "2^61-1" is mentioned in either article? Because I'm not seeing it in the list you linked either. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's the 9th Mersenne prime, where p=61. StAnselm (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was looking for the exact title-match of "2^61-1", which I didn't find at either article. It is generally encouraged to have something related to every redirect someone might use, to ensure that they landed on the right page and aren't stranded by mistake. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We do not need to have every redirect of a synonym in their target article, if reading the article makes the connection clear. The article clearly defines a Mersenne prime number as "one less than a power of two" and has M_n = 2ⁿ − 1 as the definition. And then later does list 61 as a Mersenne prime number. I don't think it'd be all that helpful to readers to have this exact string in the article but having this be a redirect to either article is helpful to readers because this redirect allows them to find information about the topic even though their exact search term does not appear in the article. Skynxnex (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict)Followup: After some inference I do see now where "61" is mentioned, but I'm still not seeing how it becomes a useful redirect even with this fact? I.e. it's not obvious why 2^61-1 would be more important than 2^89-1, or 2^107-1 or any of the others in the sequence. We don't have any dedicated content besides just a list-entry, and nothing on the list besides the value of the number itself. Wikipedia isn't a calculator and these don't seem be useful redirects, if it's just to indicate that "it is on the table of mersenne primes". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is useful because it gets people to the right place. If you read about "2^61-6" on a website, and you search for it here, then you need to end up in the right place. You do not necessarily need to end up in the right place plus with circles and arrows and a paragraph typed on the back to reassure you that you really are in the right place, but you do need to end up in the right place. Therefore keep, and maybe even consider what it would take to get a WP:TBAN to stop you from nominating any more redirects on "not mentioned" grounds, because there is no such rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @WhatamIdoing: It's inappropriate to suggest a TBAN in these sort of situations. It's fine to vote to keep something, but Utopes' nomination rationale is not at all uncommon for RfD, I myself have used the same rationale quite a few times. I can't even understand how you jumped to the suggestion of a TBAN. Looking through my XfD log, I find I use this reasoning quite often, as redirects that aren't mentioned at the target are misleading. In the future, I strongly suggest you do not suggest/imply a TBAN is appropriate when editors are acting in good faith, have been solid contributors in the area you're suggesting they be banned from, and have not been disruptive. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hey man im josh, I think that systematically sending pages to XFD just to make sure that the community doesn't want to delete them is disruptive.

  I realize that Wikipedia:Nobody reads the directions, but editors can earn a TBAN if they consistently and repeatedly send articles to AFD for reasons that contradict the deletion policy, so I assume that consistently and repeatedly sending redirects to RFD has the same potential outcome. If someone sent a couple dozen unref'd articles to AFD every day, for no reason beyond being in Category:Articles lacking sources, I'd expect them to be TBANned. If someone sends a couple dozen "not mentioned" articles to RFD every day, for no reason beyond being in Category talk:Redirects to an article without mention, I'd expect them to be TBANned, too.

  If lots of people think that it's misleading to have 1909 constitutional crisis redirect to an article that talks at length about a "crisis" involving the "constitution" that started in "1909", without using the exact consecutive string "1909 constitutional crisis", then either a lot of our editors have poor reading comprehension, or we need to change the rules at WP:RFD#DELETE. Those words currently say a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned. Those words currently do not say anything that is not mentioned, or even most things that are not mentioned, because it's misleading. As usual, my main concern is that the written rules match editors' actual practice. Either we need to stop using this made-up rule, or we need to make the rule a real one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @WhatamIdoing: Right, and there's no evidence that Utopes has been nominating anything that contradicts policy. Their nominations frequently end in delete and, when they don't, they adjust how they approach and avoid wasting participants time with similar nominations. If someone sends a couple dozen "not mentioned" articles to RFD every day, for no reason beyond being in Category talk:Redirects to an article without mention... That's not what's happening though if you look at their edit history or their nomination rationales. They're retargeting redirects to some places, removing the tags when unnecessary/inaccurate, and nominating redirects without a valid target. I'm also not sure what you're referring to that needs to apparently be revised. They aren't nominating things that they're not finding to be a synonym. It feels like an extreme overreaction to suggestion a TBAN when someone isn't familiar with a mathematic equation and the RfD happens to not end in delete, so I invite you to WP:AGF. Lastly, their number of nominations hasn't been disruptive. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:RFD#DELETE says that redirects may be deleted if both of these conditions are true:

  1. novel or very obscure synonym for an article name
  2. that is not mentioned in the article

  "Novel" encompasses both newness and things that were made up one day. "Very obscure" means the connection between the redirect and the target article is so "hidden" or "difficult to understand" that almost nobody (=not just the nom personally, but almost nobody) would be able to figure out why it redirects to that page.

  You have to have both of these conditions. The written rule does not say "It's enough for it to be unmentioned, because every redirect must be explicitly mentioned. Who cares if ordinary readers can easily grok that this website name redirects to the company of the same name? Who cares if – as is the case for this particular redirect – it used to be mentioned in the article, in a format that anyone who remembers pre-algebra math should be able to recognize? If it's not worth mentioning the redirect in the current version of the article, then it's not worth having the redirect."

  I don't know if you were aware of it, but Utopes proposed systematically reviewing every redirect in CAT:RAW and either removing the cat or proposing deletion of the redirect. The rule they proposed using was that every redirect must be mentioned in the article, "If not exactly verbatim, pretty dang close to it" or deleted. The discussion produced objections. I have added mine here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of Mersenne primes and perfect numbers as a better target. I agree that both articles do mention it, although not by the exact string, but p=61 or M₆₁ are enough of a signifier to cover this redirect as being mentioned. Fieari (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Either Refine to §History, where there's actual discussion of Pervushin's proving this number prime (well prior to the use of computers), although it could use some better sourcing, so it would be a better target than those above. Or I wouldn't be all that opposed to a delete either; despite there actually being a bit to say about the discovery of this number's primeness, this still seems like an unlikely search term. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The pageviews analysis shows it's being searched about once a month. StAnselm (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 16:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning toward refine to Mersenne prime § History but keeping targeting just the article would be fine (but remove r to section in that case). Slight preference to that over retarageting to the list since the main article actually discusses M₆₁ in particular, unlike the list. Skynxnex (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Onlyinclude → Help:Template#Inclusion control: noinclude, includeonly, and onlyinclude  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Possibly inappropiate XNR? Also note: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 21#Onlyinclude User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 04:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or retarget to include guard adjusting to retarget to Transclusion#Context neutrality as a page with some relation. Seems plausible enough for a regular reader to stumble into on a quest for include guards, and there's no indication that this is an XNR. People who know enough to be specifically looking this would not probably do so in mainspace of all places. See also: Noinclude and includeonly. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think deletion is the best outcome. "Onlyinclude" is not mentioned anywhere in include guard, so that wouldn't be a good target User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but "included only" is mentioned, so perhaps there could be cheap equivalence in encyclopedic content. I think the ballpark is close enough to maybe justify it. I do concur that if someone is going to step into the Wikipedia backrooms, it should be from a title where it's clear that the backrooms is the end-location, and to that effect I think "onlyinclude" and "noinclude" are plausible enough encyclopedic search terms. Help:Noinclude and Help:Onlyinclude are a lot more secure and communicative about their purpose, point to the same spot and fulfill the same objective.

I see what Elli (the page creator) was going for here. While this is imo, if a page has any chance to be searched for by a casual reader looking for encyclopedic information, it shouldn't be an XNR into the backrooms. This title is general enough to be that, (i.e. two English words minus a space), that it probably has iffy utility as an XNR, and the Helpspace versions are a bit more guaranteed to work, and are rock-solid. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember, my thought process when creating this was along the lines of "someone might see this term in wikitext and not understand it, so pointing it somewhere explanatory is better than nowhere". I would definitely prefer a mainspace target if possible, but oppose deletion. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is Help:Onlyinclude which follows the general logic of searching for "Help:X" for help on X in Wikipedia. But I am not sure if this rule is strictly followed in en.Wikipedia. --Kallichore (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Transclusion § Context neutrality or similar where it's mentioned? A new {{Self-reference}} to that section and the the inline cross-namespace link could be removed, if people think that section is due? (I don't really like proposing another alternative but it seems pretty decent.) Skynxnex (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur with this new target, adjusting my !vote to Transclusion#Context neutrality as well. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also support this. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Another possibility is MediaWiki#Templates; see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 2#Noinclude. PleaseStand (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh. I see the mention at MediaWiki was added after my !vote above. I think both are valid retargets. It's somewhat unfortunate we have two separate, concurrent debates about basically the same thing. Skynxnex (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some input on the second target: Media Wiki#Templates, which was brought up late in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wbm1058 (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to MediaWiki#Templates, which has an explicit mention, and also for alignment with the discussion on noinclude. Fieari (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to MediaWiki#Templates per Fieari. Jay 💬 21:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments after previous relist have split the consensus between different targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2025 United States coup → Attempted takeover of US federal agencies by Elon Musk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• 2025 United States coup attempt → Department of Government Efficiency#Actions within federal government  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not a neutral title, not sourced adequately enough to call it a coup — Czello ^(music) 17:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a reasonable redirect because when I was trying to find out if there was a page on DOGE's recent actions I searched Wikipedia for coup and coup attempt until I eventually found Attempted takeover of US federal agencies by Elon Musk. So Keep for the third reason listed at WP:RFD#KEEP. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 17:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Department of Government Efficiency - changing stance since seperate article no longer exists but its still a valid redirect per above. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 21:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom pending consensus by scholarly WP:SECONDARY sources (not politicians, news-channel talking heads, or a handful of academics and journalists) describing the target topic as a coup. The term "coup" is WP:CONTENTIOUS, so it is WP:UNDUE to label an event this way without strong sourcing. Carguychris (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete WP:UNDUE, for now, and WP:CRYSTAL. "Coup" has been used by some Democrats and, accordingly, is quoted in sources in almost all sources using the term, but that's it. Trump himself said Musk is acting to his bidding. This AP article has both statements, and attributes them. Even the article itself doesn't use "coup" in wikivoice, see lede. I'd go as far as to question whether the article itself is necessary and can't just be worked into Department of Government Efficiency, again for now, but let's wait and see. Mystic Cornball (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reason given by Lollipoplollipoplollipop. Agree it's a non-neutral characterization, but the use of this language is verifiable - and that's all that is needed in this kind of situation. (There are I imagine similarly non-neutral search phrases which might be used by those strongly supportive of Musk.) Dsp13 (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Expanding the imperial presidency is undesirable, but certainly distinct from the term "coup." Let's at least wait for history to speak before we assemble the review of lit for future scholars and journalists. Ornov Ganguly TALK 19:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there isn't any meaningful difference between 'coup' and 'attempted takeover of federal agencies by an individual.' Perhaps someone can offer a line in the sand which isn't contrived for this particular issue, but until then, the synonymity here should be considered implicit to the English language. SpooxTheSkeleton (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Musk isn't overthrowing Trump or acting against his will according to him, I would argue there is a very strong difference in this particular case. Mystic Cornball (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the word coup necessarily implies an unwilling head of state. Donald Trump's complicity in the ordeal is at best a legal grey area. It's still an initiative to dismantle the current regime by an in-group of powerful actors, which I believe satisfies the definition of coup. SpooxTheSkeleton (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is when sourcing doesn't adequately support the word "coup" — Czello ^(music) 20:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SpooxTheSkeleton, you are begging the question by presuming that a "takeover" has in fact occurred. An article title that violates WP:EXCEPTIONAL does not in turn justify a similarly contentious redirect. I contend that both titles violate WP:NPOV and are inadequately sourced. Carguychris (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any reliable sources describing it as a coup; Attempted takeover of US federal agencies by Elon Musk only lists one article in the SF Chronicle which documents that one professor Seth Masket described it as a coup in his substack (substack is considered not a reliable source), but the chronicle always put it in quotes, indicating it's Masket's opinion. Hi! (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also called it a coup, but also as per my argument for deletion above all of this is very clearly opinionated so far. Mystic Cornball (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AOC's tweets do not qualify as a reliable source. Agreed that calling it a coup is opinionated. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the target page has been moved to draftspace, so it may be appropriate for this RfD to be procedurally closed. Carguychris (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, sigh, it's been undrafted with zero explanation. I wish people would put the forks down and act reasonably for once. Cremastra (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. <shakes head> Carguychris (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article has been moved back to mainspace. No reliable sources are calling this a coup, nor can it be characterized as such right now. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or, if the article is merged, redirect to Department of Government Efficiency#Initial actions. Blatantly partisan and obviously incorrect term, but the fact that some notable individuals have been using the word "coup" means that it is a plausible redirect, and redirects are cheap. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Calls for deletion using the argument that it violates WP:NPOV should be reminded that redirects are explicitly allowed to violate NPOV. We create redirects specifically TO violate NPOV so that it stays out of article space, but still allows users who themselves use or have seen NPOV terminology to find the correct article. Redirects are also not required to be reliably sourced, merely sufficiently in use such that the existence of the redirect aids in navigation. Redirects are not generally user visible, so biased, opinionated, and even outright offensive redirects are generally acceptable if useful. This one is useful, and has been demonstrated to be useful above, which is a valid keep reason in and of itself. So, keep. Fieari (talk) 05:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, the article this redirected to no longer exists – therefore it is now eligible for Speedy Deletion under G8. — Czello ^(music) 16:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Try tagging it and see what happens :) —Alalch E. 02:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Department of Government Efficiency and and tag with Template:R from non-neutral name. Plausible search term and the target contains: DOGE employees have entered US federal buildings in Washington, D.C. The events have been described as "takeover", "freeze", or "coup" by members of the Democratic Party and media, who claim that the DOGE does not have the authority to carry out these activities (emphasis mine). The mention of "coup" in the lead is supported by content in the body.—Alalch E. 02:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/retarget and tag per Alalch E., clearly WP:POV but redirects are not required to be neutral (Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak retarget to wherever contains the most information on the whole DOGE/Musk/Trump thing, which seems to be currently Department of Government Efficiency, per the above. Redirects don't need neutrality or reliable sources, just being plausible, unambiguous search terms. And I sincerely hope this one remains unambiguous, but there's still 10 months in the year! Sourcing found by Alalch suggests "coup" is plausible, though the full phrase "2025 United States coup" seems to occur nowhere but this redirect at the moment. Rusalkii (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it is not a plausible search term. Google search gave me just five results for the term, with three of those results being to this discussion, one to Reddit and one to a post on Threads. So I don't why anyone would think it would be a credible search term on Wikipedia. Our readers aren't searching for this preposterous made up term, if they were, Google search results would reflect that. Redirects should make sense, this one clearly doesn't. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Alalch E. Redirects to not have to be neutral per WP:RNEUTRAL, so deletion would have to be on other grounds. This term has been used to describe DOGE's actions and its usage is already covered at the proposed target. Fine as a redirect. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague and misleading. If the redirect title had the words "DOGE" or "Elon Musk", then that would have been a worthwhile discussion. Also Oppose retarget to Department of Government Efficiency#Actions within federal government (which will happen as an avoided double redirect if this is not deleted). The fact that some call it a "coup" doesn't mean the redirect title "2025 United States coup" should redirect to DOGE. Jay 💬 13:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Also bundle 2025 United States coup attempt which was created 3 minutes after the redirect under discussion. Jay 💬 13:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus not yet clear, and bundling 2025 United States coup attempt into the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete Redirects are not required to be neutral, and the recent events could (unfortunately) reasonably be called a coup. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 20500 → White House  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Ambiguous search term; not the obvious WP:PTOPIC Cremastra (u — c) 00:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm wondering how is this more ambiguous/different from the other examples in Category:Redirects from ZIP codes (which I'm somewhat surprised exists and only has ~400 entries but still they're there)? Looking some I can't find anything else referred to by 20500 that comes close to primacy compared to the White House's ZIP code. Skynxnex (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and disambiguate. Pretty much the only WP:PTOPIC for this redirect, and Category:Redirects from ZIP codes is cromulent. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing to dab per Duckmather. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate, I think? A quick onwiki search reveals that this is also the postal code for Aiguá, Kalynopil, Katerynopil Raion, Mondragón, Nemea (town), and Tavas. Duckmather (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. I think I'd oppose a disambiguation page or SIA per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too ambiguous, a disambiguation page is inappropriate because it would just be a directory, and the creation is part of a slew of problematic redirects by someone who needs to stop creating redirects. oknazevad (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(nominator comment): I also support deletion rather than disambiguation. Cremastra (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate this is just a number, make it a disambiguation page -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just drafted the dab! Duckmather (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; it clearly refers to the target, and is at least as good as any other redirect from a ZIP Code. No objection to a proper disambiguation page if one can be created. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or delete, oppose DABifying; not everything needs to be a DAB page. — Anonymous 16:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per oknazevad. The redirect was created in 2007 though, so I don't understand oknazevad's part about ..part of a slew of problematic redirects by someone who needs to stop.... Jay 💬 13:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not clearly refer to the subject. Multiple possibilities have been aired, and there's nothing at the current target that says "20500 refers to this subject". No mention of "20500" outside the infobox, and this is understandably vague with other codes as well as the Z 20500 article. I'm open to disambiguating if someone wants to list every code that overlaps here, but in any situation the "white house" is a very easy search term, and also notdirectory. I'm not convinced someone would type in "20500" to get to this page, when <1% of all zip codes have redirects on Wikipedia, rendering this a wholly unreliable means of navigation that nobody would bank on. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 12:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Utopes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate; apart from postal codes, 20500 can also refer to SNCF Class Z 20500 (per Utopes) and 20500 Avner on List of minor planets: 20001–21000. @Duckmather: Will you add these to the DAB draft? Have a nice day, because it's lio! | talk | work 15:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Partial title matches do not get into disambiguation pages per MOS:DABNOENTRY. Jay 💬 16:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright, then please add a See also section. Either way, the number 20500 is significant in other articles, and therefore shouldn't remain specific to the White House. it's lio! | talk | work 16:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Birthright citizenship → Jus soli  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There has been a lot of toing-and-froing here. Jus soli is a good target, but the Infobox also has Jus sanguinis under the heading Birthright citizenship. It seems to me to be better to revert this page to the disambiguation page that it used to be [1]. Pinging contributors @Ben Azura:, @Hyphenation Expert:, @Lithopsian:. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I would agree if I was not writing an article for the redirect. There is a disambiguation page at birthright citizenship (disambiguation). Strictly speaking jus soli and jus sanguinis aren't ambiguous titles, but law latin is a special case and if consensus agrees to include the latin terms in the disambiguation page I would not revert that. I also support including the terms at birthright citizenship (disambiguation). Ben Azura (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a draft of the proposed replacement? Hyphenation Expert (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that Birthright citizenship (disambiguation) is a redirect, created as an WP:INTDAB redirect to Birthright citizenship when it was a disambiguation page. It now incorrectly targets Jus soli, which is the reason this situation came to my attention. But anyway ... we cannot proceed on the promise of a future article, the question is what to do now. If there is a new article it can overwrite a redirect or disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not have a draft written and I don't know if anyone else is working on these articles at this time. I don't care about the fate of the redirect beyond saying that the problems introduced by disambiguating could have been avoided by creating a brief article. The vast majority of RS use the term jus soli for birthright citizenship exclusively, but a significant number use the term for both jus soli and jus sanguinis citizenship. This is not simply a matter of disambiguation. Some are using it for jus soli (including the natural born citizenship rights) and others are using it for citizenship that you can get at birth, in comparison with naturalization concepts like jus domicilii and related terms. There are multiple subjects but the inclusion of jus sanguinis is only used in the context of RS that are comparing "birthright citizenship" to naturalization. Too bad we can't just ignore the United States, that would make this easier. Ben Azura (talk) 09:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: There appears to be a complicated history here, where there was an article on birthright citizenship that may have been cut-and-pasted from this title many years before to what is now at Birthright citizenship in the United States. BD2412 T 19:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have history merged the cut-paste from 2006. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Info: I have reformatted the dab page at Birthright citizenship (disambiguation) to be valid, given the current redirect at Birthright citizenship. This is just so it doesn't get further edited, possible deleted as invalid, while this discussion takes place. Lithopsian (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have moved the US article to the See also section as a WP:PTM, and turned the disambig page to a WP:ONEOTHER. US is one of several countries that provide birthright citizenship, I don't see how the US article can be a disambiguation entry. Jay 💬 21:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative support for a dab page: I'm no expert but it seems that there is ambiguity in what people might be looking for when searching this term. Lithopsian (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to disambiguation page, could be either Jus soli or Jus sanguinis depending on country. HudecEmil (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the accuracy that is the problem, it just isn't ambiguous. Birthright citizenship is a principle of receiving citizenship as a right simply by being born, usually a natural right. jus soli and jus sanguinis are the way that birthright citizenship can be acquired. If you include sources like Vox and NPR, the vast majority of RS use the terms interchangeably because of the American context and issues arising from the constitutional text itself. European publishers of books, which I find myself using a lot, may state this with less ambiguity. Irrespective of that, expansion of the article birthright citizenship was proposed on the talk page of the article in 2006. I'm just a little miffed that it was important enough to turn the article into a dab by a "cut and paste" move but not important enough to expand the article. Ben Azura (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once a standalone article "Birthright citizenship" is written support changing this redirect/disambiguation to that article. HudecEmil (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems there are concerns with the validity of a disambiguation page...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeane (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Joshua Levenheit → Suikoden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Kasim Hazil → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Kasumi (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Kessler (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Killey → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Kraze → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Kun To → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Kwanda Rosman → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Leknaat → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Leon Silverberg → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Lepant → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Lilly Pendragon → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Lorelai (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Lucia (Suikoden) → Suikoden (video game)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

re-nominating those after this discussion closed as "if only we knew the suffering that would befall us next", but only by a small chunk at a time. same rationale applies. also, kraze might be vague, but i'm a little iffy on it consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 12:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak retarget "Lilly Pendragon" to Suikoden III where it is mentioned -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate "Killey" there are several non-Suikoden uses of this. [2], such as: Philip G. Killey; Killey River tributary to the Kenai River; Lynne Killey, a founder of Games for Good; John Killey, the last public capital punishment in New Zealand; Killey, an alternate spelling of Killay, County Tyrone; Killey's Hill, Laurel Bank; Ellis Killey who stood for election in the 1996 Manx general election; Jonas Killey, a fictional character from Flash Point (novel); Killey, listed at List of townlands of County Tyrone; Adan Killey, a member of the 2014 Isle of Man cricket team; Erin Killey, a medalist at the 2010 Australian Short Course Swimming Championships; Julie Killey, who was elected in the 2021 Lincolnshire County Council election; Liza Killey, a fictional character from The Bondman (1916 film) and novel it was based on; Julie Elizabeth Killey, who was elected in the 2017 Lincolnshire County Council election; Phillip Killey, who stood in election, see Results of the 1922 New South Wales state election; Quentin Killey, who stood for election in the 2015 South Gloucestershire Council election; -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  drafted, but left out killay (that should be a separate dab, i think), everyone who doesn't have an article of their own, and the fictional characters. a little iffy on adding them, to be honest. yes, i know this leaves the draft with three (3) entries consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 13:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget "Lepant" to Nafpaktos as {{R from former name}} -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate "Kraze" as there are many uses [3]: Central Florida United Kraze, the soccer team "Kraze"; Kraze, a musician, a member of Whistle (band); Kraze United soccer team; Kraze (Richard Jean Laurent), a musician, a member of Discomind; Kražiai also known as "Kražē"; -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  drafted, though the musicians have been left out as unnotable consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 13:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Repeating some of my votes from the previous RfD. Delete if there is no content worth merging, or restore and AfD for these: Jeane, Kun To, Kwanda Rosman, Leknaat, and Leon Silverberg. Joshua Levenheit has mention at Suikoden#The 27 True Runes. While dealing with or after dealing with Leon Silverberg, we have to settle Mathiu Silverberg (nephew), Odessa Silverberg (niece), Albert Silverberg (grandson), and Caesar Silverberg (grandson). Attempt disambiguation per IP 65 for Killey and Kraze. Retarget Lepant and Lilly Pendragon per IP 65. Delete Lorelai (Suikoden). Retarget Lucia to Suikoden III#Hugo's point of view. Others are {{R from merge}}. Jay 💬 16:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  hopefully gonna draft dabs in a little over 2 hours. until then, do you think the silverberg family should be nominated on its own, separately? consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 19:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  drafted some stuff 3 days later. in my defense, i didn't procrastinate this time, i just thought i already did the thing. will say, though, that i actually disagree with taking them to afd, as they were completely unsourced stubs written in an entirely in-universe style, with no info we'd care about consarn _{(formerly cogsan)} 13:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the dab drafts for Kiley and Kraze. They look good. Jay 💬 12:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of the Silverberg family have mention in the plot, some don't. Jay 💬 12:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I support all listed WP:ATDs found so far (specifically, the suggestions for Lilly Pendragon, Killey, Lepant, and Kraze). Delete all others without listed ATDs, all of which do not seem useful and especially not so without mention. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 18:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Do what Utopes said. Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the ATDs except that I oppose any restorations. There is no claim of notability. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist because the main RFD page is having expensive parser issues, and needs the old day which this entry was listed on to be closed since it didn't appear on the main RFD page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we're approaching WP:TRAINWRECK yet again. From my (involved) point of view, there is consensus to disambiguate Killey and Kraze, and consensus to retarget Lilly Pendragon and Lepant. Those should be enacted upon a close of this discussion. As for anything else, it looks pretty train-wrecky to me. Most should probably be deleted, but there's simply too many different situations with several R from merges pending investigation, as noted by Jay, so it'll be rough to enact those. Anything that isn't a merge should be deleted as well, if anyone is comfortable poking through this list to do so. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Definitely not a TRAINWRECK. Each and every entry has been analyzed. Just too daunting for a closer. I'm involved so... Jay 💬 08:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at any of the others. If an ATD has been found, I give my blind support as "probably fine". But at least for me I haven't actually looked at the histories of any besides the four I mentioned, and even those I only saw the disambig and new targets and stopped caring after as the pages would be kept so no history would be lost in those cases.

The line between "trainwreck" and "daunting for a closer" generally overlaps in definition, as it often hinges on one person having looked at every single one, and everyone else trusting the process and the judgement of that sole person without doing extra verification. In this case, you looked at them all. "Each and every entry being analyzed" can still signal a trainwreck in the making imo, especially so when the bar for reasonable participation hinges on an unreasonably high time threshold as this one does.

In this situation and similar ones, I'm trusting in your homework (the homework of whoever the solo checker is) because every single title here is totally different (different mentions on different pages with different histories) and this likely shouldn't have been bundled, or at least unbundled once the complex situation revealed itself. The fact that there are ~15 unique situations described for 15 redirects puts it pretty well in the trainwreck ballpark, imo, and nobody wanting to close this is pretty indicative of its nature. (RfD closes should be made as simple as possible for admins, to keep the process-cogs churning, and the structure of this discussion falls short of that expectation imo).

I appreciate what you've done in checking them all, and believe me I'd like this to be closed ASAP with everything besides the ATDs deleted, but with so much substantial history here from R from merges, I (personally) really feel the opposite of comfortable discussing all these titles as a bundle. At this point, it probably would've been faster to close this as a trainwreck a month ago, re-nom everything individually (as "individual nomming" was asked for by the closer of the original discussion), and get these decisions knocked out 1 by 1, rather than in a block of unbolded prose that makes it possibly difficult for admins to quickly analyze. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about bc I've never deleted a page, but I'd imagine that discussions with less titles are prone to being deleted faster, as the conversation coalesces around a single title rather than customized solutions for 15 names. Especially for names that are closer to the generic end, i.e. that "Kraze", "Lepant" and "Killey" are super short titles that can be seen as controversial, and probably should be separated from "Lorelai (Suikoden)" and "Kwanda Rosman". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 11:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: You said on 27 December at the end of your statement that the "others are {{R from merge}}", however it's hard to tell which exactly are the R from merges, and/or which titles you are including in the designation of "others" without name. Could you list the 15 and your proposed solution for each, preferably bulleted/bolded and/or in alphabetical order? I feel like that would help accelerate the closure of this discussion, as all of the analysis is from December and is (imo) becoming stale/un-fresh and hard to recollect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 12:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After eliminating the ones I listed out, "others" would be only 3 - Kasim Hazil, Kasumi and Kessler. Jay 💬 13:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. Is a lot easier (for me at least) to read the names here in this way than it is to deductively keep track which have been said somewhere and cross referencing it to the list above. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 13:35, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also I've now removed the mentions of Lucia and Joshua Levenheit which were unreferenced and total undue trivia within the article, respectively. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 12:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit #2: I've also removed the mention of Lilly Pendragon as unsourced trivia, so now my preference for that title is to delete Lilly Pendragon instead. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 12:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

in any case, this seems like it'd be closed as dabifying the ones with drafts and deleting all the others consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 18:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lepant should be retargeted to Nafpaktos as an R from former name. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 12:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and that, if without prejudice to refining to #name, since it's where "lepant" is mentioned (as opposed to "lepanto") consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 14:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...i'm nominating them two letters at a time next time consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 11:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jay 💬 11:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for the exact same reason as last time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

funniest shit i've ever seen consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 11:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• T:SINGLE → Template:One source  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Per a recent discussion at the village pump, it was indicated that new titles using the "T:" pseudo-namespace redirect should not be created (as of 2025).

For a long time existed as a confusing redirect. There was never a template called "Template:Single", so the "T" did not serve as a pseudo-namespace, but as a cross-namespace redirect. It was only in 2024 when Template:SINGLE was created, solely to accommodate the shortcut that was in mainspace for 16 years prior (iirc). While at least the issue of the mismatch was finally fixed, still no valuable incoming links to T:SINGLE and no need to have such a T: title in mainspace in 2025+. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• T:ONES → Template:One source  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Per a recent discussion at the village pump, it was indicated that new titles using the "T:" pseudo-namespace redirect should not be created (as of 2025).

The one source template does not seem to benefit from a title starting with "T", when all links for templates can comfortably begin with "TM" instead. Has no valuable incoming links at this time, and TM:ONES exists. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Zeytinburnu İce Rink → Zeytinburnu Ice Rink  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Improbable search term. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. According to the page history of this redirect, this was moved to Zeytinburnu Ice Rinkdue to a misspelling. Justjourney (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Justjourney. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 05:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My bad. Sorry! CeeGee 10:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't owe anyone an apology. Accidents happen and we have procedures to deal with them. No big deal at all! Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• T:CD → Template:Centralized discussion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Per a recent discussion at the village pump, it was indicated that new titles using the "T:" pseudo-namespace redirect should not be created (as of 2025).

Only has one pertinent incoming link onwiki. Confusing because Template:CD is a different link. Created in 2014 which is not that old in the grand scheme of things. Search usage is moot, as TM:CENT is suitable. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Jesus donkey → Alexamenos graffito  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The story of Jesus riding the donkey is the primary topic here, not this graffiti. Unsure if this should be deleted or redirected to Triumphal entry into Jerusalem#The donkey(s). Rusalkii (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. It was previously not redirected to anything. I added the redirect because I was looking for the graffiti but couldn't remember its name, so I put the two nouns in adposition as "Jesus-donkey".

If somebody wants to find the Triumphal entry I think they'd write "Jesus riding donkey" or something similar. Writing just the two nouns would strike me as strange coming from an English-speaker.

The one hesitance I have is that the page name might strike somebody as insensitive, but that kind of owes to the insensitive nature of the graffiti. I think that the two nouns most simply refer to the graffiti, while the nouns with the verb clearly refers to the Triumphal entry. Aspets (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The first thing I thought of was the graffiti.★Trekker (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I may have seen the graffito before, but I don't remember it. I assumed this title referred to a donkey relating to Jesus—perhaps a character in a nativity play. I'm not convinced that Jesus' entry into Jerusalem is what people who type "Jesus donkey" are likely to be looking for, and the current target makes sense. My first impression is that any ambiguity could be solved with a hatnote at "Alexamenos graffito". A disambiguation page is also possible, but seems unlikely to be needed; I don't think that "Jesus donkey" is a very likely search term, though it's fine as a redirect. P Aculeius (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Triumphal entry into Jerusalem#The donkey(s) as WP:PTOPIC, I agree with nom. I've never heard of the graffiti, but even if it does have some notoriety it's not going to compare with the huge portion of the world's population that is going to primarily associate these two words with palm sunday. Fieari (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Aspets and P Aculeius - it doesn't make sense that the two nouns together would be used for Triumphal entry into Jerusalem#The donkey(s), although a hatnote may be added. Jay 💬 22:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've gone ahead and made a hatnote, although if this discussion is closed in favour of retargeting, it can be removed, and a separate hatnote made at the section of Triumphal Entry. P Aculeius (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Aspets thinks the hatnote should be removed because it might upset readers. I don't really think that's likely, but maybe some of the other participants in this discussion could give their opinions. If we retarget the redirect, then the hatnote I made would be unnecessary. If we keep it where it is, I think we need the hatnote. P Aculeius (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I hope it doesn't come across as an attempt to censor, I'm just skeptical of the need for the hatnote. The graffiti is a little blasphemous, so the natural names we may think of can also be. It just seems unnecessary to highlight those names outside of the search function, which I see as working in the background.

  I do think the hatnote is a good idea if some people really associate "Jesus donkey" with Palm Sunday. Just a question, @Fieari, but does the phrase refer to the event for you, or the words? I think the phrase more naturally refers to the graffiti. Also, @Rusalkii, do you interpret WP:REDIR to denote redirects as "topics"? I've understood it as if there are topics (primary topics etc.) with disambiguations and shortnames, and then there are "alternative names" or whatever which are often descriptive (along with misspellings and graphical variants). Aspets (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure I understand the question. Personally I don't think the hatnote is necessary here, since this is a pretty obscure redirect (I overall prefer deletion, it's not particularly useful for navigation). Showing everyone on the page the hatnote makes a much bigger deal if it than it warrants. Rusalkii (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If your contention is that a different topic should be the target of the redirect, then it makes sense to have a hatnote linking to that topic unless and until it's retargeted, because people searching for "Jesus donkey" might be looking for that instead. P Aculeius (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The association I have is both with the words and also with a slight modification of the phrase "Jesus's donkey", easily akin to a very minor typo or misspelling or mishearing... a fair few dialects of English I've heard don't really have a clear 's ending for words also ending in "s" when pronounced. Fieari (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, very good point. Aspets (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep on the whole - the graffito by some 2nd-century soldier frankly gets more attention than it deserves (really "Jesus donkey" oughtn't to suggest this first, but to some it does) & the redirect is adequate. Johnbod (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is ongoing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. Whether or not it's reasonable, this is the primary topic. Tenpop421 (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify-- by which criteria(s) do you say Alexamenos graffito is the WP:PTOPIC? Google hits, journal hits, direct description match, or...? (Not trying to change your mind, just trying to see which argument holds the most weight) Fieari (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget and hatnote the graffito at target. "Jesus's entry into Jerusalem on a donkey" is one of the most well-known events of the canonical Gospel narrative, so much that it has an entire Christian holiday commemorating it which has been celebrated for over a thousand years straight as part of the holiest week in Christianity. If you were to grab a random person off the street reasonably familiar with the gospel narrative and say the words "Jesus donkey" to them, this is the first thing they would think of. --Slowking Man (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. The graffiti is absolutely not the primary topic for this. Palm Sunday isn't obscure. It is celebrated by millions and millions of people worldwide, who have absolutely not heard of the graffiti. -- asilvering (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since the expression still most readily refers to some sort of Jesus-like donkey, not Jesus's donkey. That mishearing which Fieari pointed out is the only case in which this expression refers to the Triumphal entry. Nobody thinks that the graffiti is more notable than Palm Sunday, but that's not important to the discussion. People don't refer to Jesus riding into Jerusalem with the phrase "Jesus donkey". Aspets (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• WYU → Wuyi University  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to University of West Yangon, as at the top of the infobox, it states that WYU is a abbreviation to "West Yangon University", which is an alternative name to this university. Justjourney (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate. Wuyi University (Guangdong) shows abbreviation "WYU"; List all 3 at the new dab; also list Hepburn romanization#Extended romanization for ウュ (wyu); Weiyuan County is abbreviated "WYU" and listed at List of administrative divisions of Sichuan; Wuyuan railway station has the station code WYU; SEEALSOs for WYUS, KWYU (station coded K-region+WYU), -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per IP. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• UWY → University of West Yangon  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Google search mostly brings up the University of Wyoming (which was my expected destination when I typed this term in the search bar). Dab? Mach61 00:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. After searching Google, Bing, and even Yahoo search engines, they all showed University of Wyoming in their top results. Justjourney (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the YMCA Student Center at University of Washington Tacoma apparently is abbreviated "UWY"; so along with West Yangon, a disambiguation page could be built -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per 65.xx. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per IP. University of Wyoming may have several hits when searching for this initialism, but it's by no means a significant majority which is my personal standard for a primary topic. On the first page of my Google search, there were two hits for the student center mentioned by the anon alone. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not sure if UWY should even redirect to University of West Yangon. Growing up in Yangon, I never hear of it as UWY, just WYU. The official English name is University of West Yangon but the student's union uses WYUSU for example. There are no wikipedia-approved sources for any of this though since all the abbreviations are on facebook pages anyways. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs)