This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 5, 2025.

• Josiah Worthington → Dawson's Creek  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Josiah Worthington was the fictional founder of the fictional Worthington University in Dawson's Creek, and is also a character in Neil Gaiman's The Graveyard Book—but isn't currently metioned in any articles. Recommend deletion unless a mention is added. - Eureka Lott 22:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bedana → Pomegranate  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

seems to refer to a couple of things, including pomegranate seeds... but also including those of other fruit, like apples and pitayas (and the entire fruit too sometimes, why the hell not lmao), and seems to be a common surname for unnotable entrepreneurs. unmentioned in the article, refers to something completely different on wiktionary, and i'm not entirely sure what language that's even from consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 19:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Visting the page → World Wide Web#Linking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Visiting the page → Pageview  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

not necessarily a world wide web thing, not necessarily tied to linking. originally created as... i'm just going to call it "an unsourced stub" consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 19:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and ... I'm not a knight from medieval times visiting pages. Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  oh yeah? why is your name "steel1943" then? steel is a material known exclusively for being worn by knights, and anything before 2016 is basically medieval times, so what gives? consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 20:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Haha ... before 2016 ... no lol. If you are serious though, look up the "steel" and "1943" with a space in between in any search engine, and the reference should become obvious. Steel1943 (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Neutral now since I'm currently not sure if Pageview is an appropriate target or not. Steel1943 (talk) 04:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to pageview as {{R from other name}}. Duckmather (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, delete because of the typo (visiting -> visting). I've created the correctly-spelled visiting the page redirect, so this one is unnecessary. Duckmather (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Duckmather: Probably should have waited until this discussion closed for this misspelled (I didn't even notice that) redirect before creating the properly spelled one. Now, I feel it needs to be bundled with this discussion (which I just did with this edit, so you may need to change your stance here.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Consarn: Pinging initial nominator since the properly spelled redirect has been created and added to this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 05:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

eh, i'd actually vote to have that one deleted as well, since i don't think pageview would be an appropriate target consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 10:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• W³ → World Wide Web  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

that's w cubed, suggesting that w = any number not equal to 1. was about to retarget back to w3, but the dab has nothing referred to as that and results only got me unnotable brands, apps, and most terrifying of all, math consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 19:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• retarget to w3. this looks to me like a stylized form of a name or an ASCII representation. I acknowledge, though, that this form is not widely attested in reliable sources. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to w3 per StainedGlassCavern --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to w3 (a dab) as able to catch more potential use cases. Fieari (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to w3. LarryL33k (Contribz) 20:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Spider web pictures → Spider web  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

they're there, sure, but i'm 50% absolutely certain this counts towards wp:notfaq. also, see the history, it's really funny consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 19:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to J Jonah Jameson Delete per nom, we don't have an article on spider web pictures BugGhost 🦗👻 19:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

strong oppose. he wants pictures of spider-man, not the sticky white stuff he- nvm that's a little obvious consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 22:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We have a place where people can actually look at pictures of spider webs. LarryL33k (Contribz) 20:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Alien Magma → Ultraman (1966 TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention of "Alien Magma" at the target article; this is not helpful as a redirect where no context of alien magma is given. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Ultraman Leo characters, Ultraman (character), or Ultraman Leo.--v/r - TP 22:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 16:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Gan q → Ultraman (1966 TV series)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention of "gan" at the target article, much less "gan q". Currently not a helpful redirect as there is no context given to this search term. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Gan-Q has sections in List of Ultraman R/B characters, List of Mega Monster Battle characters, List of Ultraman Gaia characters -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Many possible targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 16:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pakistani kalashnikov → Khyber Pass copy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Pakistani kalashnikov gun → Khyber Pass copy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

No evidence this is used as an alternative name. Cremastra (u — c) 16:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps retarget to Gun law in Pakistan which is the target of Kalashnikov culture. Jay 💬 18:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 20:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we should stop re-listing this. It's fine where it is (a 'Khyber Pass copy' is a kalashnikov-style gun made in Pakistan; sometimes a phrase like "Pakistani kalashnikov" is a generic description, like "American champagne" or "New York-style pizza"), and it would be fine to repoint this to Gun law in Pakistan. This is not "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name", so the fact that the exact words are not mentioned in the target article is irrelevant. Nobody who ends up at the target article will be confused by why they're there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RELIST. This discussion had few participants, lacking arguments, and is close to consensus. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:RELIST: "a discussion should not be relisted more than twice" (emphasis in the original). Very few should get relisted at all, even fewer should get relisted twice, and zero should be relisted a third time. If we can't get enough comments after three tries, then it might have to close as "no consensus". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup! Luckily it's not been relisted more than twice, so we're totally inbounds here. 15 days since the last relist and this was at the bottom not being closed, just a little relist would've been good to get a final opinion! Not sure why you're continuing this, based on the fact that the discussion has now been rejuvenated, I'd say the relist did it's job to get more eyes on the discussion, no? Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• While here, delete this confusing term. No on-wiki evidence that this is an alternate name. This is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, and it is unlikely to be useful. Any claims it is not, is original research until a verifiable source using this term can be provided. (Which at that point it can be neatly added to the article!) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia:No original research says that something is original research if there is no source "somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article". It is not limited to what you call "on-wiki evidence". But if you want on-wiki evidence, then it appears in this book and the title of this article (the text uses the abbreviation 'Pakistani AK'). There you go: Evidence, and this page is 'on wiki'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research also says that "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented." Thanks for citing those sources, that was appreciated! (Those sources being located on this page is not a helpful spot for people searching for "Pakistani kalashnikov" so to any readers this discussion is out of sight out of mind to them. Adding a source here isn't going to be of much help to people who want to read about the phrase "Pakistani kalashnikov". A better spot onwiki would be in the article. But at least there's something here, which is good!) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: "Must be able to", not "Must have already done". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Utopes. (Also, I wanted to cite a nonexistent essay named Wikipedia:Don't bite the regulars, and I'm a bit shocked it doesn't exist.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 16:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. LarryL33k (Contribz) 20:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• .CAMP → Generic top-level domain#New top-level domains  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No longer a mention of this generic top level domain at the target article. Merged after an AfD but such material has since vanished a decade later. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If content from this page was merged into this, then we can't delete it for legal/license reasons, even if that material has since been removed. We have to maintain the history for every revision in an article, not just the current one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: {{R with history}} concerns.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 16:24, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• .apple → Apple Inc.  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This begins the full re-assessment of all redirects in CAT:RAW, tagged as not being mentioned at the target page.

A redirect tagged as pointing to an article without a mention, is not a permanent solution for the redirect. Ever since the establishment of this maintenance category in 2013, many titles in this category have sat here unattended for sometimes well over a decade. Most of which have never had a discussion regarding it. Throughout January, February, March and possibly April, I'd like to be reconsidering the pages that are occupying this bloated category, to see which redirects are genuinely something that can be useful, and which have been a misleading trap for 10+ years. If an article is going to be in that category, I feel there should be a discussion -> consensus that it belongs there, and/or that a mention IS something that should be added to the page that it's targeting.

With that, we have ".apple". This top-level domain is not discussed at the target. No mention of "domain" in the article, and the only mention of ".apple" comes from the www website in the references. People looking for information on this domain will not be able to read about it at the page for the general article. Was apparently merged in 2020, but such material no longer seems to be present in the article's current form, as the "Corporate Identity" section has vanished. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While the article does not contain the exact string ".apple", this actually is discussed in the article in the sentence: "According to Theo Hnarakis, chief executive of Melbourne IT, the decision would "allow corporations to better take control of their brands. For example, apple or ipad would take customers right to those products."" It's an exact quote, so we can't really put the dot it, but I think it's pretty clear from context that it is referring to a .apple generic top level domain. Fieari (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, "generic", "top level", and "domain" are never said anywhere in that quote, and never said anywhere in the entire article for that matter so imo your inference about it being a "clear referral to generic top level domains" is original research.

Luckily, a source would be able to solve the entire issue and we can throw that in the prose, improve the encyclopedia, give generic-top-level-domain searchers a good spot to rest their eyes, and all-in-all actually solve the problem that has now been elucidated at RfD for the first time since its existence as a redirect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:26, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of Internet top-level domains#Brand and corporate top-level domains, where the concept is explained and .apple specifically mentioned. Also, props Utopes for reviewing the redirects without mention category, looks like it'll be a big undertaking! BugGhost 🦗👻 15:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree, this can exactly tells the reader that .apple top domain name exists. Cloud29371 (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes, did you propose this plan anywhere? Do you have any reason to believe that other editors actually want to spend hundreds of hours producing written evidence of consensus for each of more than a thousand redirects?

If you just wanted fewer pages in the cat, then I'd suggest sorting the list by subject area and asking the most active WikiProjects to assess smaller, more focused lists. Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation does this periodically for links they're not sure how to resolve, and it seems to be quite successful for them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfD as a venue settles more than 10,000 redirects every single year. Do people "want" to be discussing 10,000 redirects every year? In a perfect world, every redirect would be totally amazing right out of the gate, but this venue exists because we're not in a perfect world. Believe me, I don't want to be discussing it either. Luckily, Wikipedia is a volunteer-driven project and if someone doesn't want to spend ANY time thinking about redirects, there is no obligation to do so or even visit the page at all. But people do visit the page, because it's an effort to improve the encyclopedia by settling matters about redirects that other editors view to be worth discussion. And in this case, imo ~70% of the pages in that category seem to be worth a discussion. Not something we have to figure out within a single day of course, but spread out over however many months it takes. If not me, somebody else will nominate the exact same titles because this category is a sweet-spot for misleading redirects that nobody else has been willing to find solutions for for over a decade. I've been finding solutions as I scan, but of course some can only be resolved with an RfD discussion in due time. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If RFD does ~10K a year, and you're trying to systematically send ~1K here during the next three months, then you're talking about a 40% increase in RFD's load over the next three months, to produce documentation that AFAICT only you actually want. Maybe chat this up at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), or at least at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion first?

I doubt that "somebody else will nominate the exact same titles" if you don't, but even if they did, each would happen organically, for a specific reason, and organic, situation-based noms tend to get more informed results. "Yo, I dunno about this and nobody's dealt with it by my WP:DEADLINE" doesn't get the quality of responses that "Hey, I saw this in the news, and it didn't end up where I thought it would". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did actually bring it up in advance at WT:RFD that I would WP:BOLDly be beginning a process of seeking deletion on a number of problematic redirects (which CAT:RAW titles generally get deleted with little to no hassle). "Not being mentioned at the target" is a fairly default reason for deletion. The number that was suggested was 15-20 a day maximum, which is what I tried for one (1) singular day (January 24th). After which point, I said on WT:RFD "this isn't working out so I'm stopping the daily nominations". You'll notice I have not created any new nominations since then. Totally correct that there is WP:NORUSH to address these redirects, which is why I didn't do it all in one singular day, and intended to spread out the initiative of deleting problematic redirects at a pace that the general RfD body could manage. And every single one has been replied to by now so I'd say RfD did its job with plenty of time to spare. But I'm still ceasing the project as it was, regardless. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Not being mentioned at the target" seems to be a fairly common rationale for deletion, but it's also one that is frequently not supported by WP:RFD#DELETE. I realize that WP:Nobody reads the directions. We teach our standards by the telephone game:

A newcomer sees a couple of editors mention it here or there, and nobody tells them they're wrong, because those editors are actually using it in the specific circumstance recommended by the written rules. But the newcomer doesn't notice the limited circumstance; it's just a deletion rationale that seems to get accepted, so they use it whenever they want to get something deleted.

The next newcomer sees someone frequently giving this rationale, even in cases in which that (new) newcomer believes it should be mentioned. They are inadvertently 'taught' that deleting redirects that are currently unmentioned is something that you ought to do. Perhaps they conceptualize it as a sort of carrot-and-stick system to incentivize article editors to make sure all the redirects are mentioned, just like some editors send unsourced articles about obviously notable topics to AFD, because while it's theoretically true that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, in practice, if you take the article to AFD, someone will either hand you some sources on the proverbial silver platter, or it'll get deleted, and as someone was saying just yesterday, XFD noms have "absolutely zero obligation" to lift a finger to help out with content, even as they're requiring that other volunteers drop everything to explain why the nom is wrong on a set deadline.

The end result is that after a few years, the community can end up with a whole generation of RFD participants whose behavior does not align with the supposed rules.

I agree that there are problems in CAT:RAW. As an example, there are six different spelling/capitalization/pluralization variations on "African Negro" in CAT:RAW right now, and none of them (or at most one of them) should be there. I also think the cat is significantly underused. There are 100x as many in Category:Redirects with possibilities, and IMO the two cats should be close in size.

But I don't think that it's inherently bad for a redirect to be in that cat (assuming it's actually unmentioned and probably should be mentioned).

In terms of review, I have wished for Category:Redirects with possibilities by WikiProject to cover more WikiProjects, and I think that something similar could be done for CAT:RAW as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 27 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!) 16:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per Bugghost. LarryL33k (Contribz) 17:44, 7 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]

• 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]

• Fhqwghads → Strong Bad#Reception  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is a typo of literal gibberish that gets a single mention at the target and I propose it be deleted. I find it highly unlikely anyone would look up this specific string of gibberish (fhqwhgads) while misspelling it. Departure– (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Fhqwghads and Fhqwgads spellings are both attested on the web. Their existence as redirects aids searching and accidental linking. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per StainedGlassCavern above, tag it with {{R from typo}} if necessary. This is something that someone may want to search for, even in an academic capacity (it's got a hit on google scholar even, a paper talking about the Phrygian mode!), and something so nonsensical is going to have large potential for mistakes and misrememberings. The fact that its a well attested typo helps a lot. Yes, the string is gibberish, but it's actually rather notable gibberish in terms of internet history. Fieari (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Between Life and Death (Twin Peaks) → Episode 29 (Twin Peaks)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This isn't the alt name of the episode, which is Beyond Life and Death (Twin Peaks). Gonnym (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Between Life and Death → Episode 29 (Twin Peaks)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This isn't the alt name of the episode, which is Beyond Life and Death. Gonnym (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incomings links are not for the episode. Gonnym (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was about to merge this discussion with the one above it, but then noticed the same issue: The current incoming links from the article space are for a nonexistent article "Between Life and Death (film)", the sequel to the subject at Evening Bell (film). Steel1943 (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• One the Wings of Love (Twin Peaks) → List of Twin Peaks episodes#Season 2: 1990–1991  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This isn't the alt name of the episode, which is On the Wings of Love (Twin Peaks). Gonnym (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 3002 → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I created a list of 71 redirects form specific years to Timeline of the far future, none of which are mentioned except for 3001 (year), though List of future astronomical events mentions 6757. At time of writing, the only other years mentioned on the page are 3183, 30828, 275760, and 292277026596.

This year has a article in its history that lasted 17 minutes, and is inked only from Victory (Puff Daddy song). Search finds many other instances of the number, which is common for four-digit numbers. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A currently ongoing RfC seems to suggest that the best outcome for this is to revert the BLAR and discuss at AfD. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, ironically per that rfc. the question of whether a blar would be worth reverting if it was just unsourced cruft (as this one very blatantly was) went at best unanswered. restoring something like this and taking it to afd, just because it doesn't necessarily meet a csd, would at best only add a week to the death timer while improper content gets shoved back into mainspace consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 12:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Infobox economic conflict → Template:Infobox military conflict  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This infobox is not designed to be used for "economic conflicts". Remsense ‥ 论 08:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This redirect currently has 2 transclusions in the article space. Specifically, one of the pages, Pork War, doesn't seem like a military conflict, so most likely a different infobox should be used? Steel1943 (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2026 Orange Bowl → Orange Bowl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No relevant information regarding the 2026 Orange Bowl at the target, except that it will serve as a quarterfinal for the college football playoffs in 2026. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The 2025 Orange Bowl already ended. This game is one year away, so keep. Abhiramakella (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a good reason to keep a redirect. The redirect is misleading in its current state as anybody who searches for the term will be led to a place that doesn't provide any relevant instantly, and we constantly see redirects for events a year away get deleted for this very reason. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL, it's too soon, etc. Steel1943 (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — while this is a scheduled sporting event for January 2026, it is WP:TOOSOON to create an article or redirect. Dmoore5556 (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:CRYSTAL is regarding article creation, and I fully agree with it for that purpose. I disagree that it can be applied blanketly to redirects, especially as the Orange Bowl article does discuss the 2026 Orange Bowl in the text of the article. There isn't much there, yet, but there IS information, and anyone searching for information on next year's Orange Bowl will be directed to the place that has that information. Fieari (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fieari: If I were looking for information on this event this redirect would lead me to a place with basically nothing. It being the semi final of the college football playoffs is not meaningful context, and it's, in a sense, misleading for that reason. It doesn't provide any information beyond stating it's the semi finals match. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "the Orange Bowl will serve as either a quarterfinal or semifinal each year. It served as a semifinal in 2025 and will serve as a quarterfinal in 2026." That's potentially useful information. No, it's not much, but it's what information exists, and if someone is looking for it, why not give it to them? Why deliberately withhold it? Also, "ESPN reached a new deal with the game's organizers in November 2012 to extend its rights through 2026" which says that this is the last year of ESPN's deal. Again, not much, but it is information, and we do have it. Is presenting this information to a searcher somehow more insulting than giving them literally nothing? I honestly can't see that being the case. Fieari (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We're not withholding anything because the information given is so minuscule. WP:RETURNTORED is a better option in this situation. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A similar RfD discussion opened the same day as this discussion, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 28#"2026 ... Bowl" redirects, was closed to "delete". Steel1943 (talk) 05:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. LarryL33k (Contribz) 20:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Seventh Millennium → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Adding on to the many Timeline of the far future RfDs today. Seventh millennium with a lowercase m already exists, the capital-M redirect has no pages linking to it and anyone using the search bar will be brought to the lowercase-m redirect. I am bad at usernames (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as harmless. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LaundryPizza03: Can you explain why you brought 3500 (year) to RfD but are !voting to keep this? What difference do you see between these two redirects? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is well-established that the 7th millennium is something that people will search for. 3500 (year), on the other hand, is a single year far into the future. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Likely search term. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, especially given that the 7th millennium isn't even mentioned at the target (feel free to correct me if my math is wrong). Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. People might search this. LarryL33k (Contribz) 20:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Do the same as "Seventh millenium". I see that the lowercase version is currently being kept, therefore my !vote is to keep this as well as an alternate capitalization. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 14:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Tinker des moines → Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Tag this under "Wikipedia is not Google." Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, not seeing a problem here? "Tinker" and "des moines" are both in the title, and legal decisions may often be referred to colloquially without the "v". Is there another topic this could be referring to? (Tinker v des moines exists). Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have a strong overall opinion. But I don't think they are really referred to colloquially without the "v"? Anecdotally I don't remember hearing people ever say Brown Board (Brown v. Board of Education) or Roe Wade (Roe v. Wade) or anything like that. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a case by case basis, "brown board" might be ambiguous because of Tackboard. But I don't think anyone would have a doubt what you're referring to when one says "roe wade". In absence of anyone being named "Roe Wade" that could cause ambiguity. But I'm sure I've heard the phrase "roe wade" in particular and I'd say that's probably a good redirect as well. "Roe wade was overturned" and etc. In this situation, "tinker" and "des moines" are specific enough that this title is probably cheap enough with a mention of the two key parties. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard Obergefell Hodges and "Dobbs Decision", there are 100% other ways people say cases, and Tinker Des Moines is how I had heard it. I've made other redirects of phrases like this, such as 3 branches for Separation of powers. akidfrombethany!(_talk|^contribs) 13:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not Google is a pretty bad justification at RFD. Wikipedia is not a search engine, but RFD is the main place where we improve the search functionality, it's the main reason for redirects to exist. I think this is a plausible search term for this article, so Keep. BugGhost 🦗👻 09:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, redirects are cheap. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Redirect makes sense. LarryL33k (Contribz) 20:11, 7 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]

• Controversial autism therapy → Applied behavior analysis  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

A cursory search indicates that ABA is one of multiple "treatments" for autism, all of which appear controversial to an extent, with this particular one apparently attracting more controversy due to being the most popular. Therefore, I think this redirect is ambiguous (and even if it weren't, probably not a likely enough search term to justify a clearly non-neutral redirect). — Anonymous 03:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No I think it's just this one, as it is controversial in the autistic community and it's not just because it's the most popular, its because of the mental health outcomes of autistic people who have had ABA and because it encourages normalization (all of witch is mentioned on the page). There arnt any other ones that I know of that are as bad as this one. Anthony2106 (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask WP:AUTISM to come vote on my side or is that against the rules? Anthony2106 (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

too late, i already did that consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 12:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony2106, look up "bleach therapy" and "chelation therapy". They certainly appear much more controversial (and probably much less effective) than this. Also note that telling people to come vote on your side in any discussion is called canvassing and against WP rules. — Anonymous 13:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay these two you pointed out seem worse, maybe it should be changed, maybe re-targeted, couldn't be a disambiguation page could it? I've already made 8 bad redirects I don't wanna add to the list. Anthony2106 (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually make DAB pages for vague descriptive terms. Also, it seems we only have an article for this one. — Anonymous 14:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I support anyone developing a Wikipedia article on this topic, but opinionated disambiguation pages for topics where there are multiple perspectives are beyond what editors can manage. I support anyone criticizing this therapy. It seems developed in the 1960s, so I am sure like most psychological therapies it has been challenged. Wikipedia is not effective for setting SEO for disambiguation pages, so if the intent is to find readers seeking this term, then keeping this page will not achieve that anyway. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ABA is still controversial, enough said. LarryL33k (Contribz) 17:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @LarryL33k the problem the nom proposed is that it's not the only controversial flavor of "autism treatment" (whatever autism is) consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 20:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's true, but Most people who search up "Controversial Autism Treatment" would most likely be looking for ABA, anyway. LarryL33k (Contribz) 04:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @LarryL33k, is there any way to prove this? If anyone ever actually searches it, we have no way of confirming which of the multiple "controversial autism therapies" they are looking for. — Anonymous 02:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Excuse me what is "whatever autism is"? There is an autistic person right here! Anthony2106 (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Consarn I forgot to @ you Anthony2106 (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Anthony2106 the reason a good handful of "autism treatments" are seen as controversial can be attributed to them being based on misunderstandings of what autism is or isn't, and whether or not it's something worth "treating" or "fixing". case in point, i've been autistic all along! maybe! the diagnosis was done at birth and was torn between autism and a really shitty respiratory system so i can't actually be 100% sure until i have that checked again but shush

  that aside aside, this is why my vote will be to delete, since it wouldn't be a fitting topic for a redirect or dab. if the concept can be expanded into an article about controversial treatments, i'd really recommend playing it safe and working with a draft until it's at least c-class consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 11:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, we don't redirect descriptions of things to the thing itself. Google is there, as is the Wikipedia search engine. No need for this redirect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dinosaur Sex → Dinosaur Comics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target article. Launchballer 01:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• We can only imagine what a person who searches "dinosaur sex" is looking for. Probably Dinosaur#Reproductive biology, but as it stands, the article doesn't seem to have any information on the actual copulation process. I think delete this for now. — Anonymous 03:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dinosaur reproduction would be a perfectly good target for the sentence-case dinosaur sex, but the two things in Wikipedia correctly called "Dinosaur Sex" in title case are not worth either a redirect or a dab page. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]