The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Editors arguing in favor of deletion expressed concern about the redirect's neutrality and questioned whether the term could be considered "established." Some editors also pointed out instances of similar comparisons in the history of American politics. Other editors argued that the redirect should be retargeted. These arguments largely did not reference policy, but did express the claim that the redirect is a plausible search term. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• America's Hitler → Political positions of JD Vance#Donald Trump and the 2020 presidential election  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Page redirect to discussion of the time Vance called Donald Trump "America's Hitler". I think since Vance is the most prominent figure to compare Trump to Hitler, this is an understood target. But, there are others to figure:

• At Donald Trump and fascism; there are instances of popular political figures saying similar remarks about Trump being Hitler.
• At Donald Trump; directing the phrase to Trump himself could also be viable. BarntToust 22:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also note that the designation "America's Hitler" is a term that has been directed towards Trump for only less than a decade. BarntToust 22:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Donald Trump and fascism, mild opposition towards deletion. It is a term that has seen its discourse changed from what merely was Vance's opinion. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Retarget – Don’t recall ever hearing of a comparison to Hitler. Prefer deletion, but if everyone wants to retarget, I won’t oppose. No preference on which target. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On Trump and fascism, there is, among others, this: "Trump's comments comparing his political enemies to "vermin" who will be "rooted out" have been compared by several historians to fascistic rhetoric made by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini". So there are the instances of a Trump-Hitler comparison. There's a problem: Vance is the highest-profile person to make the comparison so Political positions of JD Vance works, but there's also discourse on Trump and fascism, and the term could refer to Donald Trump himself. BarntToust 23:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Regardless of whether or not it’s been mentioned @BarntToust; it doesn’t appear to be a likely search term in my opinion (except for the select few people who search for it to see if the redirect exists), like I said, I won’t stand in the way of everyone wants to retarget, but my first preference is still for deletion. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Trump and fascism, which discusses the topic itself rather than just being a guy who said it. I oppose deletion, it's a very plausible search term. Fieari (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I only see it plausible for those playing the game 'Does Wikipedia have redirect with this weird title'. ExclusiveEditor _{🔔 Ping Me!} 14:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Would this be a drinking game or a party game? BarntToust 04:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn’t really matter what kind of “game” it is. People do get curious and they want to see if a particular redirect exists, I know I’ve done that before. But I don’t think it is going to be used by anyone for any serious purpose. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:47, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Doing what the “ping me” says to do for @ExclusiveEditor. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @BarntToust: Perhaps a YouTube game maybe. ExclusiveEditor _{🔔 Ping Me!} 14:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Of no real value and an unlikely search term. PackMecEng (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Donald Trump and fascism, for reasons stated above. BappleBusiness^[talk] 01:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Donald Trump and fascism.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget, or delete. I searched Google, restricting my searches before 2016, 2024, and other dates, and was surprised to find that Trump-Hitler comparison was always a thing. However, it is a bit shaky whether this specific phrase counts as an "established term" per WP:RNEUTRAL, and this redirect give off the wrong tone that Trump = Hitler, when this comparison is obviously controversial. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Any such defamatory redirect should be taken seriously, even before it is created. Although there may exist a wide comparison between Donald Trump and Hitler, redirect's purpose is not to have a title for all possible alternative names anybody could come up with. No real person wanting to read about Trump's act related to fascism will likely type 'America's Hitler' to get the result. The page had virtually zero views before it was listed here, other than few views, most probably from the creator themselves. Redirects should have at least some usability, even if hypothetical, which I don't see here. ExclusiveEditor _{🔔 Ping Me!} 14:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that it is used in few quotes from "best-known source", I will soften my delete stance a bit, but other points are still valid. ExclusiveEditor _{🔔 Ping Me!} 05:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Donald Trump and fascism which is a more logical endpoint and covers the topic on a broader scale. RachelTensions (talk) 16:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fake news. --AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Might be seen as an offensive re-direct. GoodDay (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think this would be an offensive redirect. I believe it would very informative, if it redirects to Donald Trump and fascism. EarthDude (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a likely search term. Mgasparin (talk) 06:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Many right of center people in America are brandished as Hitler and so on. This is not a typical term used to describe Trump. R. G. Checkers ^talk 06:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I'm Italian. Reading the comments of some American Wikipedians comparing Trump to Hitler is almost comical; unfortunately, making this absurd and nonsensical comparison means not having studied the basis of the Second World War, or having studied it only from a US-centric point of view. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a common slur within American politics that has been used against numerous targets; Glenn Beck invoked it so frequently during Obama's first term that Lewis Black joked that he had "Nazi Tourette's."LM2000 (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Donald Trump and fascism EarthDude (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget Donald Trump and fascism. (It is at minimum keep given its mention in five separate articles.) Hyphenation Expert (talk) 23:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article has similar information on the usage of the phrase "America's Hitler" to Donald Trump and fascism but retargetting to that article could be construed as Wikipedia calling him "America's Hitler", which we obviously wish to avoid. Therefore in my opinion the status quo is best. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Widely thrown-about, ambiguous term. In 2028 this will all be forgotten and somebody else will be called it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : I would consider this redirect to be a a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (NPOV) issue.

I am also of the opinon that this is a bad comparison (see Nazi analogies#Donald Trump)

The subject of the article is not commonly referred to as such from what ive seen and heard and so im gonna disagree with this idea. Josephwhyman041104 (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete : a quote that has been disavowed should not be the basis of an entire redirect and to ascribe a title to someone, especially if the redirect is to a Trump-specific page as some have mentioned doing here, violates WP:NPOV Anon0098 (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems like it could be a WP:BLP violation. ✶Quxyz✶ 18:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trump is not the only American to be compared to Hitler and probably won't be the last. It also isn't a likely search term. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Donald Trump and fascism. A user who hears the phrase and looks it up is probably looking for an explanation of its use, not for one man who happened to say it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, partially because it's simply an unhelpful search term (as others have said, Trump is not the only American to have been compared to Hitler). More importantly, this seems to be running into problematic territory given that this is a clearly non-neutral nickname (that isn't particularly widely used) being apply to a living person. — Anonymous 21:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as others have stated, the redirect wasn't even used, and the redirect itself crosses into the danger zone, literally. I find this redirect better deleted than retargetted because it's not even used, and doesn't look like a plausible redirect anyways. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I would say that this is a bit of an NPOV issue. Not that it's ever going to get used. —FPTI (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirects are allowed to violate NPOV as they are not user facing... users will generally not be presented with a list of everything that redirects to a target. Fieari (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is wikipedia, not google or a dictionary. Mention of the term in relevant existing articles should be sufficient. 86.183.140.110 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BLP contentious material of no value. Kenneth Kho (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This could be closed now. -𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor _{Ping Me🔔} 09:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, a closer could by now analyse the merits of all sides of this argument and determine which road to drive down. BarntToust 22:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) feminist🩸 (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Patients First → Kim Holt  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not sure this is a cromulent redirect. It appears the redirect target founded an advocacy organization in the United Kingdom by this name - but it's also the name of a chain of urgent care centers in the United States, which may be notable enough for an article, and (even if not) is much more likely to be what Wikipedia readers think of, and thus should be at least redlinked - perhaps this redirect should be moved to Patients First (advocacy group)? The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate using my draft. I have in any case created Patients First (advocacy group) to replace incoming redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate per Shhhnotsoloud. Moving is no longer needed since the other redirect was created. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Super Mario 64#Rumors, conspiracy theories, and glitches. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• L is real 2401 → Super Mario 64  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• L is real → Nintendo data leak  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

omg just like death note. classic case of different targets, though the numberless redirect does happen to target an article that doesn't mention the number. what do? consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

note to self: massxfd doesn't seem to notice when redirects target sections consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 20:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget/Refine all to Super Mario 64#Rumors, conspiracy theories, and glitches, where the phrase is discussed in its original context, and a link is available there to the Nintendo data leak article, so all user purposes are served. Fieari (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget both to Rumors section per Fieari's logic czar 02:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget according to Fieari. Obvious decision. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget, although more specifically Anchor. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 22:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. asilvering (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sonic franchise → Sonic the Hedgehog  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Sonic Drive-In is also a franchise. Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep w/hatnote - Google seems split between the fast food chain and the hedgehog, leaning a bit more towards the hedgehog because, you know, the internet. I usually prefer not to DAB just two items... a hatnote is usually preferable in that situation. Based on the slight favoring of the hedgehog to the fast food place on google, that means the redirect should go to the hedgehog, and the hatnote added there. Weak !vote because I'd be more than happy to DAB it if a third target was plausible, and I don't feel strongly enough to object if someone were to propose retargeting the fast food franchise and hatnoting there. Fieari (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is where things can get kind of dicey: Wikipedia tends to use the disambiguator "(franchise)" for media-based topics (Sonic (franchise), Sonic the Hedgehog (franchise), etc.), whereas technically the use of the disambiguator without parenthesis does not seem to have that emphasis. In addition, the current target has more affinity with the phrase "Sonic the Hedgehog" that it does with just the word "Sonic". In other words, I'm thinking the path forward with this redirect may be "retarget to Sonic" as a {{R from ambiguous term}}. Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 20:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While both targets are perfectly valid, the redirect seems like a more natural way of searching for a fictional franchise than a fast food chain. Anonymous 23:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sonic Drive-In is not a franchise: it's a chain that includes many individually franchised locations. The individual locations are franchises, but the chain isn't. I don't understand why a video game series is called a franchise, but since plenty of other collections of fictional-character media are called franchises, it's reasonable that someone would guess that the hedgehog character's world has "franchise" in its title. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, pageview stats and a brief search of the Googles suggests that Sonic the Hedgehog is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This seems like a good nominee for a redirect hatnote, and I think I'll add one. Carguychris (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per page view stats posted by Carguychris, making the case that the hedgehog is clearly the primary topic. The hedgehog also received significantly more page views than the restaurant several months ago, before the hedgehog had an increase in viewership coinciding with the December 2024 movie release.. Frank Anchor 23:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative jazz → Jazz fusion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The phrase "alternative jazz" seems like it would be vague. It is especially moreso vague because the phrase "alternative jazz" does not appear at the target article. May likely be a search term though, as there is a Grammy Award titled "Grammy Award for Best Alternative Jazz Album". That page could explain what it is? Because jazz fusion does not do that. "Alternative" appears nowhere in the article. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The "Background" section of the Grammy Award for Best Alternative Jazz Album page seems to define Alternative Jazz, at least to some degree (paraphrased: there are some jazz artists (named in the article) we don't think fit the norm, so we're shoving them off into an "Alternative" category). Perhaps that's enough? Fieari (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 20:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, alternative jazz is NOT jazz fusion, otherwise it would be labeled... jazz fusion. Alternative jazz more typically incorporates hip-hop influences with heavy synthesizer use and clever production techniques reminiscent of ambient electronica. As per the Grammy Award article referenced by @Utopes, it's not really clearly defined, it's more of a catch-all category for jazz that doesn't fit in an established category, such as... jazz fusion. Honestly, I'm surprised an article doesn't exist, but until it does, I think this should be redlinked rather than pointing to something tenuously associated with it. Carguychris (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:REDYES. I'm also surprised we don't have an article for this. Since someone ought to make one, we should redlink it by deleting the redirect. -- asilvering (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Gulf of Mexico#Name. I've retargeted to this section, suggested in the discussion, as a useful compromise between the various "keep", "retarget", "disambiguate", and "hatnote" arguments. This way, no hatnote is needed to the other bay, since it is mentioned at this location; likewise, readers looking for the executive order itself have a wikilink there to follow. Apologies to the "delete" folks, for whom I have no compromise. asilvering (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Gulf of America → Gulf of Mexico  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Useless redirect for a name that no one uses, prompted by the news cycle. "trump wants to change the name of the gulf of mexico"--sure, but that doesn't mean anything is really going to happen, or, more importantly, that that makes this a viable search term. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Drmies: the name makes sense though because it is in the American Mediterranean Sea. Sahaib (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's another matter, Sahaib, and no one uses that name except for academics. WP:POFR says a "alternative names" can be redirects, but this is hardly established, and it's still a thought experiment (to put it nicely) on the part of the future president of the US. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It should be kept as the inauguration kind of proved that it wasn't a one time thing. Sahaib (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Drmies:, normally you're fairly reasonable, but I think you've swung wide on this one. Redirects are cheap (disambs and hatnotes are too) and the bar for creating them is relatively low. _pbp 04:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. When I heard it on the news, I considered creating this redirect for laffs. And then I immediately recalled that on Wikipedia we shouldn't do things for laffs. At the moment, there's nothing that justifies its existence. It's not an alternate name; it's just an ephemeral spin. If it ever becomes more than that, it can be easily recreated. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above arguments at least for now, until Trump's renaming idea potentially becomes an official thing once he's president (which I hope doesn't end up being successful). Cleebadee (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Until this is an actionable query, it ought to be deleted. It's pre-inauguration Trump bluster, along with the annexation of basically the Western Hemisphere. BOTTO _(T•C) 21:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Nakhodka Bay which used to be known as the Gulf of America – until we actually have proper information on this, at which point retarget back or disambiguate. Note that there is discussion of a previous, tongue-in-cheek proposal at Steve Holland (politician). J947 ‡ ^edits 21:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is actually a good idea. Thanks for bringing this up, I didn't know it! Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I support this retarget proposal as it'd become a much more meaningful redirect. Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉edits 10:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep / refine now in light of the added mention. I am against disambiguation due to the clear existence of a primary topic: the hatnote will suffice. Meanwhile, despite the mention of this term in the lede I would slightly prefer refining to the specific section, Gulf of Mexico#21st century, over keeping as is – but that's a toss-up, for mine. J947 ‡ ^edits 10:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or retarget to Nakhodka Bay per above. Both are good outcomes. This is just another episode of the president-elect looking at a map of things near the US and declaring that they should all belong to him. Not an actual alternate name for the Gulf of Mexico. I do like the retarget suggestion, though. Nakhodka Bay does seem to be a valid target; the English Wikipedia version cites no sources, but Russian Wikipedia does provide sources verifying that Nakhodka used to be called the "Gulf of America." Maybe then, readers who key "Gulf of America" expecting to see a paragraph about Trump's improv ramblings (something which doesn't exist as there's consensus against mentioning this at Gulf of Mexico) would learn something new instead.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is indeed a very insightful find. The article badly needs references to this claim. I am having some trouble finding sources but it's most likely because I'm not using Russian. – The Grid (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While I appreciate the retarget suggestion, if it were retargeted, the Nakhodka Bay would need to be hatnoted to direct confused readers looking for Gulf of Mexico, where the term (quite rightly) isn't used anyway. The Nakhodka Bay article has done quite well for almost 15 years without this redirect, and there's no evidence that readers have typed in "Gulf of America" when they really meant "Nakhodka Bay", and I doubt that anyone now would type "Gulf of America" when seeking that article. I don't see how the retarget would meet WP:RPURPOSE.
  Better a reader get a no-such-article message than being directed to an article they almost certainly were not looking for. See also Principle of least astonishment. TJRC (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless there is some sort of official change. Ericfood (talk | contribs) 05:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There has now been an official name change by the US government. 71.77.77.187 (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as Donald Trump indicated his plans to officially rename the gulf as part of his inauguration speech per [1], there should be a section about the plans to rename it in that article. Grumbly-Payphone-Exchange (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and retarget to a section in the article about the name "Gulf of America". GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The U.S. Government has officially announced the name-change to the Gulf of America; see President Trump's executive order, dated January 20, 2025. It was also officially adopted prior to that on the state level (i.e.: in Florida). It would be inappropriate and contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines to delete the redirect – especially given the aforesaid official developments. Infrastorian (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rc2barrington (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and retarget for now: As long as the name is recognized by national or even federal jurisdiction, the title is relevant enough to be an alternative name for the location. Due to its novelty, it should currently redirect to a self-referential section per the statements above. If it becomes more popular, however, it should simply redirect to the page top.
— Urro^{[talk][edits]} ⋮ 23:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as link to Gulf of Mexico with a brief explanation and perhaps an evolving update of implementation and consequences. In coming years this has the potential to become part of a collection of oddities that only existed during the Trump presidency. At some point we might want to try and make sense of what happened to the US and to the world during 2025-2029 and one single article will not be sufficient. 86.183.140.110 (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Nakhodka Bay, which actually was that until the 1970s. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• ’’’delete’’’ there is no reason to create a redirect for a thought bubble, and there’s going to be a lot more of them Flat Out (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Nakhodka Bay per Travellers Tinkers. --SHB2000 (talk) 21:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or make Disambiguation with Nakhodka Bay. Understanding Wikipedia editors' biases, the deletion of this redirect feels more like warfare against the current news cycle than actual stewardship of the site. As user TJRC suggested, it would probably cause more problems than benefits to simply retarget. Though it isnt *correct* to refer to the Gulf as the "Gulf of America", people will likely be searching for the Gulf of Mexico when they try to access the redirecting page. The best course of action would then be to Keep the redirect as it is.

2601:541:101:D4D0:CC1E:1B05:87C5:48C7 (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Create a disambiguation page where we can list both articles. If that is not an option, I would propose changing the target as per @Travellers & Tinkers suggestion. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Create a disambiguation page This term is reported in global media, obviously notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. I'm totally unexpected to see Wikipedia-style anti-Trumpism here for a term about Trump rather than an article about this news event. Midleading (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. While I am against the renaming of the "Gulf of Mexico" article to "Gulf of America". I can see no reason why a redirect from an official name for the gulf should be deleted. The proposed deletion of the redirect, does seem more political. Coming from people who are upset with the change. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Nakhodka Bay, as the phrase is used in some older sources to refer to that bay[2]. If sources can be found using it to refer to the Gulf of Mexico, it might be worth disambiguating, but I couldn't find any such sources on Google Books (the closest was this one discussing a satirical renaming proposal). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Nakhodka Bay which used to be known as the Gulf of America until the 1970s. gtp (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Create a disambiguation page. The term does not refer to anything now, so redirect doesn't make sense to me. (Search can still find it if it's on a page.) Disambiguation might make sense since it can explain the terms and help people to the right page. Mdnahas (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's useful to provide redirects for historical terms; we even have Template:R from former name to label them. Readers may encounter the historical name when reading an old book and want to look it up (it's happened to me many times). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A retarget to Nakhodka Bay might be useful to historians. If these statements gain notability on a longer term, it might be worth writing something into Mexico-United_States relations#Second Trump administration (or a similar article), and disambiguating between Nakhodka bay and that. Vkb123 (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Nakhodka Bay. It is the most plausible redirect for "Gulf of America" at this time, because although Trump suggested "Gulf of Mexico" needed to be renamed as "Gulf of America", there's no yet a legislative approval or international recoginition regarding the supposed alternative term for "Gulf of Mexico". Additionally, there's a historical precedent that Nakhodka Bay was named as "Gulf of America" until 1970s. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I shouldn't even have to explain this. Making this the "Gulf of America" is silly nonsense. And it would only confuse wikipedia readers even more. The Gulf of Mexico is just the Gulf of Mexico. The UN recognized this name, literally every other country does as well, and it has historically been - and always will be Gulf of Mexico, regardless of what Donald Trump may say. I mean this is the same man saying that Canada should "become the 51 state", it just can't be taken seriously. --Leohasdementia (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Leohasdementia: Why not retarget to Nakhodka Bay? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  i see no actual reason to do this ngl. Leohasdementia (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well Donald Trump just signed an executive order officially changing the name in the United States. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the rationale if for relisting. There is a clear consensus to retarget this page to Nakhodka Bay almost 2:1 to those advocating for delete. There is almost no-one suggesting it should be kept. i propose that this discussion is closed and the article is 'RETARGETED' as soon as practicable. 185.13.50.183 (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHURRY, and it wasn't as close as you are making it out to be, especially considering the "disambiguate" votes. Comments after the relist may have worked to resolve this issue already. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...Or not. The comments sure picked up in this discussion after Inauguration Day. Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nakhodka Bay, which had this name for many years and thus is a plausible target. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Nakhodka Bay. This may surprise people searching the term due to WP:RECENTISM, but recent events will pass. And if they don't pass, this can be revisited then. Fieari (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to either Nakhodka Bay or Gulf Coast of the United States. --ExclusiveEditor _{🔔 Ping Me!} 05:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget and hatnote: to Nakhodka Bay per above arguments. If the US government starts calling it by the new name officially (a là the Sea of Japan) I say disambiguate, but otherwise retarget/create disambiguation page. Kmhkei (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per J947. Sustained historical use (even if superseded) is more important than mere recentism, and as Fieari says, we can reconsider in the future if necessary. Nyttend (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget for now per Kmhkei's point Jokullmusic 18:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. With President Trump stating today in his inaugural address that the US government will use this as the name, we really have no choice but to keep this redirect as an alternate name for the body of water commonly known as the Gulf of Mexico. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Stay as redirect to Gulf of Mexico. Only other feasible redirect target is List of nicknames used by Donald Trump#Other but I don't think it quite works there as it's not exactly a nickname. OP doesn't propose any other possible target or change from the status quo so I'm not sure what the intended purpose of this discussion is. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But it probably won't matter in a few hours since this will end up being the title of the article as soon as its signed into law.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article will not be renamed for years, if ever, per WP:COMMONNAME. US policy is not the policy of the whole world. Uberbane (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Official name of the country that it borders should matter.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Gulf of Mexico is also bordered by Mexico and Cuba. Also, WP:OFFICIALNAMES. Donald Albury 21:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Luckily it doesn't matter at all. RachelTensions (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They speak Spanish. This is the English Wikipedia. Jojhutton (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I’m also going to change my !vote to Keep based on Trump’s executive orders. Although I do NOT think that the title of the main article should be changed; and I will object to any move that is made purely on that basis. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Refine to Gulf of Mexico#American name change proposal. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but adjust the target to the Gulf of Mexico#American name change proposal section. RachelTensions (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• to "Keep" !voters - remember that historically Nakhodka Bay was known for many, many years as "Gulf of America". Therefore the correct action (what with the actions today...) is to disambiguate with a link to Gulf of Mexico and a link to Nakhodka Bay. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a full disambiguation page for only 2 entries. The correct thing to do is the hatnote at the top of the Gulf of Mexico article pointing to the other article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.77.187 (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Gulf of Mexico#American name change proposal as per Pppery and RachelTensions. The name has been gaining momentum in news media, even more so, like in CBS News and in CNN. We even have a separate article for the West Philippine Sea (WPS), which is being used lately as an alternative name to the South China Sea (even if erroneously), due to the increased tensions between Manila and the Communist Beijing regime. Note that both WPS and Gulf of America are not recognized by the International Hydrographic Organization, yet these are news media-worthy terms that deserve presence here in English Wikipedia. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For whatever it's worth, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis today issued an Executive Order that begins WHEREAS, an area of low pressure moving across the Gulf of America, interacting with Arctic air […] (emphasis added) Trivialist (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the rest of the world goes "where?" Speaking as a Floridian... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it seems the term will stick around in some capacity. Retargeting to a section in that article is fine by me. I would only support disambiguation if more sources supporting the old name for Nakhodka Bay are found, as that article currently has zero references. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Trump has now signed an executive order renaming the gulf. It is likely to be referred as such by some sources, be as dubious as they are. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the entire US federal government now has to call it that. Ultimograph5 (talk) 02:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; given the new executive order, "Gulf of Mexico" is the only target people are likely looking for. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 02:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Given today's executive order that the name will be implemented in the GNIS. Very obvious which way this is going to go. In fact, if I were closing this discussion I would disregard all !votes made before 20 January EST as the situation has clearly changed markedly. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate I found a UNESCO source that historically refer to Nakhodka Bay as "Gulf of America" (also seen at old Nakhodka city website). So, we have undecided which one of two places are primary redirect for "Gulf of America". If we follow WP:RECENTISM, Gulf of America is certainly refer to "Gulf of Mexico", but regarding long-term historical significance, "Nakhodka Bay" also claim a similar place, as it was previously named "Gulf of America" prior to 1970s. So, the best solution for it is disambiguate them with Gulf of Mexico and Nakhodka Bay. 114.10.119.46 (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Gulf of Mexico is now the primary redirect. The hatnote at the top of the Gulf of Mexico article is the correct solution, not a disambiguation page with only 2 entries. 71.77.77.187 (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep per executive order. It has made this nomination look very silly, tbh. StAnselm (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Given the executive order makes the name official in the federal government of the US. --Pithon314 (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Due to recent executive order. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I reopened the discussion because it was closed by non admin-involved user quickly after the new update. Any uninvolved/ bold editor may chose to close this and revert my edits at Gulf of America. Thanks --ExclusiveEditor _{🔔 Ping Me!} 09:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate. This should be a DAB page because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, as at the last DAB version here. Doremo (talk) 09:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:ONEOTHER:

  If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article.

  "Gulf of Mexico" is the primary topic; Nakhoda Bay has not been known as the Gulf of America for over fifty years, and earlier in this discussion it was unclear whether that name was ever used in the first place. Reaffirming my vote to keep as "Gulf of Mexico". — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 14:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep due to the recent executive order, though it might be appropriate to retarget to section "Renaming proposals" instead as the name is mainly used in regard to the renaming proposals. 1F616EMO (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing my vote to Retarget to "renaming proposals" section given the recent developments. Jokullmusic 15:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per executive order. Senior Captain Thrawn (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no gulf called the "Gulf of America." --Tataral (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  According to the President of the United States, there is now. I personally think the renaming is a little silly, but he's the POTUS. You and I are not. Raider Duck (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  According to the United States government, there is now. 71.77.77.187 (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Gulf of America is now the official naming for this water and many countries will follow this renaming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9E8:CAE5:7900:A109:9AEE:E472:4C71 (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They will? Can I peer into your WP:CRYSTALBALL? - 70.54.65.107 (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to "renaming proposals" section as suggested by numerous previous comments. Carguychris (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The major problem with this !vote is that there is no such section in the article. StAnselm (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

True, but there is 60,000 bytes of new arguing at Talk:Gulf of Mexico since yesterday morning on this very topic. There should be some kind of centralized discussion to deal with this whole riff-raff, as it has spilled into multiple venues which is not helping with any kind of productive consensus-building (see also similar discussions regarding Denali/Mt. McKinley that have similarly denigrated). - 70.54.65.107 (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I’m going to reiterate my support for keeping here. There’s already an executive order. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hurricane Clyde, I think that if it's widely agreed that the WP:COMMONNAME of the gulf has changed, then the target article needs to be moved to Gulf of America or the lead needs to be rewritten to reflect the new name. I think it's too soon for such drastic changes per WP:CRYSTAL. Carguychris (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant the redirect @Carguychris; NOT the title of the article. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hurricane Clyde (and @StAnselm), I would also support Keeping the redirect per WP:CHEAP. I had been looking at this RfD in isolation and had not noticed what a cluster the other Talk pages had become. Yowza. Carguychris (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and add hatnote targeting Nakhodka Bay. As dubious as it may be, this name is currently officially recognized by a government, and thus will be used in modern official government documents to refer to the Gulf of Mexico, making the Gulf of Mexico the primary topic. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk – edits) 20:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because the executive order went through, meaning the federal government will soon put Gulf of America into actual use. Even if most people call it the Gulf of Mexico it will become an alternative name. The Quirky Kitty (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because Americans will search for the Gulf of Mexico with this name. DOSGuy (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  'Disambiguate' with Nakhodka Bay as the top link as it was known by this name for over 100 years and Gulf as Mexico as the second as its only been known by this name for 2 days and even then only by one English speaking country with no evidence that it is actually in use by anyone. 2A04:4A43:898F:FB21:34A4:EFF5:5124:7758 (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and add hatnote to Gulf of Mexico per CopperyMarrow15. Rlendog (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose Nakhodka Bay, which will be massively confusing to readers who almost certainly are not looking for this article when they search for "Gulf of America". Disambiguation is best IMO, but I would prefer keeping or deleting over retargeting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to section "Renaming proposals" for appropriate coverage of the scope of the executive order. - Donald Albury 22:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As of this timestamp, the section Gulf of Mexico#Renaming proposals does not exist. Stating this since there have been a considerable amount of votes in this discussion to retarget to this nonexistent section. Steel1943 (talk) 23:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: It existed yesterday. The subsection was removed in this edit and thus the correct target would be Gulf of Mexico#Name. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph in Gulf of Mexico § Name currently mentions the executive order, so I suppose that those votes can be treated as referring to that section instead. I would not be opposed to redirecting there, because someone who wants to read about the Gulf of Mexico will probably search the far more common name "Gulf of Mexico", while someone who wants to read specifically about the executive order will be more likely to search "Gulf of America". –CopperyMarrow15 (talk – edits) 23:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Nakhodka Bay and fully protect. — Huntster (t @ c) 00:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The fact that this redirect was never created for that body of water is proof that it is not the primary redirect target. 71.77.77.187 (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:INVOLVE. The fact a redirect/article doesn't exist doesn't mean the topic is not notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't say it wasn't notable. I said it isn't the primary topic for this term. 71.77.77.187 (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to DAB page: including the Gulf of Mexico and Nakhodka Bay. I'd also dissent from the opening rationale: Trump using the term "Gulf of America" (and several news outlets reporting his use) DOES make it a viable search term for a redirect, DAB page or hatnote. _pbp 01:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as link to Gulf of Mexico with a brief explanation and perhaps an evolving update of implementation and consequences. In coming years this has the potential to become part of a collection of oddities that only existed during the Trump presidency. At some point we might want to try and make sense of what happened to the US and to the world during 2025-2029 and one single article will not be sufficient. 86.183.140.110 (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per it being made official via executive order. Symphony Regalia (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and refine to Gulf of Mexico#Name, where the Russian location is also mentioned. I don't think this bell can be unrung, at least for a good while. Let's target this to what it's actually going to be primarily used for in the near future, rather than the obscure Russian location. Hog Farm _Talk 03:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep with refinement to Gulf of Mexico#Name, per Hog Farm. Even without the executive order, the Gulf of Mexico would still likely be the best target per WP:RASTONISH — the name change controversy is likely what most readers would be looking for. Loytra (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate similar to this version, but instead the second should not point to Gulf of Mexico, but instead to the section within Gulf of Mexico that discusses the Executive Order (e.g. Gulf of Mexico#Name) -or- some other article that treats that executive order at more length. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate: The Russian article on Nakhodka Bay has mentioned the Gulf of America since before Donald Trump was president. It says (albeit unsourced) that it still is a common name in the area today. Obviously, we do not have many Russian readers, but we strive to have a global perspective. In addition, when looking at Google Scholar and Books, most Gulf of America mentions relate to the Nakhodka Bay. As seen in this discussion, there is no agreed upon primary target at the time, regardless of what is currently in the news cycle. Why? I Ask (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: Reopened after undoing a non-admin closure per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 January 22. This discussion should accordingly only be closed by an administrator. Sandstein 08:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as redirect, whatever shortcomings the felon-in-chief might have, there's no questions he's given this term currency. older ≠ wiser 13:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I argued for retargeting above, but it seems some US government sources are now using this term for the Gulf of Mexico, or at least part of it[3][4]. It's no longer clear to me that Nakhodka Bay is the primary topic, but equally I don't see any reason to think the Gulf of Mexico is the primary topic. So it makes sense to disambiguate. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would page view statistics possibly change your mind? StAnselm (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. I'm unlikely to be swayed by recent page views, as the fact that one of the topics is in the news would affect them. And I'm sure the article on the Gulf of Mexico gets a lot more views long-term than Nakhodka Bay, but that doesn't mean much for the primary topic here, as the Gulf of Mexico is overwhelmingly referred to as the "Gulf of Mexico", not as the "Gulf of America". But if you can provide evidence that, on a long-term basis, readers who search for "Gulf of America" are much more likely to be looking for the Gulf of Mexico than Nakhodka Bay, I might change my mind. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WereWolf (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to section on naming controversy Seems least problematic. PatGallacher (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly the Gulf of Mexico has become the primary topic based on recent news and President Trump's proposed name change. A hatnote can be added for Nakhodka Bay. Frank Anchor 16:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Gulf of Mexico#Name as people who are searching for "Gulf of America" are almost certainly going to be searching it to see information about the naming controversy / executive order, not general information about the Gulf of Mexico. Jokullmusic 17:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment – Alright, this has been in RfD now three times I believe. Can we please do something with this redirect? I would propose either keeping it or as an alternative, restoring the disambiguation. My official keep !vote is above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (target to Gulf of Mexico) and hatnote (to Nakhodka Bay) - clear primary topic, regardless of the news cycle. How many of you knew that there already was a Gulf of America before this week? A redirect's job is to get readers to the information they're looking for; the bay has had 17,000 pageviews in the last ten years before Monday, and another 15,000 in just the last two days. The redirect didn't even exist at all before someone thought to make it redirect to Gulf of Mexico two weeks ago. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this is bad, a hatnote at the Gulf of Mexico will make every reader of the Gulf of Mexico read a hatnote for the irrelevant Nakhodka Bay. Better to delete or disambiguate. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hatnotes are mostly unobtrusive, and readers can easily skip it. Disambiguation pages are very intrusive, and require readers to load an intermediary page, read it, and then select the link before they get to what they want. Deletion would provide zero help to those who are using a patently reasonable and common search term and is the worst possible outcome of this discussion. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 22:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hatnotes occupy prime real estate at the top of the page. “Unobtrusive and readers can easy skip” would be the perspective of someone familiar with hatnotes.

  No one is forced to read a disambiguation page. Every reader of the article would be forced to see the hatnote.

  The disambiguation page is only for those who choose to specifically go to “Gulf of America”. No article links to it. It’s not a serious topic. In contrast, Gulf of Mexico is a very high traffic page, and virtually none of the readers will have got there looking for “Gulf of America”.

  Deletion would help because it would mean that the proper Wikipedia internal search engine would be invoked for anyone going to the term “Gulf of America”, and that is a good thing, because anyone expecting a topic for “Gulf of America” is confused. Wikipedians should stop using redirects to pre-guess, with prejudice, what readers want. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to DAB page With multiple topics with the same name, a dismbiguation page makes the most sense. Also, this is a global encyclopedia. --Enos733 (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a global encyclopedia. And basically no one on the globe searching "Gulf of America" is looking for Nakhodka Bay. The redirect might get little traffic outside the U.S., but "global" does not mean "ignore one country". — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 22:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC) edited 22:59[reply]

• Disambiguate to include Gulf of Mexico and Nakhodka Bay. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ivanvector. Many of the arguments for a DAB page ignore the fact that one is a far more primary topic than the other. Cremastra (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Executive_Order_14170 the preponderance of sources mentioned in this discussion refer to the act of Trump's "renaming" of the Gulf; the most useful target, therefore, is the order that creates the new name. Until the name is accepted internationally and the Gulf of Mexico actually starts to be called 'the Gulf of America' by sources JeffUK 21:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Associated Press published an announcement which states, "The Associated Press will refer to it by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen."^[1] Denali will be entirely referred to as "Mount McKinley" because it is in full jurisdiction of the United States, unlike the Gulf of Mexico. Many, many publications use AP style. — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 23:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC) — gabldotink [ talk | contribs | global account ] 23:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. asilvering (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Cross Strait Three Regions → Greater China  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Cross Strait Four Regions → Greater China  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Neither "three regions" nor "four regions" are mentioned at the target page. Currently a possibly confusing redirect to Greater China. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 23:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to be a very specific term used sometimes in Hong Kong. Perhaps Cross-strait relations is a better target, or perhaps even Hong Kong–Taiwan relations. CMD (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless we can find evidence that these terms (or Chinese equivalents) are used by sources to refer to something. I imagine the "three regions" would be mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan, and that the "four regions" would include Macao as well, but I'm just speculating. If these phrases are not used by other sources then we're just making stuff up. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Nicktoons (disambiguation). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• NickToons (TV network) → Nicktoons (American TV channel)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect was created as result of an errant page move, which I tagged with R3 as recently created and implausible (but not misnomer) but was reverted, with a statement I should/must list it here, so here it is! Intrisit (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• what exactly is the issue? the capital t (yuck, capital letters), the use of "network" instead of channel, a 3th thing i'm missing...? consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 20:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue here is that this is a recently created redirect from an undiscussed page move on 2 December 2024, but an admin reverted my R3 nomination. Intrisit (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ah, good to know... still not really problematic as a redirect, all things considered consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 14:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No reason why this redirect is harmful has been advanced. Appears perfectly plausible to me. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See my above reply. Intrisit (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What in your above reply says that the redirect is harmful? Jay 💬 23:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This redirect is harmful in the sense that there's already the "Nicktoons (TV network)" rdr already and I see this rdr creation as deliberate; to either remove the "American" from this title given the international Nicktoons channels or that the goal was to retool the Nicktoons DAB page as a set index article, much like the "Fox (channel)" which I nominated on 5 November 2024. Intrisit (talk) 21:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Retarget per Shhhnotsoloud. J947 ‡ ^edits 20:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Nicktoons (disambiguation) consistent with Nicktoons (TV network) (pinging @J947: who may have missed this). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Hog Farm _Talk 14:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• VVikipedia → Wikipedia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible redirect, unless you speak Latin Heyaaaaalol (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pointless and unhelpful. DanielRigal (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• There was just a long long discussion on this. Do we need to go through it again? J947 ‡ ^edits 21:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ah shit, here vve go again...

• delete, for the same reason(s) as in the other rfd and per nom. the vvay i see it, at least, it requires that a reader dip their tongue on one of 3.5 flavors of conveniently forgetting what a w is (misscans/misreadings, latin/medieval english, tpyosquatting), and it hogs space usable for stuff on misspelled domain names consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 21:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous RFD and nom. My favorite flavor of conveniently forgetting what a w is is half blue raspberry, what's yours? mwwv ^converse∫_edits 23:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nobody is going to spell it like that. Sushidude21! (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plausible misreading of the Wikipedia logo. I'm pretty sure I've seen overlapping Vs used in logos to mean "VV" rather than "W" once or twice. Not that strong of an argument, but redirects are cheap, and this isn't generalizable to all Ws. (Copy-pasted from last time since nothing has changed.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do agree with Tamzin, but "vvikipedia.com" and "vvikipedia.co" also exist. Additional note: Vikipedia is currently a redirect to List of Wikipedias, and WWikipedia redirects to Wikipedia. x RozuRozu • ^tea_cups 05:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vikipedia or Vikipediä is the localized name for Wikipedia in Farsi, Lezgian, and Lak, according to that list, so it makes sense for that term to be targeted there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 06:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then, if WWikipedia goes to Wikipedia, should VVikipedia go to List of Wikipedias? x RozuRozu • ^tea_cups 23:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - 1st of all, we just had this discussion. It's kinda rude to bring it back up so soon... badgering isn't the best way to gain consensus. Can't we give it a break? That said, my arguments from the previous discussion have only changed from "hey, the stats aren't available yet, let's see if this gets some use..." to "the stats are available now, it definitely gets use and thus is useful". Why is it useful, what makes it plausible? While I can only speculate, I'd hazard a guess that OCR errors contribute heavily to its use. That's definitely not worthless! WP:CHEAP applies, the target is unambiguous, and it is harmless to boot. And to reiterate, "it's useful to someone" is a valid reason to keep here at RfD (in stark contrast to AfD!) and the pageviews for the very limited time this thing has been up demonstrates pretty clearly that it is, in fact, useful to someone. It may not be useful to you, but that's fine. It doesn't have to be useful to you personally to be useful to someone. Fieari (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; not a plausible typo or misspelling. No affinity; that's just what w's are. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Who is going to Wikipedia, looking for the page on Wikipedia itself, and then misspelling it with VV in the search bar? The logo with the correct spelling is right there, along with the name in the URL bar. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of Wikipedias. I think it is plausible that WWikipedia goes to Wikipedia, and VVikipedia goes to Vikipedia. As Vikipedia is a plausible redirect to List of Wikipedias, VVikipedia should go there as well. If someone was looking for Wikipedia, they wouldn't have too much trouble finding it as the wikilink is in the first word of the article. They would also realize that the logo is not composed of two Vs. x RozuRozu • ^tea_cups 07:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• DDelete: sssilly. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

that's a keep, a strong keep, and a retarget to 6 deletes and a me. honestly, i don't think it should have been relisted. my favorite flavor vvas none pizza vvith left beef by the vvay, though greenberry has grovvn on me just after this rfd consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 20:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, WP:NOHURRY, and I felt the "keep" comments had some valid points that counteracted the "delete"s. Beats no one responding to the discussion to give it attention to ensure it gets closed correctly. (...And I'm saying this as someone who just realized they are apparently WP:INVOLVED in the previous discussion ... meh, IDC the outcome of this redirect's fate anymore.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and sent it to VVP:DAFT per nom VVarm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I find it unlikely someone would look up a misspelling of "Wikipedia" on Wikipedia - if you know enough to use Wikipedia you know how to spell it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete More people know how to correctly type Wikipedia than those vv31rd typing things. I sure hope we don't get hit with a "no consensus" again because I worry that someone will eventually go for 3rd, and then 4th attempts at this rate. nominator seems to be indeffed, but that isn't related to this RfD. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 06:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was withdraw. Renominating titles without mention. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dent (Pokémon) → List of Pokémon characters#Unova Gym Trainers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Pod (Pokémon) → List of Pokémon characters#Unova Gym Trainers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Corn (Pokémon) → List of Pokémon characters#Unova Gym Leaders  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Cilan (Pokémon) → List of Pokémon characters#Unova Gym Trainers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Aloe (Pokémon) → List of Pokémon characters#Unova Gym Leaders  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Lenora (Pokémon) → List of Pokémon characters#Unova Gym Trainers  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

A bundle of unmentioned Pokemon redirects to non-existent anchors mentioning "Unova". Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget Cilan (Pokémon) to List of Pokémon anime characters, where he is mentioned there. (Oinkers42) (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, missed that. Let's throw Dent (Pokémon) there too as an alt-lang of Cilan. The other four seem very unmentioned, however, after taking another gaze around and searching for the keywords with "Pokemon". Those four seem to be good to go (delete). In this expanded look, Lenora has a mention on the Lenora dab an an entry on List of black video game characters, but I don't think retargeting there is most helpful solution; the page already comes up in a Wikipedia search. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in an attempt to resolve the WP:TRAINWRECK potential of this nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, I mean like, at this point my POV is retarget Cilan and Dent, and delete the rest. I bring up the mention of Lenora because there is a mention, but I don't think it's amazingly helpful as a redirect. I'm willing to withdraw these and nominate the remaining three separately though, because I don't foreseen Cilan or Dent being at all controversial at this point. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete The "restore to article" !vote is inadmissible since it is requesting a copyvio be restored. That leaves only supporters of deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bruno of Hollywood → Bruno Bernard  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Bruno of Hollywood, NYC → Bruno Bernard#Bruno of Hollywood, NYC  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Absolutely no relation to Bruno Bernard, as proven by another editor in 2023. Jalen Barks (Woof) 15:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:REDYES. "Bruno of Hollywood" was the alias used by the photographer Anthony J. Bruno (1894-1976), on whom we do not have an article - his NYT obituary is here (behind paywall). If an article on him is created, that's where the redirect should be - until it is, it should be deleted. Tevildo (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• RESTORE to article. JalenBarks removed the article about the photographer Anthony J. Bruno (1894-1976) the article Bruno of Hollywood, NYC

his NYT obituary is here (not behind paywall). (via: web.archive.org)

Bruno Bernard and Bruno of Hollywood, NYC

User:JalenBarks removed content from the article and from the edit history from both pages, falsely claiming copy violation of an image from mediawiki commons and a two sentence quote from the NY Times.

The there was a quote of two sentences from the NY Times. There are larger prior quotes on wikipedia. The image is from wikimedia commons.

Bruno Bernard is "Bruno Bernard", and never used "Bruno of Hollywood, NYC"

User:JalenBarks removed the article and talk page about Anthony J. Bruno (1894-1976) (Bruno of Hollywood, NYC) with about eight references.

User:JalenBarks removed content from the edit history from both pages Bruno Bernard and Bruno of Hollywood, NYC

please acknowledge and restore the article Bruno of Hollywood, NYC

"If an article on him is created, that's where the redirect should be"

69.181.17.113 (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Absolutely no relation to Bruno Bernard, as proven by another editor in 2023." huh? 69.181.17.113 (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the quote was from half of a sentence at https://web.archive.org/web/20100114225258/http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/nyregion/11photog.html 69.181.17.113 (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to correct the IP's statement here: the IP attempted to give credit on both Talk:Bruno of Hollywood (see here) and Talk:Bruno of Hollywood, NYC (same content) using the Commons image. The quote used on both the target article and the attempted article was copied direct from the NY Times reference. Even if sourced, Wikipedia cannot accept articles or sections entirely copied from a source. Even if admins take your word for it, the article needed more sources to stay on Wikipedia anyway. Jalen Barks (Woof) 04:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add in response to other claims by the IP: I am not an admin. The revision deletion was handled by someone else with administrator rights. (See logs) Jalen Barks (Woof) 05:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to re-emphasize this since we don't have a clear consensus on this yet. These redirects were initially created during a time when an initial snippet about Anthony J. Bruno (who these redirects are about) was included in the article about a completely different person, Bruno Bernard. This snippet has since been removed by @Abebenjoe and revdel'd by @Rsjaffe. The exact cause for this discussion is an article attempt by the IP that commented on this very discussion, using similar text from an attempt by 0mtwb9gd5wx. Whether the IP is the user editing while logged out is an entirely different story, and if checked, should be done independent of this discussion. I am not opposed to the creation of a fresh article about the photographer if enough info about him can be found; the redirect just feels out of place as it's not a known nickname for Bernard. Jalen Barks (Woof) 04:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• First choice - Delete both because of ambiguity and because search results help better. Whatever IP said was because of misunderstandings. As an ATD, retarget Bruno of Hollywood to Paul Mantee and tag as {{R from novel}}. Retarget Bruno of Hollywood, NYC to List of photographers of stage and film (a sad list really) which contains a sourced entry for redlink Tony Bruno (photographer). Jay 💬 21:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. asilvering (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki encyclopedia → Wikipedia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Implausible Heyaaaaalol (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, seems plausible and it does get some views. "Wiki" is Wikipedia's nickname, and for the most part is an encyclopedia, so those few poor souls who search for it then end up in the right spot. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ambiguous, as there are plenty of other wiki encyclopedias with articles here, at which point it becomes a case of WP:XY between two targets, neither of which have information specific enough about the intersection to justify a redirect. And yes, Wikipedia is certainly the largest and most well known of them, but you have to believe that someone browsing WP who wants to find information about WP, what with "Wikipedia" emblazoned all over it, really doesn't need this redirect to find it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per IP editor above. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget: Target Wiki, as a subtopic of that page. Tule-hog (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why target Wiki and not Encyclopedia. This is the problem with WP:XY that I mentioned above. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  'Wiki encyclopedia' is inquiring about applications of the Wiki schema to encyclopedias. An alternative is Encyclopedia § Digital encyclopedias, but it seems more apt to link from there to the Wiki-specific notion. Tule-hog (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Picher deadly tornado → 2008 Picher–Neosho tornado  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No references at all to this phrasing anywhere in the target or online. Doesn't seem to be particularly useful as a search term over Picher tornado which already points to the target. Rusalkii (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the phrasing may be awkward, I get several pages of results for the 2008 Picher tornado when looking up "Picher deadly tornado". Several tornadoes have hit areas in/around Picher, so this is more of a "refiner". Still useful, imo. E_F⁵ 15:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a search term, not a descriptive title. I have faith in Special:Search that anything containing "Picher" and "tornado" will lead roughly to that article. Departure– (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Departure; we shouldn't be inventing alterantive titles for events where they are not present in the reliable sources. Hog Farm _Talk 17:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep – got 6 pageviews in the 16 days it existed before nomination, harmless redirect. Would like to see pageviews over the next few months to get a better idea of what they normally are at when distanced from the creation of the redirect; would not oppose a renomination if there are no pageviews for a few months after if this is kept. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 22:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this recently created centrally-placed adjective-phrased title with no known usage per Hog Farm. We don't have articles on non-deadly Picher tornadoes. Jay 💬 16:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . asilvering (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Star Wars Anthology 3 → Star Wars  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Target is unclear what "Anthology 3" refers to. There are mentions of an "anthology" containing the Rogue One and Solo films, but the reference has no affinity to a number "3". Third party searches also do not return clear results to define the subject of this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If I were to guess it would be that the intended "target" here would be the upcoming third volume of Star Wars: Visions. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. asilvering (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Eyes Closed (Kanye West song) → Kanye West singles discography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target. Purportedly an unreleased song originally intended for My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy but later reworked into the Snoop Dogg song "Eyez Closed" from the album Doggumentary,[5][6][7][8] which is mentioned at the target. मल्ल (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is confusing without a mention here or at Kanye West, and the user will find the song the nom is referring to at the disambiguation page Eyes Closed, which I've now amended. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . asilvering (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• T:Pic of the day → Template:Pic of the day  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• T:Picture of the day → Template:Picture of the day  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• T:Today's Featured Article → Template:TFA  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• T:Today's featured article → Template:TFA  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• T:In The News → Template:In the news  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I'm not convinced these are useful as "T:" redirects. The pages in question have cropped up relatively recently. The only reason that "T:" would be used is for shortform shortcuts to oft-navigated templates. While TM:TFA and TM:POTD might qualify for this bill, I don't think they qualify for the fully written out versions. People who are interested in getting to this page quickly would not be writing out "Today's featured article" in full, nor "picture of the day" in full. They'd use TM:TFA or TM:POTD. "T:" is currently used only for specific shortform shortcuts. These are not those. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 14:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the redirects are linked to outside RfD discussion pages. Sees minimal pageviews, and clutters search. With the advent of the TM: shortcut, there is no use for T: anymore. Ca ^{talk to me!} 06:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• DuPage 3 → DuPage County, Illinois  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Du Page 3 → DuPage County, Illinois  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Group of neighborhoods previously WP:BLARd no longer mentioned in target article. Delete unless it is mentioned somewhere else. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Maybe Illinois = Ill = III = 3? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 17:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  No, this is from the article before the merger: The Du Page 3 refers to the Chicago suburbs of Burr Ridge, Hinsdale, and Oak Brook. Not mentioned in the article. -1ctinus📝🗨 22:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete to add to the comment above, possibly related to Illinois's 3rd congressional district? Perhaps also a county district: map of District 3 on the DuPage county website? Either way, completely not obvious as neither are valid targets, so delete is more appropriate.Shazback (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• It was not a BLAR, it was merged, and I have tagged DuPage 3 as an {{R from merge}}. Jay 💬 06:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the merge didn't stick, it was revered by the same editor "per cn tag". -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No pages currently link to DuPage 3; it has had 7 page views in the 90 days prior to the RFD. No pages currently link to Du Page 3; it had 2 page views in the 90 days before the RFD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Significa liberdade (talk • contribs) 04:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per WP:CWW, attribution for the merge needs to survive in some form, no matter that the merge was reverted. This could come in the form of this redirect being kept and a note left on Talk:DuPage County, Illinois, or this redirect being deleted and a list of contributors being left there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 ‡ ^edits 20:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, there is no extant content at the target from the former article under these redirects so attribution is not required. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It is generally considered to still be required. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no content that needs to be attributed—the merge was reverted. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said, attribution is generally considered to remain required even for removed content. J947 ‡ ^edits 23:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, any old revision has a disclaimer at the bottom of the page for this purpose (emphasis added): This version of the page has been revised. Besides normal editing, the reason for revision may have been that this version contains factual inaccuracies, vandalism, or material not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Whilst removing unattributed content does prevent future harm, it does not resolve the underlying issue that when this content was in DuPage County, Illinois, its attribution was lacking. If the text was reused in another Wikipedia article or elsewhere on the Internet or in books, etc. whilst it was around, that presently remains a failure in attribution that is only worsened by the deletion of this redirect's history without recording it. WP:CWW presumably does not list now-unused content as an exception for reasons along these lines, and that is what editors have previously found AFAICR (previous discussion). J947 ‡ ^edits 00:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How is the disclaimer, or the emphasized text, related to attribution? Jay 💬 17:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Attribution for merges is required to satisfy the WP:CCBYSA license. The disclaimer demonstrates that not all revisions are required to comply with this license—only the current revision is. Therefore if a merge was enacted and then subsequently reverted, attribution is no longer required. Attribution was being held by this redirect, but it no longer causes any licensing issues to delete the redirect now. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The disclaimer says that this version of the page has been revised, and possible reasons for it. Are you saying that if the page was edited because of one of the possible reasons (or only the emphasized one?) mentioned in the disclaimer, then we needn't keep that revision for attribution? Is this your interpretation, or is this spelt out on a meta page that you can point to? Jay 💬 11:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well the reason for the revision would have been considered "normal editing". That said, the clause I emphasized demonstrates that old revisions are not held to the same standard as current revisions due to the fact that the disclaimer admits that there is material not compatible with the license within old revisions. Therefore, we are not required to keep a redirect simply because attribution is needed in an old revision. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm good with your interpretation for the emphasized text. For the redirect under discussion, what we need to see is whether the revert of the merged content (whose summary said per cn tag) was removed as per material not compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License This discussion looks to be different from your !vote's conclusion which says there is no extant content at the target from the former article under these redirects so attribution is not required. Jay 💬 17:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete these confusing & undiscussed redirects. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 13:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Utopes: What do you mean by "undiscussed"? -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"DuPage 3" is not mentioned or discussed at the target page. "DuPage 3" returns no content hits, from my search. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course. My mind is on the merge so I thought you were referring that the merge was undiscussed... -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All good; admittedly that was on me for leaving a terse response. I was thinking it over after that "undiscussed" might have been a vague word to say without context, and typically I say "unmentioned" instead for these types of situations, but there was no discussion about any "dupage 3" or "dupage three" at the page. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus may be clear, though the relisting comment regarding WP:CWW may hold weight otherwise.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I went ahead and carried out what I call the "Qantas Flight Numbers solution", which is the record authorship and delete history option in WP:MAD. The entire history of DuPage 3 has been copied at the talk page of DuPage County, Illinois. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. asilvering (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Tour 2023 → Zunge Tour  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Very general name, this tour is not nearly the primary topic. Complicated by the fact that the target was at this title from creation in August to when HorrorLover555 moved it earlier today. Incidentally, we're at the point where reviewing from the back of the NPP queue gets you redirects from today! Rusalkii (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. don't think a dab or list would work because tour itself is a dab, so something under this title could refer to just about anything there consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 20:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. HorrorLover555 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is misleading. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. asilvering (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• An update from Nintendo → Nintendo Switch 2  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Appears to be the name of the announcement video for the Switch 2. This is a generic phrase and the name of the announcement video isn't mentioned in target. Rusalkii (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not a plausible search term. Yes, they said that in the announcement, but it's not like that's some sort of slogan or catchphrase or something. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. 1989 (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above reason TotallynotWario (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Could refer to anything new anything in the company's history. Phrase has no affinity to anything. Steel1943 (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: implausible redirect. --HirowoWiki (talk | contribs) 14:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, It's not a plausible search term. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Perpetually and forever ambiguous, past and future, as this phrase can be used anytime any announcement or update from Nintendo is made. Fieari (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. asilvering (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:Mathematical logic/archive 1 → Talk:Mathematical logic/Archive 1  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unused redirect from page move. Tule-hog (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note the only link to the page (was) someone explicitly tracking pages with 'bad naming'. Tule-hog (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Recently created implausible redirect/typo. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know about you, but I'm felling 22 → 22 (Taylor Swift song)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Misspelled redirect moved to the correct title; this misspelled original title might not be likely to be searched. Xeroctic (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speddy delete, R3/G6, recently created unambiguously in error, and implausible. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an implausible typo. Duckmather (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Speedy Delete, obviously. I moved the result of the careless redirect creator. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 17:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Spring of '94 → Madison Square Garden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This looks like a vague reference to my below nomination, but again, it's not well-covered at the target (and this phrase specifically isn't mentioned). -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, vague and unsourced. More than one thing happened in the spring of '94 and there is no great consensus pointing to the below-mentioned Knicks–Rangers series as being the most important events in that timeframe, or being widely identified with this phrase. Carguychris (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 17:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Knicks–Rangers Championship runs of 1994 → Madison Square Garden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Knicks-Rangers Championship runs of 1994 → Madison Square Garden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Knicks-Rangers Finals series of 1994 → Madison Square Garden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Knicks–Rangers Finals series of 1994 → Madison Square Garden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Knicks-Rangers Finals Series of 1994 → Madison Square Garden  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Minutes after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knicks–Rangers championship runs of 1994 was filed, these redirects were retargeted to Madison Square Garden. If not for that action, they would have been deleted as G8s with Knicks–Rangers championship runs of 1994. Either way, this isn't well covered at the target. There's The Garden hosted the Stanley Cup Finals and NBA Finals simultaneously on two occasions: in 1972 and 1994 but it's lumped in with 1972 and doesn't give any further details on what that looked like. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Clearly related to the AfD, which resulted in deletion. This topic is one of the passions of the involved OR-pushing sockmaster.—Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy delete. G5 sock of The Micronesian-Corsican Revolution UtherSRG (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Madame Maceiras → Juan Maceiras#Family  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No longer mentioned at article as she wasn't mentioned in the sources and I can't find other sources for this[9]. Fram (talk) 09:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - who is the "Madame" referred to? Unlikely search term. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not mentioned at target. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Miscellaneous Symbols. asilvering (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ⚪︎ → Gender symbol  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This is a (White Circle Emoji) which different symbol that the white circle one (○) used for asexual people Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Miscellaneous Symbols since I can't think of a better target. (FWIW, the Unicode Standard claims that this symbol means both "asexuality" and "engaged"/"betrothed"; wikt:⚪︎ also adds the senses "the color white" and "an unencircled option".) Duckmather (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But then what happens with ⚪? They are the same, except one is text style. LIrala (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to either Miscellaneous Symbols or White, This is a really weird and vague symbol that people can attach pretty much any meaning to. In its purest form, it's the color White. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ancistrocheirus alessandrinii → Ancistrocheirus  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not a recognised synonym of Ancistrocheirus lesueurii, to which it is currently redirected. Cannot find this name mentioned anywhere on the World Register of Marine Species or Google Scholar - I suspect the creator of this redirect just made a mistake. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 10:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Synonymies provided by WoRMS are not completely exhaustive. A simple Google search will reveal that this combination has appeared in the scholarly literature. mgiganteus1 (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LIrala (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for bringing that source to my attention, but that simple Google search comment is quite unnecessary. I did search for Ancistrocheirus alessandrinii, but that publication (& the publication in which Nesis published that combination) doesn't appear to be indexed by Google Scholar, so I missed it. You can direct me to a source I overlooked without the impolite implication.

  Thanks for relisting @LIrala, as I did not notice mgiganteus1's comment until just now seeing this relisted. Happy to close as keep at this point, though this synonym needs to actually be included somewhere in the target article per WP:RPLA. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added it as synonym at the target. I too would be interested in knowing the search keywords used by Mgiganteus1 for the simple Google search. "Ancistrocheirus alessandrinii lesueurii" I assume, and at Google scholar? Or at Google Books with the keyword "synonym" added? Jay 💬 20:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Simpler than that: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ancistrocheirus+alessandrinii%22 mgiganteus1 (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough, I'm now getting the Veliger source as second entry of page 2 of results. Jay 💬 16:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. asilvering (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Preview Channel → Astro (company)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention of "preview" at the target article. Many providers have preview channels and this does not seem to be anything special related to this subject. And especially so without a mention, this redirect is not currently helpful. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because this is misleading, or at a push retarget to Preview (subscription service) consistent with Preview (TV channel). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't even support that because Preview was simply just called "Preview". Prevue Channel being a homonym is a possibility to consider sharing its target. (And that page is in terrible condition!) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Priscilla. It is a double redirect (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Priscilla (recording artist) → Priscilla (Brazilian singer)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to Priscilla. LIrala (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy retarget, this could've been done boldly, currently this is a double redirect. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Arian controversy. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Arian crisis → Arianism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention of a "crisis" at the target article. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Arian controversy. While the word crisis isn't mentioned in the article, it is used in scholarship and there's no ambiguity about what it means: it is synonymous with Arian controversy. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I endorse this—I was unsure of which of these two articles I would direct the redirect, but this should settle it. "Arian controversy" works and is less ambiguous. Marisauna (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget as suggested. P Aculeius (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Arian controversy per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Arian controversy as suggested. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was retarget to Reproduction and pregnancy in speculative fiction#Politics and gender politics. As a temporary measure while the article is being drafted. asilvering (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• M-preg → Male pregnancy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Mpreg → Male pregnancy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Only mentioned and explained in Reproduction_and_pregnancy_in_speculative_fiction#Politics_and_gender_politics. LIrala (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Though the word "mpreg" isn't used, the concept is discussed at Male pregnancy#Other. The cited sources do talk about mpreg and a mention could be added there. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• a little torn. either keep, as that's what "mpreg" stands for, or retarget to transgender pregnancy, as that's what i think most readers would be looking for, and where it's elaborated a little further. either way, the abbreviation not being present in either article shouldn't be too much of a concern, though a mention or hatnote in whichever article gets the redirects would be nice consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 12:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I believe this formation is most often used to tag fanfiction and works of erotica... do any our pages on these subjects have anything like a mention, or perhaps is there a place it could be added? I'm not sure this abbreviation is really appropriate for serious real world trans issues, given how it is usually used. Fieari (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it's mentioned at Impregnation fetishism. I feel slightly weird about redirecting it here when it's not fundamentally a kink, just very often used this way. The Fanlore page claims it is "a subgenere of gay romance", and I have personally seen fanfics with no erotica have it as a plot point.

  It is also mentioned in a sentences at Reproduction and pregnancy in speculative fiction#Politics and gender politics, and even more briefly and Sex and sexuality in speculative fiction and Slash fiction. Of all these targets I think I prefer Reproduction and pregnancy in speculative fiction#Politics and gender politics, as both the one with the most content (admittedly only a sentence, but with potential to be expanded) and as the most directly connected to how the term is actually used. Rusalkii (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I agree and think we can Retarget to Reproduction and pregnancy in speculative fiction#Politics and gender politics for now. Briefly looking online, I think there may be enough sources to actually expand this abbreviation into a full article discussing the tag itself and how it is used in fiction, so I recommend tagging the redirect as {{R with possibilities}}. Fieari (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You inspired me to go looking for sources and I've sketched out User:Rusalkii/Mpreg. It's very rough for now but I think I'll have something ready to publish within a few days. Feel free to add to it if you like. Rusalkii (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep, nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC) -- Re-closing this discussion after cfd temp was used. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hanyang University Law School → Hanyang University  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Target article makes no mention of this law school. LibStar (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The target does mention a "School of Law" in the "Graduate school" section. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. They have a law school mentioned, which does seem to go by "Hanyang University School of Law" [10]. But this is a common enough other way of naming things might as well keep. Skynxnex (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ვლადიმერ პუტინი → Vladimir Putin  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I don't see how Putin has affinity to Georgian, beyond invading it, which I don't think really makes sense under WP:RLANG. Cremastra (u — c) 02:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom. "ssha" got deleted for being a romanization of a russian abbreviation without enough affinity, and this seems up that alley consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 12:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 4G Derby → London derbies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

4G not mentioned in target. Rusalkii (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The only mention I could find is [11], but that's in Italy. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ... or [12] which isn't relevant either. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 12:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Faragista → Nigel Farage  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Seems to be a one-off neologism; not the PTOPIC based on search results Cremastra (u — c) 00:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No mention anywhere on enwiki. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 12:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ambiguous; an unlikely error to make. Google search results are dominated by houses that are painted white. Cremastra (u — c) 00:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not an alternate name and not a likely error, just a somewhat similar phrase. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:R#D8 and everyone above. Not a correct name of the target, and Wikipedia covers no topic whose correct name is "White Home" either. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless redirect. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).