Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 29

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 with a hatnote to Crash pad. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• CrashpadCrashpad → Bouldering mat  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I am wondering whether this should be retargeted to crash pad or just hatnoted. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:30, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

A 'crashpad' (written as one word) is a common term in rock climbing for a bouldering mat such as here and here. I haven't seen as much use of the single word version for other areas? Aszx5000 (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per my comment above. Aszx5000 (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Crash pad. It is true that the bouldering mat uses the term "crashpad" without spaces, but it seems that the term for pilots/flight attendants is also occasionally "crashpad" without the space, so the DAB makes the most sense to me. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 15:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep and hatnote. I couldn't find anything for a pilot/flight attendant crashpad article, but I didn't search too deep. Doesn't look like much other disambiguation would be needed anyways, excepting a hatnote. So, I support a keep per nom. 🫀 Crash // Organhaver (talk to me, maybe?) 03:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep with hatnote, reliable sources don't refer to the others as crashpad but its a plausible typo User:Easternsahara_{review this} 04:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

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. I have retained the backlinks as redlinks. Rusalkii (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• 2028 United States House of Representatives elections → Elections in the United States#House of Representatives elections  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Elections for the United States House of Representatives happen every 2 years in which all 435 seats are contested on the same day. The nominators rationale at this RFD is also a good reason to delete and I agree. Same thing here. Redirecting to Elections in the United States #House of Representatives elections is not a good idea and red links encourage article creation. It is also too soon considering the previous elections are still (At the time of me listing this) 11 months and 4 days (340 days exactly) until the elections to determine who the incumbents will be for the 2028 elections (This could still change if someone leaves office, whether that is due to death or any other reason, but even then, there will need to be a special election to determine the incumbent). It is too soon for an article, and the redirect isn't very useful, neither is the target, and there is no significant history. So especially considering the fact that every single seat has an election before this one, and red links encourage article creation, just Delete. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Speedy Strong Delete TOOSOON. We arent even at 2026. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Speedy Delete under what CSD Metallurgist? Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Good point, I meant strong delete. ← Metallurgist (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Maybe not as good of a point as you might have thought as I literally thought you meant speedy delete. Servite et contribuere (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

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 Glossary of numismatics#exergue. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:25, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• ExergueExergue → Coin#Modern features  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

only mentioned in passing, and without a source. used to be an equally unsourced stub until being "megred" in 2007. it does big numbers, though, so i'll suggest soft redirecting to wikt:exergue consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 12:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• Apart from its ambiguity, this redirect is fine. Wiktionary is hardly more sourced than us. I'm surprised so few of the pageviews are intended towards the well-viewed Exergue – on documenta 14 article. The trendline hardly moved a muscle after the February 2024 premiere of the movie. Nevertheless, I assume most of the readers who search this title up – rather than access the redirect via the many incoming links – are looking for the film. Clean up the links, replacing them with exergue (coinage), and retarget with hatnote to Exergue – on documenta 14? J947 ‡ ^edits 03:56, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I might recommend that the redirect go to Glossary of numismatics#exergue; however, the current redirect does give a fuller description, so the glossary entry would need to be beefed up with that text. I'm not keen on linking to Wiktionary except when matters of orthography, etymology, or grammar are at issue. Exergue is not such a common term that the general reader might be expected to know it, and yet it's a standard term in numismatics and shouldn't be avoided when employed in the sources. It needs more explanation than a dictionary definition, and less than would make a meaningfully independent article, which ideally is how glossary/list articles work, to my mind. Another "however" in support of the glossary entry: exergue isn't a term applicable only to Coin#Modern features, as that section heading implies — I just linked to it from the description of a 1st-century BCE coin. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Im inclined to agree with Cynwolfe. Im not even sure that belongs on Coin#Modern features. ← Metallurgist (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Glossary of numismatics#exergue. It isn't strictly a modern feature, so the current target isn't necessarily accurate. I think directing the reader to a specific glossary entry would be far more helpful. --Sable232 (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 11:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Seth and Mary Eastman → Seth Eastman  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This used to be an article covering both people. It was split in 2020, with the article at this title moved to Seth Eastman and a new article created for Mary Henderson Eastman. I don't know that one is more notable than the other and I don't think a redirect covering two people serves much (if any) purpose. There are a number of links to this page, which are undoubtedly problematic in any instance where Mary Eastman is the subject intended to be linked to. I don't think it's a very plausible search term either, and a search would likely turn up both articles regardless. --Sable232 (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC) Note: all article-space links to this title have been corrected. --Sable232 (talk) 15:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Both were notable persons in their own right. This redirect tends to obscure the notability of Mary Eastman. Glendoremus (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as a pretty clear-cut WP:XY, but the incoming links should probably be cleaned up first. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. And none of the links in are mainspace articles, so losing them likely doesnt matter. ← Metallurgist (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

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 Huang brothers. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• YoylecakeYoylecake → Battle for Dream Island  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Yoyle CakeYoyle Cake → Battle for Dream Island  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This redirect was created originally for Michael Huang (animator) (Yoyle Cake was an alias for him) but it now redirects to BFDI. Nowhere is anything about the name "Yoyle Cake" said at the BFDI article, so I propose that these redirects be deleted. ExcitedA (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Wait - I'd probably wait until after the Draft:Huang twins article makes its way through the WP:AfC pipeline, to see whether or not that page ends up being turned into an article or if it stays draftified. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• close to reopen or reformat properly, or just delete as unmentioned if xfdcloser still works for both. @ExcitedA, i'll recommend rubbing your eyes all over wp:massxfd, that's a neat tool for doing the oddly specific act of nominating multiple redirects at once without formatting issues consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Formatting fixed. Rusalkii (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

phew, but still, the delete part doesn't change much consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:41, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - It can now be retargeted to Huang brothers, as Michael Huang's musician pseudonym is now listed on that page (which has passed AfC). Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

  Retarget - yeah i know I created this, but there is now a page where the name "Yoyle Cake" leads. ExcitedA (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

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 💬 10:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• The First Ever State → Delaware  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is an ambiguous term that could mean the first ever polity, the oldest nation in the world, the first state in a nation, or (as this redirect's creator means) the first state in the US. I'm unsure what to do with this, so I'm bring it to RFD. The First State exists but it doesn't make sense to redirect there. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

List of first states probably has potential as a full list article, but this redirect is not it. WP:RETURNTORED guninvalid (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete Unless someone finds a really suitable redirect. Too ambiguous to exist. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete as too ambiguous to redirect to anything. No links to it from main space either. Ultraodan (T, C) 13:02, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete I think "the" is also discouraged in redirects, can't remember exact policy. "Ever" is also not needed. Regardless, per above User:Easternsahara_{review this} 04:25, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. The First State makes sense, but adding "ever" is unencyclopedic in this case. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per above statements. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. keep in mind Australia and Germany also have subdivisions known as states. JuniperChill (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

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. Rusalkii (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Light room → Photographic processing  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I believe this should target Adobe Lightroom, but I cannot figure out why it targets Photographic processing in the first place, so I am not 100% sure that there’s not something I’m missing… — HTGS (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget per nom although im fine with Delete too. I think it's because photographs are processed in a darkroom and this is some sort of R from antonym? --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as an ambiguous term without a clear target. Wikt:lightroom and other dictionaries define a lightroom (with no space) as the room at top of a lighthouse, but Lighthouse#Building doesn't use the term, and instead favors the term lantern room. Lantern room is a redlink, though. Search results show that several articles about lighthouses use the term light room or light-room. Other articles use the term to refer to a photography studio, but it's not mentioned at the photographic studio article, either. Plus, as noted above, it's an incorrect name for the Adobe software. I don't see a good place to point this. - Eureka Lott 20:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with Eureka Lott. I don't see any other clear target page. Don't think "Light room" is same as "Lightroom" - so Adobe Lightroom retarget would be misleading I think. Asteramellus (talk) 19:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

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 Disney India#Former divisions. Refined current target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:11, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• UTV Software CommunicationsUTV Software Communications → Disney India  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This title has a category of more than 4 subcategories and more than 6 entries, but no article, surprisingly! Per the page history, this title was created as a redirect to UTV Motion Pictures and has been subject to re-targeting between it and Disney India; the latter of which this has been designated as its subsidiary in its current page revision. I see it as an WP:ASTONISH factor for readers, newbies and editors alike, so I've brought it over here for discussion. Intrisit (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

• Created the rd due to the cat some years ago, looks like the target was changed shortly thereafter by an IP. And I don't necessarily disagree as the film division was but a part of the larger company (I had rd'd to what I felt was the most apt target then). I don't think astonish applies as mention of rd is clear there in the target. FWIW, the Disney Wiki also rds this to the same target: . Gotitbro (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per creator but refine to Disney India § Former divisions. Jay 💬 05:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Agree with Jay above. Redirect to Disney India § Former divisions. Asteramellus (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

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...} 03:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

• Bah humbug guy → Ebenezer Scrooge  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

this is going to be a bit of a weird one, as there are technically two reasons for this, but i'm only really sure about one

firstly, does proxy editing count towards g5? i'm admittedly not sure if the timeline would match in this case (it's a lot to go over, and i'm not good at this chronology stuff), but if it does and counts, this could probably just be speedied

secondly, implausible search term lol consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep Not G5, since the editor was blocked after the redirect's creation. It also seems like a somewhat reasonable search term. ~2025-31416-56 (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

yes, they're often blocked after creating stuff, that's kind of how it works. unless you meant that the stuff he was blocked for happened after, in which case... yeah, fair consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:45, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

As G5 says:

To qualify for a ban- or block-based speedy deletion, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted or expired will not qualify under this criterion.

jlwoodwa (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Keep ...I mean, Ebenezer Scrooge is the 'Bah Humbug' guy? And also the editor behind the redirect was only blocked AFTER the redirect was made, so it's not G5 worthy. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 08:41, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

the problem is that that's as much a viable argument to keep this as it would be for "gotta go fast guy" as a redirect to fast the porcupine. that's just not a thing people would search for without already knowing the context of the catchphrase, and not something those people would likely search for anyway, judging by all the numbers this doesn't do consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 21:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:10, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Pending Looking through WP:G5. SeaDragon1 (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

This is the text for the section:

This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, as well as pages created in violation of general sanctions, and that have no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions.

• To qualify for a ban- or block-based speedy deletion, the edit or page must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked. A page created before the ban or block was imposed or after it was lifted or expired will not qualify under this criterion.
• For topic-banned editors, the page must be a violation of the user's specific ban, and must not include contributions legitimately about some other topic.
• For general sanctions, the page must have been created in violation of creation restrictions, such as the extended confirmed restriction, and the remedies must specifically permit deletion as an enforcement measure.
• When a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sockpuppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the earliest block or ban of any of that person's accounts qualify for G5 (if not substantially edited by others); this is the most common case for applying G5.
• G5 should not be applied to transcluded templates or populated categories unless they have been transcluded or populated entirely by the banned or blocked user; these edits need to be reverted before deletion.
• {{Db-g5|name of banned user}}, {{Db-banned|name of banned user}}, {{Db-gs|contentious topic code}}
• Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created by blocked or banned users (0), Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created in violation of general sanctions (1)

Let's look through thoroughly:

in violation of their ban or block

# They weren't banned or blocked.

The rest can be ignored, because condition #1 failed (i.e. was false).

Hence, I vote Keep. SeaDragon1 (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Didn't bother to consider the G5, which is maybe a stretch anyway, but this strikes me as a rather vague term. We already have an article at humbug (to which "bah humbug" redirects), where someone can get further info with more context to help determine what they're actually looking for. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete slippery slope, not known as guy User:Easternsahara_{review this} 04:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. Although this is unambiguous, I find this rather implausible. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per all (but not as a G5). Jay 💬 16:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

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 Ancash Quechua. Jay 💬 05:41, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• QwsQws → QW  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This doesn't need to be here, as nothing says "qw" but rather "QW". It makes no sense to have the pljral here, especially when it's lowercase. 77qq (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Ancash Quechua, which is the only meaningful use I found onwiki for this three-letter acronym, for the time being Duckmather (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Retarget per Duck User:Easternsahara_{review this} 04:16, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

• Index shiftingIndex shifting → Shifter (bicycle part)#Index_shifting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect is, at the moment, rather confusing since there are several quite different kinds of indices which one might say are shifted, and several kinds of shifting that may be indexed. XabqEfdg (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Comment Index shifting is a well-established topic for cycling and could plausibly be a primary topic, but this article doesn't really help someone looking for "index shifting" in its current state... Not sure what alternative targets are or if there's enough material to make a DAB / dedicated article. Shazback (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

• This was merged to the target and I have tagged it as an {{R from merge}}. Jay 💬 15:57, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

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. Rusalkii (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Hambro' → Hamburg  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Confused with Hambro (surname), suggest retarget to it A1Cafel (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

• Keep as is - Hambro' was a common way of spelling Hamburg in the past, which is why I created the redirect. With the apostrophe, I don't see that it can be easily confused with the surname. "Bro'" is a common shortening for "borough" in place names (e.g. Middlesbro'), but not in this case, as there is no "Hamborough" that I know of. Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Not mentioned at Hamburg, and an WP:UNNATURAL error for the surname. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 08:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete Hamburg has never been called Hambro by anyone. Maybe a misunderstanding hailing from the merchant family? Kind regards, Grueslayer 21:00, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to keep it somewhere, but I don't know if Hamburg, Hambro (surname), or United Synagogue is best. It's hard to search for an apostrophe but I did find some discussion here. Most other uses I found are related to the Hambro' Synagogue in London (eg: ) -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Delete unnatural, more redirects like this shouldn't be created which is where I usually draw the line for redirects. User:Easternsahara_{review this} 01:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

• delete as... vague!? regardless of how much no stuff i found for this specific spelling, it seems to also be a very, very plausible misspelling of "hambró", which has a couple too many unnotable definitions, apparently. for the keep vote above to actually work, i think we'd at the very least need a mention of "-bro'" as an alternate spelling of "-borough"... uh... anywhere? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:44, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

  What would be the link between Hamburg and borough? Kind regards, Grueslayer 09:35, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

  it's the old alternative name "hamborough", of course~

  ...is what i would say, but on further inspection, it seems to have been less of an old name or alternate spelling, and more of an extremely unlikely nickname from one or two dialects and not really much else with little affinity towards hamburg itself!? that's when it's not wrestling for results with "hamborough" as a surname or google insisting that i'm looking for "hambrough"

  for the purposes of its relation with the redirect, it probably means nothing, which makes it an even less plausible line to draw. oops? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 18:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - I'm not convinced by the keep votes so far, and as Tavix shows, the apostrophe version could also be ambiguous. Jay 💬 14:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

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).