Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 18

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 00:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• Management of Social Transformations → UNESCO#Management of Social Transformations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

UNESCO program, unmentioned at target article (nonexistent section). I am bad at usernames (talk | contribs) 21:28, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Katiedevi (talk) 02:21, 20 October 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. ✗plicit 00:07, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• Jalapeño (Plants vs. Zombies) → Plants vs. Zombies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Tangle Kelp → Plants vs. Zombies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Threepeater → Plants vs. Zombies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Squash (Plants vs. Zombies) → Plants vs. Zombies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Lily Pad (Plants vs. Zombies) → Plants vs. Zombies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Spikeweed (Plants vs. Zombies) → Plants vs. Zombies  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

None of these are mentioned in any of our Plants vs Zombies articles, so readers will not get any information on what they're actually looking for.
Lily Pad was included at Lily pad (disambiguation); I've removed it since it's in violation of WP:DABMENTION even if the redirect is kept. Rusalkii (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey, there @Rusalkii. I just wanna let you know that I included PVZ 1 plants to the List of fictional plants. Since the majority of them aren't mentioned in any Plants vs Zombies articles. So I think that the redirects can be kept. 505noscope (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget Tangle Kelp and Threepeater to List of fictional plants#In video games and weak retarget the rest there, too. The titles with '(Plants vs. Zombies)' are unlikely to be entered by most readers but I suppose someone familiar with our naming conventions may search these. I'm not convinced each of these is notable within the topic of fictional plants but the game is popular. If the content gets removed, deletion should be revisited. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 19:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  Jalapeno is mentioned in the Plants vs. Zombies (video game) article in the "Adventure mode" section. So therefore, it can be kept. 505noscope (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  Two problems with this. First, the redirect should point to the article where it is mentioned, not a different article that mentions it even if the two articles are related. Second, the passing mention at Plants vs. Zombies (video game) is buried in a very lengthy article. I still prefer the list entry where the content is easily found. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 02:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  Retarget to List of fictional plants#In video games LDW5432 (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

  ...where that mention's also been removed as fancruft consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• delete. chances are a reader going to those specific titles would expect info on those specific plants, which is something a specific wiki can do better, fandom can do worse, and wikipedia just doesn't do at the moment. those are also not even a fraction of the plants in pvz1, let alone 2 and the thalidomide baby, and we don't have other redirects like starfruit (plants vs. zombies) and imitater consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  Hey there. I just wanna let y'all know that I added a "Plants" section to Plants vs. Zombies (video game) article so I think the redirects can be kept and retargeted. 505noscope (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  Hi, I assume that edit was in good faith but I've had to revert it; it violates several Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 16:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete all. The games may be notable but individual plants that have appeared in one or two games are not. Detailed content on specific plants has been repeatedly removed from articles as wp:UNDUE, wp:INDISCRIMINATE, etc. I agree with these removals, which I anticipated in my initial !vote. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 17:32, 25 October 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 Andrew Wakefield#Films or in other words refine. I should add that the rationale presented in the keep !vote is also accommodated by this outcome, which therefore makes consensus clear. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• 1986: The Act1986: The Act → Andrew Wakefield#Vaxxed film  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete? Not mentioned. This is apparently the name of a movie. I don't know if it's directly related to the Vaxxed film (the themes are similar) but it's not mentioned there, either. The title is in reference to the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which is also not a good target. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

seems to be another movie made by wakefield's spouting nonsense []. Maybe geralsizing the section in his article to just 'films' is the best course of action—blindlynx 22:43, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I've added all four films under the new section Andrew Wakefield#Films. I don't know if this content will survive, nor that it should. Sourcing is weak and the other films are not as notable as Vaxxed and many of his publications. I'm not interested in trying to find better sources for these films. So, refine to Andrew Wakefield#Films if the content survives, delete if it is removed. FYI @blindlynx. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

sounds good, should we make redirects for those too? —blindlynx 19:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the other redirects are necessary but I won't object if someone else creates them, following the same justification for this one. My sense is that the non-Vaxxed films are obscure and if no one has seen fit to create these, I'm not moved to do so now. If created, I would link this discussion in the edit summary for reference in case the other redirects are challenged in the future. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 20:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Note: He is credited at "Andy J. Wakefield" on the website but this is clearly the same person. IMDb lists Andrew Wakefield as the director of these films; I acknowledge that this is not a reliable source (WP:IMDB). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 20:01, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the content added by Myceteae?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Keep is now mentioned. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, 1986: The Act and the other non-notable films aren't mentioned in the section on Vaxxed. Any objection to refining to the new section Andrew Wakefield#Films? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 22:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

No objection. Retarget to Andrew Wakefield#Films per Myceteae. Katiedevi (talk) 02:24, 20 October 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 💬 18:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Proteus (proteomics software) → Trans-Proteomic Pipeline  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The target article tells the reader nothing about Proteus and is therefore not helpful Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, agreed. Page was always a redirect as well. ⇌ Synpath 02:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. I looked up to see if I can add a section but can't find any link between TPP and Proteus. WeWake (talk) 04:56, 20 October 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 💬 05:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Half Dolla → 50 Cent  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Funny, but apparently, not a known or searchable nickname in sources. Third party searches return primarily results for Half dollar and Dolla (rapper). Steel1943 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:16, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Half dollar. 'Dolla' could be a plausible spelling mistake for 'dollar'. Katiedevi (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  I have to oppose this plainly because the combination of a phonetic spelling change (though wiktionary:dolla hints this is a proper reference), plus the capitalized "D" makes it appear to refer to some sort of subject with this as a proper name. Steel1943 (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, the combination of the variant spelling and capital D makes the intended referent unclear. It's not suitable for a dab page since none of the subjects mentioned so far are shown to actually go by this nickname. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:34, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• Many Men (Wish Delete). This is meant to be a joke redirect, but there is no real use case where it helps the reader. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 00:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per Casablanca and Myceteae. Not an actual nickname used by 50 Cent, and not a likely search term. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 19:02, 23 October 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) 17:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Michael Joseph Jackson"King of Pop" → Michael Jackson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, unnatural due to a missing space before the quoted nickname. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The pre-BLAR content was a lengthy, unsourced 'article' written in an unencyclopedic manner. It was blanked within 25 minutes of creation. There is no need to keep it. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 17:44, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Far from being a natural search term. Stefen 𝕋ower_{'s got the power!!1!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 07:22, 19 October 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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Anglican Schism → English Reformation  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Should this be redirected to Anglican realignment? GAFCON's split from the Anglican Communion is big in the news recently and all but one of the results on page 1 of Google refer to this recent event. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 16:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• Disambiguate: The coverage of recent event may be filling the front page of Google today, but it's unclear if this term will become a sustained shorthand for the GAFCON schism. There are many high-quality RSs that use "Anglican Schism" for the English Reformation. I would suggest a future-proof proposal is conversion into a disambiguation page (including the St. Louis, Reformed Episcopal, and ACNA schisms, among others). ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
• Keep or possibly disambiguate. Then there's Pelagius. Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
• Disambiguate This refers to multiple topics (although potentially from recentism). I have drafted a DAB. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 22:37, 19 October 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 keep. If someone wants to create a dab page, go for it. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• PustulePustule → Skin condition#Pustule  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Pustules are not unique to human skin. They can also develop in plants, particularly in rust diseases. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Keep. The skin condition appears to be the primary topic. If there’s content on plant pustules the hatnote can be updated to include it. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 03:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

They're not really different phenomena. It's the same thing (necrotic cells). It's not something that only happens to human skin. I usually only see hatnotes if you have another article to lead to. I think we might be better served by deleting the redirect to encourage article creation. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

It doesn’t make sense to delete a redirect to the relevant content that we do have. I was merely suggesting that *if* we had content on plant pustules, the hatnote could be updated. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 12:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:RETURNTORED is something that happens. It's the origin story of ketchup chips, actually. I created that as a redirect in 2019, there was an RfD, and then I created the article after it was deleted. It's possible this experience gave me unrealistic expectations for how common this is? I review redirects to sections for NPP all the time. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

The current redirect set up is appropriate. We have content, however brief, on the primary meaning of 'pustule' and we redirect readers there. If we delete it we will no longer take readers directly there. Maintaining the primary redirect is useful; otherwise, Pustule (hieroglyph) should be at the base name if that is the only article using that name. The current situation is not a barrier to creating content about plant pustules. If such pages exist, Pustule can be converted to a dab or the discussion can be revisited here or at RM or another appropriate venue. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:13, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, I agree with @Myceteae, the human skin condition is PTOPIC and the redirect should stay until there's either an article on pustules as they are, or more coverage on other forms of pustules. Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
• Convert to DAB It's too vague a word to have a primary topic. This seems to merit a DAB page and Wiktionary link box. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

  What would go on the dab page? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:07, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: I looked at several reference sources to assess primary topic. I looked at the first 5 pages of Google Scholar results and 42/50 (84%) or references were to the human skin condition. The botanical usage did not appear until the third page of results. When used in the botanical sense, the entity was almost always qualified as rust pustule or bacterial pustule. The first five pages of regular Google search were exclusively about the human skin condition. Looking at general references, Britannica only defines the skin condition. Standard dictionaries define it as a skin condition and make no mention of plants or hieroglyphs. Dictionaries also provide the etymology (Latin pustula, 'pimple, blister') and usage in English for the skin condition dating back to 1300's, establishing this usage as primary by long-term significance in addition to usage. Also note that there are 237 incoming links to pustule. I did not check them all but every one I did check referred to the cutaneous condition. This redirect gets nearly 100 daily views. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 21:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  Also, this was merged to the current target and should be tagged as {{R from merge}}. Deleting the history in the hopes that someone might write a new article would be inappropriate. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 01:48, 24 October 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) Thepharoah17 (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Wigan Athletic F.C. 8–0 Hull City A.F.C.Wigan Athletic F.C. 8–0 Hull City A.F.C. → 2019–20 Wigan Athletic F.C. season (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This was closed as a redirect at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wigan Athletic F.C. 8–0 Hull City A.F.C. however I still consider this a really bad redirect, it redirects to one season article and completely ignores 2019–20 Hull City A.F.C. season I suggest it should be deleted. I also feel it's highly unlikely people will be typing that full title. Govvy (talk) 10:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

• Keep I don't really think this is much of an WP:XY, as the game is far more meaningful to Wigan than it is to Hull City, so targeting its article makes more sense. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 15:15, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as a too burdensome usage of a redirect, that doesn't even have an acceptable best potential target. Respublik (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete way too specific. Shocksingularity (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

• @Govvy: What is your opinion about a title like Wigan Athletic 8–0 Hull City that is the text displayed for this redirect at {{Wigan Athletic F.C. matches}}? And since you are advocating deletion, what should happen to the entry in the template, as it should not be a redlink, and having it unlinked does not serve any purpose? Jay 💬 16:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Jay: I even find that irksome, if people want to look up results they can goto a seasonal pages. Why pick one of the the league season page? Each of those clubs, prose can easily be added too all three pages. I honestly find it at odds for a redirect when multiple venues can talk about the match. Govvy (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the piping from that template. There are some other incoming links that need fixing. Jay 💬 17:11, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, I agree with Casablanca Rock. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:57, 18 October 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 keep. Jay 💬 05:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Latrobe BulletinLatrobe Bulletin → Latrobe, Pennsylvania  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Confusing redirect to stumble upon in the wild; it's only mentioned in citations in the target article. Suggest WP:RETURNTORED, but no particular objections to a retarget if somebody finds an article where it's actually discussed. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 08:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. Not ambiguous, as far as I can see (unlike Latrobe). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, but from a reader's perspective, you gain exactly no information; in fact, you would gain more information at Bill Brown (news anchor). GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 19:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

• Refine to Latrobe, Pennsylvania#Media. I have added content there (Special:Diff/1317035568). This could be improved but it makes sense to discuss the local paper here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 23:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or refine? Please also consider the content that Myceteae added to the proposed refinement target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 13:37, 18 October 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 which functionally defaults to the outcome that came the closest, in this case retargeting to Leaf (disambiguation)#Arts, entertainment, and media. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Leaves (band)Leaves (band) → Leaves (Icelandic band)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Malplaced redirect. Retarget (either to The Leaves or Leaf (disambiguation)#Arts, entertainment, and media) or move? ArthananWarcraft (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• Move Leaves (Icelandic band) to Leaves (band) per WP:SMALLDETAILS, it's only notable band with this exact name. The same should be done for Leaf (Dutch band) → Leaf (band). -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Leaf (disambiguation)#Arts, entertainment, and media as the nom's 2nd suggestion. Oppose moving Leaves (Icelandic band) to Leaves (band) as The Leaves is also a band and has 997 views compared with only 85[] for the Icelandic band. SMALLDETAILS doesn't really work here as things that formerly include the word "The" are normally ambiguous without "The" except maybe with the likes of Crown/The Crown where it is obvious the other meaning will include "The" in the name. We often remove the word "The" in titles anyway and as such "Leaves (band)" is likely ambiguous with both bands. Leaf (Dutch band) could maybe be moved to Leaf (band) as although plural and singular is normally interchangeable with generic meanings with media it is more likely that they are not interchangeable and a hatnote would be fine. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Leaf (disambiguation)#Arts, entertainment, and media and Oppose @Tavix per @Crouch, Swale, I think that's a better suggestion! Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Google says '"the leaves" band' is 10 pages of search results. 'leaves band iceland' is 11 pages of search results. Reject using pageviews as an indicator, that just shades non UK or USA bands for no valid reason. Snævar (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 16:11, 10 October 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! 06:16, 18 October 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 soft redirect to Wikt:twink death. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Not mentioned at target and not worthy of a mention. Not mentioned anywhere else. I would delete but I'll note that there is an entry at wikt:twink death. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:25, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete so that search results direct readers towards the Wiktionary entry, as it does with terms like twinkhon. Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per Drunk Experiter. MidnightAlarm (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to LGBTQ slogans Sandro1041 (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean LGBTQ slang? It would make more sense there but it's not currently listed and I'm not sure which category it would go in. I don't really think it warrants inclusion there. I've notified Talk:LGBTQ slogans and Talk:LGBTQ slang of this discussion. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:06, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to LGBTQ slang. It should be included somewhere on that page, probably in the section "general slang". It is "a common slang term in the LGBTQ community" . Katzrockso (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• Soft redirect to Wiktionary per Myceteae. The term is not mentioned in twink nor in either of the proposed retargets. It's probably a neologism that doesn't warrant encyclopedic treatment, so pointing to Wiktionary serves readers better than linking to an article with no relevant information at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:42, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

  It did make there rounds online not long ago but I agree, I don't think it's particularly notable within the topic LGBTQ slang. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:04, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• Retarget to Wiktionary: I can find more than a handful of semi-reliable references to the concept: Grindr (Heaven help me), a San Diego special interest newspaper, Pride.com. Even I've heard it tossed around in conversation. Redirects are cheap and the main article isn't the right target for this redirect. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
• Retarget to Wiktionary entry per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
• I would support retargeting to Wiktionary over LGBTQ slang, where it is not currently defined and where I don't think it needs to be. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 14:05, 20 October 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) 17:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Episode 2895 → Snuffy's Parents Get a Divorce  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This episode number is not mentioned as an episode in the target article, but rather as a "production code". In fact, it doesn't seem to be correct either: Third party search engines return results for an episode on Sesame Street titled "Oscar's brother Ernest visits". Steel1943 (talk) 04:00, 18 October 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 disambiguate. Jay 💬 06:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

• Summer Freeze → Leaves Turn Inside You  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

too vague to redirect to this album specifically. Could hinder search for unexpectedly cold weather in summer Shocksingularity (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• This is ambiguous, but not for the reason identified by the nom. Disambiguate between the current target, Sun Sheng Xi, and List of Mountain Dew flavors and varieties per WP:DABMENTION. - Eureka Lott 04:42, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 03:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• DABify per Eureka Lott. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 17:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
• Disambiguation draft requested (done) Left guide (talk) 01:50, 26 October 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 💬 11:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Gothic Satanism → Satanism#Contemporary tendencies and groups  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not discussed in this article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete as vague and misleading. Without explanation, this risks confirming the mistaken association between goth subculture and satanism. Based on the history, it appears some editors thought this referred to the Germanic people so the intended target is to clear. Neither Goth subculture nor Goths mention satan or devil (except in the title of one source cited) so these aren't suitable targets, either. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 08:10, 19 October 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) 04:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Cha. 3Cha. 3 → Charles III  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

When I search on google, it prompts out Cha-cha-cha rather than Charles III, so I suggest retarget to that A1Cafel (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. This isn't "Chapter 3". Steel1943 (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete as vague. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 17:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete too vague. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 05:57, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:33, 20 October 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. ✗plicit 14:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Topic not discussed in the article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:05, 18 October 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. ✗plicit 14:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Children of the Black Rose → Satanism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Whatever this was referring to, not mentioned at target. I found a single mention in a single academic book and one alt weekly that lists them and gives no details. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:01, 18 October 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) 04:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Original Satanism → Theistic Satanism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not used in reference to this in sources and not mentioned in the article. Further, what exactly constitutes "original satanism" is a hotly debated topic, and one not served well by this redirect. Most scholars would argue that Theistic Satanism is not, in fact, the original satanism. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 21:33, 23 October 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) 04:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Classic Satanism → Theistic Satanism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not used in this article and not mentioned in reference to the subject. The term is used in sources, but vaguely and not in reference to this topic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 23:24, 20 October 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) 04:04, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Conservative Satanism → Theistic Satanism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in article and not used to refer to the subject anywhere in any source. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 21:33, 23 October 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) 04:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Reverse-Christianity → Theistic Satanism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I find there to be a weak case for this redirect. More logical than the below, but still weak. This is not a used name for this. This is an incorrect version of a corruption of a name some of the adherents are pejoratively called. Also, it wouldn't be hyphenated. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 21:34, 23 October 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) 04:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Reverse-Islam → Theistic Satanism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not a name that would be or has ever been used for this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 21:34, 23 October 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 per WP:NOQUORUM. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Operation Cerco 99Operation Cerco 99 → Óscar Ramírez Durand  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Page with history. Creator now blocked. No mention of this particular "Cerco 99" operation at the target page; readers who search for this will not be able to read about it. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

• The pre-redirect page does say the operation to capture him was called by this name, and there are multiple refs. If the operation is known by a more popular name, it needs to be updated in {{Campaignbox Peru conflict}} instead of this redirect. Jay 💬 18:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:13, 18 October 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 Esoteric neo-Nazism#Relationship to neopaganism. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Neo-fascism and paganismNeo-fascism and paganism → Neo-fascism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The product of a long, stupid series of moves. The end result no longer exists and the neo-fascism article does not mention paganism. Could retarget to Esoteric neo-Nazism#Relationship to neopaganism, which addresses neo-fascism and paganism? PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there another article with appropriate scope? Simonm223 (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I added this right before you commented, but the only one I can think of is Esoteric neo-Nazism#Relationship to neopaganism. We should not have done whatever we did with the target of this originally, it is a notable topic, but it's too hard to undo now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

For now let's redirect to that sub-page above. A new afticle could be created in draft space too. I agree it's a notable topic. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Esoteric neo-Nazism#Relationship to neopaganism per discussion above, with no prejudice against retargeting elsewhere in the future. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 14:41, 20 October 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) 04:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Weegee (meme) → YouTube Poop  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target only contains the namesake when referring to the title of a different piece of media. No mention of Weegee the meme or its origin exist in the target; it was removed because it was unsourced. Nothing links to the redirect. Proposing delete. ThomasO1989 (talk) 00:30, 18 October 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. ✗plicit 14:20, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Most all of the usages of this word are in reference to the belief or general idea of Santa Claus, not even in jest, see Google Books . Those who are intending to talk about Satanism and misspelling it are a minority of usages, or perhaps tied, to the point where this is extremely misleading. I would be fine with deleting or retargeting to Santa Claus. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I think that saNTAism is a plausible {{R from misspelling}} for saTANism.

You assert that people making typos on a common word are less common than people deliberately typing an uncommon word. How do you know that? The article saTANism gets 90,000 page views per month. The redirect saNTAism averages three (3) page views per month. Are you sure that readers about saTANism aren't making a typo 1/30,000th of the time?

Note too that interest in the Santa Claus article is dramatically seasonal, and interest in the redirect is not, and neither is the interest in the current target. That, too, suggests that the redirect is probably pointed at the correct target. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I do not think it is a plausible typo. It requires messing up 3 individual letters, more than 1 mistake, which makes it generally implausible. Are we allowed to start shuffling letters around in any page title and calling that a "plausible misspelling"?

With redirect interest so small, with no views over entire months, I do not think we can judge whether it is "dramatically anything". But looking at that chart, IMO does appear to be roughly seasonal. There were no views at all for early 2024 but then a jump towards the end of the year in November and December. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete because "retarget to Christmas" makes no sense. Steel1943 (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete and DAFT-ify since I don't see a coherent enough topic in the google search results to be worth writing an article on Duckmather (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. It's an unlikely typo that would stand a reasonable chance of being deleted on that basis alone. The fact that there's a real, if incoherent, thing called 'Santaism' makes this an even worse redirect. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 21:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, and the fun edits in the pre-BLAR history needn't be kept. Jay 💬 10:30, 25 October 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) 04:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

• Pollytheistic satanism → Satanism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely misspelling of a subtopic not addressed at this article. Article does not address polytheistic satanism (which is an actually discussed thing that this article should address) and if it did this is a very unlikely misspelling. Odd page history that was redirected. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Also, the misspelled title appears to have been created in error since the original stub article uses the correct spelling. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 22:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:34, 20 October 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).