No article found for “User talk:200.76.252.167?action=edit&redlink=1”.

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 2

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

October 2

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 2, 2025.

Paradote

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 Paracetamol poisoning#Combination with other agents. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Paracetamol poisoning#Combination with other agents where the subject is described. Paradote is not mentioned in Paracetamol. § Prevention no longer exists and the product appears to have been discontinued. This is an {{R from merge}} so I am nominating rather than boldly retargeting. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Support Retarget per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. I see no issue with that. Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 12:42, 3 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).

Draft:パリス・ヒルトン

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 00:08, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete. This fails WP:FORRED considerations and the 'Draft:' makes it even more non-standard. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:32, 2 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).

Mike Jack

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 10#Mike Jack

List of Victorian newspapers

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. The "Victorian era" ambiguity can be resolved with a hatnote to List of the oldest newspapers. -- Tavix (talk) 13:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Recent creation from a page move, was at this title for all of three minutes. I don't feel comfortable CSDing it as I don't think this is precisely implausible but "Victorian" to me overwhelming suggested the Victorian period to the point of being actively confusing here. Rusalkii (talk) 07:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Disambig between the present target and List of the oldest newspapers which is where someone looking for newspapers from the Victorian era will find the articles we have. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Disambig per Thryduulf. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. The List of the oldest newspapers does not identify which newspapers are Victorian. It includes the country and year of first publication; presumably a paper that was in print in England/the British Empire before Queen Victoria's reign and continued during it would be "Victorian" in this sense but this information isn't readily available and the oldest newspapers list isn't designed to present it. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete highly ambiguous -- 65.93.183.181 (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, "Victorian" is the standard adjective pertaining to the state of Victoria. Since there is no article about newspapers from the Victorian era, there is no ambiguity in terms of potential targets. (Disclaimer: I am Victorian.) This, that and the other (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
    Unfortunately due to the prominence of the concept of the Victorian era, that seems improper. Metallurgist (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, but even if the redirect needs to be deleted, I would say that the page itself should be kept (I know that's separate to this discussion). As an Australian state, I understand that there are other newspaper lists in this same titling format, e.g. List of newspapers in New South Wales. SunnyBoi (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, There is no other list of newspapers for a particular 'era' in history. The word 'Victorian' makes complete sense in an Australian context and the people searching for this page are most likely to be Australian and thus 'Victorian' makes sense. Kassigrace (talk) 03:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, I don't think it has much to do with the time period, it's useful to Australian readers! Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep as a plausible alternative name. Readers will most likely use it in searches. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 10:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
Keep with target to the Australian page, a hatnote will suffice for the Victorian-era paper list. 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 16:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing links in, so no need for a dab. Metallurgist (talk) 08:08, 7 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).

WasabiXML

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 following the discovery that the source used at List of user interface markup languages was from a predatory journal. If someone is able to find enough reliable sourcing to readd the section, this redirect can then be recreated or restored. -- Tavix (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Completely new to RfD, but this redirect targets a section that (correctly) no longer exists. The topic is insufficiently notable to warrant even a 1-sentence mention on this page. Suriname0 (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, this is an argument for deletion of this redirect. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of user interface markup languages § WasabiXML; WasabiXML is still mentioned at List of user interface markup languages, so that is probably a good target for now. Having said that, I do not necessarily know if the inclusion is warranted on that page either. I have not found a whole lot of information detailing the notability of WasabiXML. If it is removed from that page, count this as a delete. Casablanca 🪨(T) 19:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
    Good find. I found an extremely terse passing mention in a table here. To my view, this doesn't warrant even a mention. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of user interface markup languages § WasabiXML per @Casablanca 🪨, I don't think one little extra language'll kill us - unless you could consider its entry WP:OR. But hey, a terse passing mention is more than nothing! Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    The terse passing mention is from a predatory journal, which I only discovered after making the comment (since I use the predatory journal link highlighter script). For that reason, I'll remove the block discussing WasabiXML at User interface markup language after this discussion has closed (I assume it's bad form to edit target pages during redirect discussions?). Very possible this was citogenesis, since the Wikipedia info precedes the journal proceedings. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Really? If so, feel free to Delete both the article entry and the redirect. Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 12:57, 3 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).

Wigan Athletic F.C. 8–0 Hull City A.F.C.

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 18#Wigan Athletic F.C. 8–0 Hull City A.F.C.

Michael McGaharn

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 10#Michael McGaharn

Hallejuah (Kanye West song)

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 💬 18:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Misspelled; the song was actually released as Hallelujah, not Hallejuah. Delete. Duckmather (talk) 21:23, 2 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 Christmas Collection(Amy Grant album)

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 move without redirect to The Christmas Collection (2008 Amy Grant album). The title is definitely WP:X3 eligible, so closing this early in a manner that preserves the edit history. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Fails WP:RDAB. This is almost WP:X3-eligible but an article existed at this title for a month (no content was merged to the target). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:33, 2 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).

Las Muertas

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 10#Las Muertas

2 redirects to a fangame that is barely mentioned the target yayy

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. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

IWBTB (while popular in the IWBTG fagame community) is only mentioned once, in a "Hey, this exists" kinda way. Anyone who doesn't know what IWBTB is would barely be helped by this redirect, and anyone who does know what IWBTB is would be better off looking elsewhere (as in, non-Wikipedia sites). User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 12:14, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Keep – I'm not sure I understand the objection. "Hey, this exists" describes the destination coverage of many redirects; WP:REDIRECT says that one reason for a redirect is for "Subtopics or other topics that are described ... within a wider article". It seems better to the reader to get this one sentence than for the redirect not to exist, so I support keeping it. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 03:42, 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) 18:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep for me. IWBTB being mentioned in the article gives the redirects due weight. It's one of IWBTG's biggest fan games and has quite a decent amount of searches, I think. I'm biased myself, of course - back when I was younger, IWBTB was something I played before I even knew IWBTG was a thing. As a younger reader, if I looked IWBTB on Wikipedia, I would've appreciated the redirect. I think that may be the case for others. Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Keep even if it is barely mentioned, or not mentioned, I usually vote keep if it is a related topic. There is no harm in keeping these redirects, and they are helpful in getting to the most appropriate place. 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 16:16, 4 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).

May 25, 2020

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 9#May 25, 2020

ROad Rash

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. Complex/Rational 20:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:UNNATURAL capitalisations, as per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 20#Oliver and COmpany; also all created by the same user as in that nomination. Some of these had been nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 26#TObey Maguire in the past, but there has been consensus in the recent discussion to delete. (In fact, I did not realise WIld Arms was part of the old nomination as well when starting the recent one.) 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete. Different capitalisations aren't important to users because the search function shows them their desired search automatically, regardless of capitalisation. These are a waste of space and recent discussion points to consensus. Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as functionless, as the search function doesn't require them, and there's no scenario where these spellings would ever be appropriately used in article prose. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unlikely nonsense redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as terms with capitalizations that are unlikely to be used by readers in searches. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 19:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. WhAt? YoU gUyS dOn'T tYpE lIkE tHiS oN tHe ReGuLaR? (delete as they are unlikely to be typed in this way in any regular sense). Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
    only one of those is in random case consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 19:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Who types like this? Also, if you searched for any of these you already see the article. Whats the point??? I dont get why someone would make these pages? microTato(🗯️) (✍🏻) 12:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete none of these appear to contain any significant history and Road Rash for example is stylized as "ROAD RASH" not "ROad Rash" in the logo. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:50, 3 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).

Blade of the Immrotal

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 💬 18:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Unlikely typo given the length of the redirect, and only obstructs searches like Special:Search/immrotal and similar by not allowing the engine to perform automatic typo correction. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:06, 2 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).

Kung Fu Panda (film2)

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 deleted as G7 (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Implausible disambiguation qualifier, as there are no other redirects with it, and readers are probably not going to use it in searches. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) 14:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete This was a redirect from Kung Fu Panda (film) to Kung Fu Panda until Ceyockey moved it to its current title as part of what appears to be a botched WP:ROUNDROBIN move. Not sure why they didn't just move over the redirect since they were already an admin at that point. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - per @Ahecht, seems botched and very unlikely to be intentionally searched. Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 17:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Yeah, let's Delete it. My apologies. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:18, 3 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).

Knuckles the Hedgehog

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 💬 16:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Knuckles isn't a hedgehog, and I don't think he's ever been mistaken for one in the games or outside of them. Delete this redirect. Mr slav999 (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete as an implausible search term. Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) 14:52, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    Implausible yet it has over 2 million Google results when in quotes. Altho admittedly a piddling amount of views per year on here. Metallurgist (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  • delete per knuckles. the average knuckles will likely not mistake knuckles for a hedgehog, even with the most cursory possible knowledge of sonic (& knuckles) and hedgehogs, and almost definitely won't misinterpret the term "hedgehog" as referring to knuckles, as it will almost invariably be preceded by the words "sonic the" (and then proceeded by "& knuckles") or "shadow the" consarn (uhh shit rock yeah) 15:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Knuckles isn't a hedgehog! Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY for the same reason why Sonic the Echidna doesn't exist. (Since yeah, I get not everyone knows video game topics: Sonic the Hedgehog or Knuckles the Echidna?) Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Also as confusing --Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible. Sergecross73 msg me 00:49, 3 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).

Wikipedia:THESIS1

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. Contrary to WP:ENDCONSENSUS, this discussion will be closed according to WP:CONSENSUS. And, the consensus here is that these redirects are useful to link to particular sections of a long essay. Like it or not, people are talking about it and some editors agree with Larry's ideas and want to link to them. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Also:

WP:ENDCONSENSUS WP:THESIS2 WP:LETCOMPETE WP:ABOLISHBLACKLISTS WP:THESIS3 WP:THESIS4 WP:REVIVENEUTRALITY WP:THESIS5 WP:REPEALIAR WP:THESIS6 WP:THESIS7 WP:THESIS8 WP:REVEALLEADERS WP:RATEARTICLES WP:ENDPERMABLOCK WP:THESIS9 WP:ADOPTASSEMBLY

Mostly for reason 4 at WP:RDEL but also 6, 8, etc

I don't object to there being a shortname redirect to this users essay but adding loads of them looks like a form of canvassing. JMWt (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  • That is quite a lot for something in userspace. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Sophisticatedevening(talk) 12:47, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • speedy close to properly nom those together (it's not a long story, it's just easier with massxfd lol), and tell larry that that's not what a thesis is consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 12:53, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    oh right uh... otherwise, delete all, and edit the theses to not use curly quotes and put the sentence's punctuation inside the quotes (yuck) consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 12:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete all - it's pretty obvious this is an attempt to get attention to the essay, aside from WP:RDEL. EF5 13:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Take em all down (Delete all) No reason to give a userspace essay with zero extra weight compared to any other of those random essays that are never read whatsoever so many shortcuts. Literally just one would suffice. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete them all per RDEL 4 and 6, less convinced about 8 applying but one good reason to delete is enough here. CNC (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete, not seeing these being used. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    This argument is somewhat unfair, to e page was created less than a week ago, there will likely be more larger discussions on these points raised in the future (I myself plan to draft up proposal reguarding point nine) and therefore use is likely to increase. This may not pan out but saying their unused less than a week after creation seem misleading Olliefant (she/her) 05:30, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. These can be recreated if this essay becomes popular and people will be referencing it in discussions. Right now these shortcuts seem premature. At the moment it doesn't seem very likely that Larry Sanger's essay will become an important part of future discussions. Antibabelic (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I have properly tagged and added to this nomination the additional redirects mentioned by the nominator. (Prior to this point, the only redirect properly tagged and added into this nomination was Wikipedia:THESIS1.) However, note though that Jlwoodwa changed the target of Wikipedia:RATEARTICLES prior to my tagging of the redirect: Wikipedia:RATEARTICLES now targets Wikipedia:Content assessment. Steel1943 (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete all: This is nothing more than an attempt to get more attention to a fringe essay. Realistically, none of these are actually ever going to be used. — EarthDude (wanna talk?) 19:18, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep all: The community would benefit by having deep links into the individual theses and essays, so that they can be discussed. This is not an ordinary essay. It's 37,000 words long, and each major section is a significant proposal that Wikipedia is being invited to consider. Larry Sanger (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    It's important to note that there are other mechanisms established for these kinds of proposals. Have you familiarized yourself with WP:GUIDANCE and WP:PROPOSAL? Antibabelic (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    Hi. One of the main points of the theses is to improve "mechanisms established for these kinds of proposals." Those mechanisms are definitely not established for these kinds of proposals. I would have you familiarize yourself, in turn, with WP:THESIS1 and WP:THESIS9, and other theses that specifically suggest ways to improve Wikipedia's processes. Larry Sanger (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
    Per @JMWt, these are irrelevant, are not policy, and you should not be citing your own essay. You are on Wikipedia, so please learn and follow its policies. Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Larry Sanger. Convenient redirects would facilitate much-needed discussions. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    However, creating shortcuts is not an appropriate way to go about facilitating and promoting discussion. We already have a process for that: Wikipedia:Requests for comment, amongst many other forums, such as Wikipedia:Village pump and its respective subpages. Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    Is this really inside the scope of RfC, though? At 37K words I assume no one is going to want to discuss the whole thing at once, so the shortcuts strike me as smart future-proofing. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    Well, the creator of the target is requesting comments, so ... I'd go with a "yes" there. That, and an RfC can be written to focus on whatever part of a page the RfC proposer desires; it doesn't have to be the whole page. Also, to counteract your point, if "...no one is going to want to discuss the whole thing at once...", where's the validation that they would want to do that even when directed to the target via shortcuts? Steel1943 (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    Surely the point is that the individual essays may (and, I would argue, should) be cited and discussed in many different places. Larry Sanger (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
    I would argue that the one linked in the RFD won't and shouldn't, because it supports fringe theories and is antithetical to building a good encyclopedia. And I think fringe essays should not be parroted around Wikipedia any more than can fit in a user page. Drunk Experiter (she/her) (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep all; there are plenty of projectspace redirects to user pages, e.g. WP:JIMBOTALK. This RfD is, at best, an exercise in bureaucratic neurosis for its own sake, and at worst, an asinine and petty attempt to blow a raspberry at the site's cofounder. jp×g🗯️ 22:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    ...Kind of an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument there, but meh... Steel1943 (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    A discussion of policy is a discussion of how things are done, and it's not possible to discuss how things are done without reference to the things. jp×g🗯️ 02:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
    Yep, just like how I referenced WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It's an endless circle! Steel1943 (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
    Of interest, I recommend in thesis 9 that we entirely dispense with the system of quasi-official essays, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is cited as an example of a bad essay that needs to be made a user space essay (or, if it can be adverted to at all, adopted explicitly as a policy by an editorial assembly). "This is frequently invoked, in a really shameless way, to justify inconsistency across articles." See also footnote 66. Larry Sanger (talk) 03:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
    Irrelevant. If you want to contribute to discussions about the essay that you’ve written then kindly don’t cite it. JMWt (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
    I am fully ready to die alongside Larry on the hill of WP:OTHERSTUFF being the dumbest WP:UPPERCASE in history, if not in the actual content at the end of the redirect, then surely in the ridiculous cartwheels it's invoked to enable on a daily basis. jp×g🗯️ 06:01, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
    not sure why you are telling me this. It's obvious to everyone that this "thesis" has no standing because it has not been discussed through the the normal channels. So citing it in a discussion about it is obviously out-of-process. The fact that one of the point is this discussion is about the whole notion of consensus makes it particularly ridiculous. How are we supposed to deal with that, other than crowning an alternative Jimbo to overturn decades of community practice.
    If there is to be a meta discussion then that's fine. But not in this ridiculous way, like dribbles of diarrhea across the site. JMWt (talk) 08:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
    With respect, I ask you to consider what would happen if every active editor did this. JMWt (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RDEL 4. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    Smart-aleck invocation of RDEL4 entirely contrary to its spirit. jp×g🗯️ 05:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
    This isn't an attempt at being a smart-aleck, it's just that 18 redirects to a new user essay by someone who hasn't substantially edited in ~2 years seems unnecessary. It's also promotional given that they've used the essay's content as a jumping off point in the media with several interviews decrying Wikipedia.
    I don't see how my invocation of REDEL 4 is at all inaccurate or contrary to its spirit, let alone inauthentic & I don't appreciate your remark implying otherwise. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the page merits discussion and raises genuine questions with valid ideas. I think a wider discussion is needed enwiki wide and these redirects, while yes could be seen as RDEL4 violations given how they all popped up fairly quickly as opposed to being established over time, are fairly useful. I don't think there would be any RDEL4 concerns had Spangler either spaced out the creation or been a little more conservative in which he created. Redirects are hardly promotional, the only person they could possibly be trying to promote to are members of the NPP of which according to this there is less than 1000 members. Olliefant (she/her) 05:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep all, people have found them useful, per #5 in WP:RFD#KEEP. (In this particular situation, applying RDEL4 does not assume good faith, imo). These shortcuts are in project-space where they're not likely to bother anyone. Redirects from project-space are regularly able to point to userspace, if an editor has a thoughtful page they want a shortcut for. A vast number of userspace essays have shortcuts for the people who refer to these essays. Extra shortcuts here and there are WP:CHEAP, and don't appear to be confusable with any other pages currently (except possibly "RATEARTICLES", but even then WP:Content assessment has been fine since 2005 with the 58 incoming redirects it has already; retargeting it is splitting hairs that I'd rather just keep it, with a hatnote to content assessment if desired). Utopes (talk / cont) 06:02, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Editors needn't be told how essay rds to userspaces are a dime a dozen and I have unfortunately seen these and others be cited as if they were policy, at the very least the rd shortcuts here clearly present that they are proposals and essays unlike many non-neutral shortcuts that go about. The creation of such a large number of these in a short amount of time may raise eyebrows but that isn't itself a criteria for deletion and it would be hard to argue that these are either promotional/spam etc. (or 6 [cross-namespace redirect out of article space], 8 [novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target]) rather than actual community proposals (however one may disagree with them). PS: And from what I can tell, the recent proposals and the interest in them as such may stem from an appearance by Larry Sanger at the The Tucker Carlson Show. At least these proposals are for the project than unserious contestations such as Grokipedia. Gotitbro (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
    This has received The Signpost coverage: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-10-02/News and notes. Gotitbro (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete all It's one thing for cross-namespace redirects to be organically created over time as people refer to them in discussions, quite another for someone to create two dozen redirects to their own essay for promoting it. Applying WP:RFD#KEEP #5 is a stretch. – SD0001 (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete all per RDEL4. My word. Glen (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete all This is heavy overkill and certainly monopolizing redirects to advertise one's essay. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete most While it's fine for this user to have written a long essay, it seems highly unlikely that it'll be so widely discussed that we'll need redirects to every section of it. If that turns out to be incorrect, we can re-create them. Looking at WP:RFD#DELETE, I find that #2 likely applies (making the essay seem like it's more accepted than it is) and #4 (self-promotion, as they were created by the author of the essay to promote the essay) seem to apply. OTOH, it appears that WP:RATEARTICLES has been retargeted; that (and any others that may be retargeted) should be discussed separately. Anomie⚔ 12:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep all for now with no prejudice to retarget if a more appropriate primary topic is found for any of them. Even ignoring the WP:ABF that comes with invoking WP:R#D4, people have said that they find these useful and WP:R#K5 says that if someone says that they find a redirect useful, they probably do. In particular, these shortcuts will be useful for future discussions of these proposals, which is something that certain editors above find important. I also think that some of the "theses" merit further discussion so there's that. Warudo (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
  • At least delete ones that are not WP:THESISn. I don't see why anyone would use "WP:LETCOMPETE" as a shortcut to "#Enable competing articles". WP:THESISns are less problematic.  — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 14:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
    Since Sanger claimed "WP:9T", I don't think him using redirects beginning with "WP:9T" is link-farming. We can move the redirects to make them easy to understand and cite, and avoid misunderstanding or shortcut-conflict (now or possibly in the future).
ThesisRdr w/ No.Redirect with words
1. End decision-making by “consensus.”WP:9T1WP:9TCON
2. Enable competing articles.WP:9T2WP:9TCOMPETE
3. Abolish source blacklists.WP:9T3WP:9TRSP
4. Revive the original neutrality policy.WP:9T4WP:9TNPOV
5. Repeal “Ignore all rules.”WP:9T5WP:9TIAR
6. Reveal who Wikipedia’s leaders are.WP:9T6WP:9TREVEAL
7. Let the public rate articles.WP:9T7WP:9TRATE
8. End indefinite blocking.WP:9T8WP:9TINDEF
9. Adopt a legislative process.WP:9T9WP:9TASSEMBLY
 — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 21:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete all I can't see why this essay should monopolise these generic wiki space redirects. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 08:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete all. Whether or not this essay has substance is not the point of this discussion. I think the strongest case can be made for the 2 word string redirects, as those are very long and not likely to be used (they aren't humorous either, although the text they point to may be considered such). Then, we come to the numbered thesis redirects. These are not very memorable, but not so much so that they are implausible. These are just self-promotion while the 2-word strings are promotion and implausible. 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 16:14, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep all I think that it is a pretty minor ask to allow one of the two co-founders of Wikipedia to have... some shortcuts redirects? Is that really what we are discussing? Yes, I suppose it is. Well in that event. Per WP:CHEAP these all seem to have been available, and clearly were not taking up any other digital real estate, as it does not appear as if any special page moves or other title changes occurred. No, just some standard potentially helpful redirect/shortcuts which if you can check for pageviews I imagine are already getting some use considering how important this essay seems to be (at least partly based on the press that it has received, and partly based on who wrote it). Shortcuts are incredibly valuable in navigating and pointing to parts of such a large essay which seems to have many sub-sections and sub-divisions. Removing these would be a annoying disservice to anyone trying to navigate the essay, including those who may wish to criticize it. It helps to have sub-section shortcuts to point to exactly the part being criticized just as it helps to point to the part which might be further discussed for its merits. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
    Note shortcuts are not necessary to point to sub-sections to discuss or navigate the essay, an editor can easily use the anchored link these redirects redirect to. Shortcuts are more often used for things that people commonly want to refer to as supporting arguments from discussions about other things. Anomie⚔ 12:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong keep all. Users are allowed to create redirects to their essays. In this case, this is a very high profile esssay with many sub-points. It makes sense to have easy-to-remember redirects to these. The claim that this is somehow self-promotion is ludicrous. Applying RDEL 4 to this is pathetic wikilawyering. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 18:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep the THESISn ones as harmless and unambiguously referring to Larry's essay. Weak delete the other ones since a lot of them could conceivably refer to other parts of the site and I doubt they will be used to refer to Larry's essay. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
    I'd say changing WP:ENDCONSENSUS to WP:THESISCONSENSUS or WP:9TCON would be good.  — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 20:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
    Per WP:CHEAP I think we should add all of your suggested redirects/shortcuts, but not remove any of these. They appear to be too important, and are also super cheap to keep. No downside, all upside. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
    It's just that I fear there will be essays (specifically, project essays that anyone can edit) more suitable for the redirects. Then again, who else would write anything on "adopt assembly"?  — 魔琴 (Zauber Violino) [ talk contribs ] 14:24, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
  • strong delete all The meta namespace is not a sandbox for private essays. Chaddy (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
    That's not quite true. Redirects from project space to user essays are not automatically deleted. WP:THREE, for example, is a redirect to a user essay that was brought to RfD and kept because people who agree with that essay use it in AfD discussions. Warudo (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Frankly, having so many redirects to a silly user essay like this just gives off strong vibes of self-righteousness. I'd even support deletion of the essay itself, but given that it's already survived two MFDs in one day, it's clear that's not going to happen. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:5CA8:42D8:9718:AB3C (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
    You could nominate it for a 3rd time and it might succeed if you have strong reasoning for why it should go. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep all: they're just shortcuts. Shortcuts from project-space to userspace are accepted practice, especially to essays given they exist in both namespaces. We don't pre-emptively delete such shortcuts simply because it's unlikely they'll be used. Their existence or not becomes important once they become used and not beforehand. (As to the RD#4 invocations, the guidelines plainly indicate that RK#5 overrides it.) J947 ‡ edits 01:14, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
    This is a strong and policy-based reason for keeping all. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep all This probably does need some cleanup and trimming, but it is a major essay by a Wikipedia Founder about a major proposal to reform Wikipedia. It needs more careful review than a broad brush deletion. Metallurgist (talk) 08:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
    This seems like a rationale for keeping User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses itself, but deleting that is not the topic of discussion here. What's being discussed here are a plethora of redirects the author created, apparently in the hope that the essay would be as influential as Wikipedia:Five pillars (or at least that people would be confused into thinking it so by the similar redirects). Anomie⚔ 14:38, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete all that have not already been repurposed per Anomie. (Also, no, this is not a "high-profile" essay. It's already being forgotten.) Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
    Those figures suggest much the opposite to me. The essay received more pageviews than Wikipedia:Notability yesterday (link). J947 ‡ edits 03:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
    A comparison for one day's figures is far less significant than the fact that the essay had a peak of attention which is now well on the way to receding. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, it had a peak of attention. Everything has a peak of attention when first created. The bar for the essay to be "high-profile" isn't maintaining its current level of pageviews; extremely high-profile essays like WP:AGF receive a third or less of this essay's current pageviews. WP:DTTR is high-profile to me, has lots of shortcuts, and averages fewer than 10 daily pageviews, a figure quite a lot lower than 500. (Also, it's not clear it's actually receding in pageviews at this point – been pretty stagnant the last couple of days, with WP:N's pageviews changing to a greater degree.) J947 ‡ edits 06:28, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
    Have to agree with @J947 here. For an essay, this is probably, even now, one of the most viewed essays of all time. Even at the allegedly "being forgotten" rate of 500 or so views per day, that is still almost 15,000 per month, or more than probably 90%+ of pages on Wikipedia. The data directly contradicts the OPs claim of "being forgotten" and therefore these redirects and shortcuts should be retained. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
    I think it's too early to use pageviews as a useful metric here. How do we differentiate "this is a popular, widely read essay" from "people are still arguing over how terrible the essay is, and looking at it to better complain about how bad it is"? Personally my own perusal of some of the discussions around it suggests the latter, but I have no real analysis to back that up. 🤷
    and therefore these redirects and shortcuts should be retained I find that a total non sequitur, BTW. Anomie⚔ 14:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep All All 9 of these ideas I think would be an improvement for Wikipedia. Acknowledging biases allowing more sources making space for competing narratives and ideas exhibit the best aspects of this platform. This website is suppose to be a destination for knowledge--not gatekeeping. I think implementing even a few of these ideological standards would make the internet a better place. Agnieszka653 (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
    This seems like a rationale for keeping User:Larry Sanger/Nine Theses itself, but deleting that is not the topic of discussion here. Anomie⚔ 14:33, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Strongly keep all per J947.
NotAGenious (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong keep all Per WP:CHEAP and WP:RFD#KEEP point #5. The fact that this discussion is happening and has many people arguing for Keep demonstrates that, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do." These are harmless redirects. They are also pretty useful for discussion and make it easier to link to specific sections of an essay that has significant community attention. Project-space shortcuts to user essays are not uncommon and help users find what they are looking for without necessarily implying endorsement. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep all. This essay has gotten a lot of attention, so shortcuts are warranted, and it's perfectly fine to preemptively create shortcuts to sections, as redirects are CHEAP. 123957a (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Keep Wikipedia:RATEARTICLES. Among others, Delete those that aren't THESISn, though I do think 魔琴's suggestion may work as an alternative. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 03:54, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Keep all per @Warudo and @Utopes. People find these useful and they could be nice for discussing the "nine-theses" written by Larry Sanger. 12.196.94.50 (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I'm fine with a couple in the October 15 RfD discussion being kept, but frankly, this is what I would call "redirect spam". The sheer volume of these redirects appears abusive. They're simply not necessary for anyone finding this material. Stefen 𝕋ower's got the power!!1! Gab • Gruntwerk 03:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Spamming redirects and making the site search worse is not helpful to the project or people using it. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete all, we do not need 2342 redirects to fringe essay by someone who's view are diametrically opposed to what Wikipedia is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep all WP:CHEAP redirects which Sanger argued are "clearly gaining traction among editors and the redirects are potentially helpful". That is than enough to keep all of the listed redirects in this. 50.150.21.162 (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Redirects like this are harmless and make it easier to link to and discuss individual theses; per WP:CHEAP, there's no cost in keeping them. Unclasp4940 (talk) 12:59, 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).

L'AGEFI

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 💬 18:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:RETURNTORED, notable and article provides next to no information on it. See frwiki article . Creator also a blocked sock. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom as potential article in the future --Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 3 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).

Ziltoid the Omniscient (crater)

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 via WP:G7; author requested deletion. (non-admin closure) Casablanca 🪨(T) 14:00, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete as no such crater exists, nor is it listed in the list on the target article. Redirect page also has been edited asking for deletion on the page body. FracaWicro (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  • You should have just asked... I suspect this was from a time when I was using a list of craters to create redirects to the various lists of craters, and that one snuck in. I've G7'd it. Primefac (talk) 09:15, 2 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 Snowball Fight

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 9#The Snowball Fight

Cultural heritage of the Nation

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 deleted. as G7 (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Cultural heritage of the Nation is kind of vague and when I searched for it on Google it ended up getting results for all nations including Peru. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete, too vague. "The Nation" isn't a general term for specifically Peru. I don't even know how that got there. Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I created the redirect; it was clearly a mistake per WP:R#DELETE. Thanks for your understanding. JustEMV🦙 (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Respublik (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom and creator. (Does this count as WP:G7?) --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:02, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
    I'd say yes. Steel1943 (talk) 01:01, 3 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).

A metamorfosis

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 10#A metamorfosis

Next British Columbia Liberal Party leadership election

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 💬 18:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Delete as political party no longer exists under this name (barely exists as is), so there won't be another BC Liberal Party leadership election Epluribusunumyall (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to BC United or delete. Presumably, someone will replace Kevin Falcon as BC United leader at some point by leadership election or some other process. The future of the party is unknown, as is its name. The ballot name of BC United remains "BC United (formerly BC Liberal Party)". Also, BC Liberal Party, BCL, and BCLP remain registered alternate names for the party. This means no other party can claim the "Liberal" name for at least 10 years per Elections BC rules. Since the party was known as some variation of the BC Liberals or Liberal Party of BC for most of its 122 years, its recent disastrous name change is not reason alone to delete this redirect. There are others though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete – Disagree with Darryl's conclusion. From a functional standpoint the redirect is inappropriate. There was a BC Liberal Party so redirects with that name should be considered for keeping due to how well-known that name is in BC, but this redirect is for a future event that won't happen under the BC Liberal name. Yue🌙 18:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete CRYSTALBALL, especially given what is stated above. Metallurgist (talk) 08:06, 7 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).

床

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) 21:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I tried PRODing this page, but the PROD was contested by Eva UX. I still think this page (now redirect) should be deleted. Tokonoma is only one use of this character, and an extremely obscure one that I have not been able to verify to any sources (not even Wiktionary!). In every language that uses this character, its primary meaning is "bed". Deleting this redirect would take readers who search for this character to the search results , where a link to Wiktionary is prominently featured on the top left. This is the best option for readers, who I am certain are overwhelmingly looking for the meaning of "床", not some obscure abbreviation of a phrase in which it is used. Toadspike [Talk] 13:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  • delete per above. Oreocooke (talk) 15:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
  • "Tokonoma is only one use of this character."--->Restore DISAMBIGUATION page then. (it had 4-5 entries before the nominator him/herself removed other entries, leaving but the one associated with the current target....). See page history, and this version (which can obviously be improved). Also, this type of disambiguation pages is pretty standard, please see Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles. Either a DISAMB is needed, or a redirect seems warranted and helpful. I cannot see how deleting the information could be "the best option for the readers". Especially if the wiktionary link is STILL in the disambiguation page...(And it was there; again see old version mentioned!) --- E.UX 16:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for the ping! --- E.UX 16:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
    I removed three entries because they violated WP:FORRED and WP:NOTDICT. All three of those entries simply defined this character as "bed" or similar, which I absolutely think is something readers should be told, just in a way that complies with our policies and our purpose as an encyclopedia. Toadspike [Talk] 20:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
    For the record, I always thought the essay FORRED [it is technically not obvious that an essay can be violated, but never mind] was about pages that are redirects not about given entries in a disambiguation pages. And I don't think that NOTDICT applies to the presence of information inside a disambiguation page that contains otherwise useful entries (rather again, to articles themselves) but maybe I am wrong; that policy certainly does not forbid to have a link to the Wiktionary inside a disambiguation page, which was the case. Anyway, retarget to Toko (disambiguation) seems to be a good compromise. --- E.UX 21:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep The other uses on the dab incarnation failed MOS:DABMENTION, whereas the redirect's target does define the term. Lacking any other target, the redirect is right where it should be. Paradoctor (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
    Retarget to toko (disambiguation) and add tokonoma per Mycetae. In my search bubble, searching for 床 isn't overly helpful, with the suggestions particularly not. Paradoctor (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
    Disambiguate at 床 (disambiguation) as per my below. Paradoctor (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
    Search "isn't helpful" because it's an extremely common character that usually means bed or couch and that appears in numerous compounds. We of course wouldn't redirect to bed or couch per WP:FORRED. I don't think we want to create dab pages for random Chinese characters; I was surprised to see we have 中 but this seems like a special case. Pointing to Toko (disambiguation) is only "helpful" in the very narrow sense that it sends readers somewhere specific, but the specific page misrepresents the character's typical usage and includes a bunch unrelated entries, which seems rather unhelpful. I know I'm the one who raised the Toko (disambiguation) possibility but the more I think about it the more wrong it seems… --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
    misrepresents the character's typical usage Disagree. DUE is not a concern for dab pages, we have articles for that, if and when we do. The term is ambiguous, so we disambiguate.
    "isn't helpful" because Well, that just supports my point. 🤷 Paradoctor (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
    DUE is not a concern for dab pages Sure, but we do concern ourselves with not misleading or unduly 'astonishing' readers. I haven't struck my 'weak retarget' (yet…) but It seems odd to send readers to a dab page that omits the most common uses of 床 and includes a bunch of entries that 床 never refers to. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 00:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
    I don't see what you're getting at. If it's a valid entry, then 床 does refer its subject. We got three of those. If you say there should be articles about some other meanings, either WP:SOFIXIT or ponder the wisdom of WP:WIP. All remaining cases can be covered with a Wiktionary link. "Surprise" has no seat on this table. 🤷 Paradoctor (talk) 01:58, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
    I meant 25 of the 27 entries at Toko (disambiguation), including several of the other Japanese entries, which have nothing to do with 床. And that we have articles on bed and couch, which is the primary meaning of 床, but those are appropriately not listed at the Toko dab page. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 02:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
    The furniture is a red herring, but I can see how someone could disagree about 床 being ambiguous with toko. No problem: 床 (disambiguation). The need to disambiguate has been demonstrated, leaves only the where. Paradoctor (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
    I really don't think that is a good solution and continue to believe that a Wikipedia search is where we should send our readers. A redirect to "Toko" would give our readers one of several readings of this character in one of several languages in which it is used. It would be akin to directing our readers to a broom closet, when they're seeking to understand a vast palace. Unhelpful at best, misleading and frustrating at worst. Toadspike [Talk] 21:33, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is a common character whose primary meaning is different from the current target. The usage as synonymous with tokonoma has been disputed, although I see there are two references in the article. Or weak retarget to Toko (disambiguation), where the character appears twice as a surname, and add tokonoma. I prefer to send to search where Wiktionary and various uses on en.wiki will appear. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:08, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:50, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate with tokonoma and the 2 proper names from Toko (disambiguation). CJK redirects have always been tricky to address, and this seems like a reasonable compromise to give readers a comprehensive but accurate overview of 床 on enwiki, with the option of going to Wikitionary if needed. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 18:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per VolatileAnomaly. Zarceational (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate WP:CJKV disambig pages for ambiguous terms of topics with native names, that are not general topics (ie. not "bed", a general topic) but specific topics. -- 65.93.183.109 (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak DABify 床 although I still prefer deletion here. A standalone 床 DAB page is preferable to retargeting this to Toko (disambiguation), which is actively misleading. The guidance at WP:CJKV is reasonable. It may not be P&G but there is precedent as demonstrated by the 462 entries in Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
Delete Thank you for your work in this space. Most of these should be deleted. There was a whole category of junk dabs based on characters which often served little purpose. Per WP:RFOREIGN#Examples, the only times foreign characters are acceptable is quite limited, namely in this case "Original or official names of people, places, institutions, publications or products". So an actual place name, probably. The local term for a generic word such as this, probably not. Metallurgist (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Uhh, two people surnames, and "tokonoma" certainly fits Manifestations of culture with special significance in areas where that language is spoken. Paradoctor (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
No. Look at the example. It means something that has some currency under the foreign language in English. The purpose of this is for something like 東京都 if a user needs to look up a Japanese place name and cannot find the English. We dont need a redirect for parts of a Japanese house. Metallurgist (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Kecap manis. Paradoctor (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Do we really need to restate all the reasons 床 is different? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
You don't. I have asked Metallurgist. Paradoctor (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
  • DAB per above. Two people and Tokonoma would be enough for a WP:CJKV dab even without the plain definitions. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Disambiguation draft requested (done) * Pppery * it has begun... 20:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
    I made a disambiguation draft with the two names and tokonoma. I'll also take the opportunity to !vote for disambiguation per VolatileAnomaly. Warudo (talk) 14:06, 14 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).

Khmer Knong

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 Let's give time for the relevant information to be added as requested and promised. If this doesn't happen and concerns persist, feel free to renominate after a reasonable amount of time has passed. -- Tavix (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Term not mentioned in article and I couldn't find a meaning for it through a search. Suonii180 (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete. I haven't been able to work out the meaning of this, but part of that is that it's never used in English-language contexts that I can see. Search results are almost all low view-count videos of groups of people dancing. Based on Google translate, this transliterates to កូនខ្មែរ in Khmer. There isn't an article at this title on that language's Wikipedia, and googling doesn't help me understand (many of the results are for YouTube videos tagged as comedy though if that helps anyone?). Whatever, this redirect is not going to help anybody searching on the English Wikipedia - someone who knows what this means (presumably) isn't going to find anything useful at the target and those who don't know what it means won't be any the wiser. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
    Comment as creator of redirect: @Thryduulf Whatever Google Translate spat out is wrong, ខ្មែរខាងក្នុង (or the shortened form ខ្មែរក្នុង) is the correct way to spell the term in Khmer. (Tangentially, please do not use Google Translate for anything Khmer-related). In this context it means "Inland Khmer" or "Central Khmer". The term is really only used sparingly to distinguish what we would call Khmer people from Cambodia from Khmer Loeu "Northern/Upland Khmer" and Khmer Krom "Southern/Lowland Khmer".
    Because it's used so sparingly and the fact that it's only relevant in context of Khmer Loeu and Krom is the reason why I decided to make the redirect instead of separate page. I'd like to note that while this is no means a reason to keep the redirect, there is now something similar with regards to the Lao people where "Lao Loum" redirects to the main Lao people article while Lao Soung and Lao Theung exist as seperate articles.
    If not deleted, the redirect could instead be renamed to "Khmer Khangknong" or "Central Khmer people", the latter of which is similar to what is done with Northern Thai people. TansoShoshen (talk) 17:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:49, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete, agreed with @TansoShoshen. Seems like too rare a term. Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • The creator's knowledge should go into the target article or another article. We have articles on Khmer Loeu and Khmer Krom with those titles, and Khmer Surin as a redirect. "Knong" or "Khangknong" should be mentioned to be useful and to avoid confusion, given that it's a non-English term with translations not being very helpful. Keep if useful info is added, delete otherwise. Jay 💬 14:42, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
    @Jay Will do ASAP. TansoShoshen (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
Keep per Jay and TansoShoshen. The term is rare but still a plausible term to search for - besides, redirects like these are cheap. Frank(has DemoCracy DeprivaTion) 13:41, 14 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).

Kuruluş: Orhan season 2

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 00:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

The first season hasn't started airing yet and nothing about a 2nd (or later) season is mentioned in the target page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

so delete per WP:TOOSOON then (and maybe also WP:CRYSTAL) Oreocooke (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
They are meant for if users search for any other season it will redirect them. Yes not confirmed but those are surely upcoming seasons now there is no reason to delete those there is nothing as WP:TOOSOON because they aren't full article yet. They are just redirects to make search easier and if the season release which can be similar to the previous seasons of this continuous Ottoman historical series produced Mehmet Bozdağ such as Diriliş: Ertuğrul or Kuruluş: Osman. If releases anyone can edit those season pages and expand them more. Also its not WP:CRYSTAL those are just redirects. Now can you clarify why you want just redirects to be deleted? A$ianeditorz (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Since there is no mention of seasons 2-5 in the target page, it would lead to readers being surprised. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Those aren't completely different topics if they search they will come on Kuruluş: Orhan where they can find which season till now is released. And you haven't answered why you want just redirects who are making search better for readers to be deleted? A$ianeditorz (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I see no reason for deletion of redirects.
Therealbey (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
that's... not how that works? redirects can be deleted just fine, it's not like wp:cheap is a universal unconditional policy that takes priority over all other things and prevents the deletion of all redirects. if you have opposition towards deleting those (which would then likely be a keep vote), that's cool and good, but you should make an argument towards that consarn (grave) (obituary) 22:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
(I)support what @Consarn said Oreocooke (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
support asking what the actual argument is? consarn (grave) (obituary) 20:04, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
actually, it's probably worth a ping, so @Therealbey, what exactly did you mean by that? consarn (grave) (obituary) 13:18, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete, I agree with @MPGuy2824, it'd be too surprising to readers. If and when all those seasons come out, we can add the redirects. For now, we shouldn't delude readers accidentally. Drunk Experiter (Kanni, she/her) (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete primarily as useless redirects that simply extend the name of the target without useful navigation. Also per nom. Respublik (talk) 19:36, 2 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).

Doctor Ivo

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 12#Doctor Ivo