No article found for “Category:NA-importance Bahrain pages?from=Cj”.

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 15

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

September 15

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 15, 2025.

Peacemaker (DC Extended Universe)

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 * Pppery * it has begun... 04:01, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

This redirect target keeps getting changed without explanation, so I'm just bringing it to RfD. I am far from an expert on this but this should probably just target to Peacemaker (character) as the article is about Peacemaker, although the current target does link there. Casablanca 🪨(T) 18:03, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Retarget to Peacemaker (character) with no direct subsection because there is more information on the adaptation of the character throughout the article than what is covered by the brief overview at the DCEU characters list. I know some think the DCEU characters list should be the go-to destination for such redirects, but this is a different case because of the character's unique depiction being closely linked to (but not the same as) the version in the succeeding DC Universe (franchise). — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 18:08, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Comment this does not appear to be a logical redirect and was merely created as a result of a WP:BOLD merge last month that was weakly contested by an anon editor. Perhaps we should discuss why this redirect exists at all? Tduk (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
How is this not a logical redirect? It's discussing an incarnation of a popular character that is highly important to the character in question. It's clearly disambiguated as well so I don't see how it could possibly be confusing. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:21, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
This redirect only exists to preserve the edit history of the article; no one is going to be searching for "Peacemaker (DC Extended Universe)" verbatim in the search box. Maybe a solution would be to rename the old article to something less controversial, so its target is completely non-contestable, yet it still retains the edit history. Tduk (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
If someone is searching for this particular incarnation of the character, they would likely use some kind of disambiguator; this is pretty common practice as a whole. Even if the chances are remote, this isn't exactly an unhelpful redirect, so I don't see a reason we'd need to delete it. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:16, 9 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm not going to disagree too hard on this, but I could see saying that it's more helpful to just show them the list of Peacemaker disambiguation pages and let them decide for themselves where they want to go. I believe this would happen if the redirect were deleted. Again, it _does_ need to be there to preserve edit history. Tduk (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Retarget to Peacemaker (character), where this information is adequately discussed as is and contains links if further plot summary information is needed. The list contains arguably less info on this character and the character is so tied to later incarnations of the character that discussing it separately is less helpful for readers. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:19, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment I oppose the idea that merging the articles is "causing problems"; the only problem that's come up so far is this redirect, which is solely an issue of which target covers this subject better, not anything related to subject notability or content. If there's disputes over how much plot summary should be included at Peacemaker article, that can be debated at Talk:Peacemaker (character). Re-creating an inherently non-independently notable article solely on the grounds that not enough plot information exists at a target is not grounds for an article for a number of reasons. We predicate content based off real-world importance, not in-universe importance.
In terms of lists, I argue the DCEU link is better served by being at the parent than at the DCEU list; the DCEU character's story inherently continues into another incarnation and those two incarnations are discussed together frequently. People looking at Peacemaker from season one are logically going to want to see information about the Peacemaker in season two. The main Peacemaker article covers not only this, but also the developmental history of both the DCEU and DCU incarnations as well as the reception to him in his show; if someone wants information on how this incarnation has developed and progressed with real-world context, the main Peacemaker article serves better than the list. The list can't hope to fit that info without it being UNDUE.
Additionally, I will note MCULINKS is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which does not trump site-wide consensus such as WP:REDIRECT's guidelines, which state nothing that indicate this type of redirect formatting is problematic, and additionally that alternate spellings and phrasings of subject names are more than valid, which this would fall under since it is likely people would be searching for this particular incarnation of the character.
I do not see any of the opposition rationales above as being particularly convincing in terms of guidelines and organization of information; the only solid gripe that's been conveyed so far is that there's not enough plot information, which I feel can definitely just be compromised on and added to the Peacemaker article, which will address both sides' concerns. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Again, if there's ambiguity over where this should go - and clearly there is - this would be fixed by either restoring the original article, or deleting this redirect and setting up a proper disambiguation page for Peacemaker - although there is still the edit history of the original article to deal with. In addition - the Wikipedia:BOLD merge was in fact contested/undone here but strangely in disagreement with standard WP:BRD procedures, that revert was immediately reverted. I stand by my stance of re-assess. Tduk (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
(The reversion was here ) Tduk (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
@Tduk I'm very confused by your rationale. What "ambiguity" would necessitate an article recreation? The incarnation of the character is clearly discussed at other articles, and I don't see how deleting the redirect or re-creating a non-notable article would help with organizing or helping readers access that content. Additionally, the whole point of RfD is to work out how to resolve ambiguity over where redirects should go; I'm not sure why we're pointing to a completely different discussion space to handle something that can be resolved here with no issue.
In terms of the revert, that's a mistake on my part; I forgot to leave a message on the talk page at the time. Regardless, though, even if I made a mistake, in terms of this discussion, there's no real rationale for re-creation beyond "I messed up a single step", which isn't weighted on any notability principles whatsoever, whereas there's no rationale for deletion of the redirect beyond a LOCALCONSENSUS interpretation. I am unopposed to discussing this per BOLD, but we may as well discuss it here, given this discussion seems like it's gearing towards determining a page split as it is, and restarting it in a new venue would be redundant. I would appreciate some policy based rationales indicating why the page should either be split or deleted beyond LOCALCONSENSUS, since if we are determining page recreation for reasons beyond principle right now, we may as well get policies in here.
(I apologize if this comes across as harsh or confusing; I am currently sick and suffering from some very bad brain fog, so I will say I'm sorry in advance if this just proves to be more confusing or what have you then anything else) Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
As far as I know, if you make a WP:BOLD edit, and someone undoes it, the standard procedure is to let it be done and discuss it on the talk page, per WP:BRD. If that were followed, we might not be having this discussion; maybe the merge would not have happened, or it would have gone differently. This entire discussion at RfD existing at all and being as involved as it is, with many different points of view, is an indication, to me, that something had been done that did not have a proper consensus. Tduk (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
@Tduk Okay? I just said that. What I'm saying is that what happened in the past happened and I'll make sure not to repeat the same mistake in the future, but for right now, we need to have this discussion one way or another, and the discussion is already happening right now. We may as well use this to determine a consensus on what to do with the article rather than needlessly redirect the discussion again. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
No consensus was reached on the merge, in fact it was disputed, and without the merge we don't need the redirect, so I think it is absolutely relevant here, and I'm not the only one judging by others' thoughts above. "Restore to article" is a valid result of an RfD. Tduk (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
@Tduk and then restart this exact same discussion there? That seems overcomplicated at best when no real reason has been established on policy based grounds as to why this article in question meets notability guidelines beyond a single policy flub unrelated to content. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:05, 23 September 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).

Ali Momeni

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 23:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

These are two different names, it's not correct to redirect Ali Momeni to Ali Mohammad Momeni. specially because there is another wrestler called with that name. Sports2021 (talk) 23:25, 15 September 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 Dance of Dragons

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 23:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Should this link to the GoT episode entitled The Dance of Dragons, or the HotD episode entitled The Red Dragon and the Gold where the more obvious "dance" takes place? Either way, said dance is not mentioned at the current target. TNstingray (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Why not make/convert it to a disambiguation page? There's "The Red Dragon and the Gold", the best adaptation of the "dance"; "The Dance of Dragons", the title of which is based on the book; "A Dance with Dragons", the book itself; and Dance of the Dragons, the fictional war mentioned and adapted previously. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as an ambiguous term that's not an exact match for any material in the encyclopedia. There's no need to create a disambiguation page for a misnomer—the search results will probably be more useful for users. - Eureka Lott 02:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with Eureka Lott's reasoning. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:05, 16 September 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:Game of Thrones prequel

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 23:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

No significant history. Unclear target due to the release of House of the Dragon and many other planned prequels in development. Delete. TNstingray (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom; ambiguous and not needed after seven years now. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 16 September 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 war in Ukraine

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 25#The war in Ukraine

The Long Night (TV series)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 24#The Long Night (TV series)

Super Mario Logan

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 23:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

The list entry for SML on the target page was removed (you can see the edit summary on the diff I linked to see why). I found no better redirect target, so I think deletion is merited. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 21:40, 15 September 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).

Caesar Barber

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 23#Caesar Barber

Would you like fries with that

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. Legoktm (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Not mentioned in target. Not a plausible target. Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate? Or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Per WP:DIFFCAPS, retarget the lower-case versions to Upselling#Overlap with cross-selling and add-on sales, which has the best description of the practice. Disambiguate the upper-case versions at Would You Like Fries with That?, since there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the proper name. - Eureka Lott 22:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Disambig one of these two, and point the other one to the disambig page, per Thryduulf. Tduk (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate per those above. I also think that it would be worth adding some mention in the fast food article about the fact that fast food jobs are widely characterized as rite of passage entry-level or first jobs, and that there is a cultural tradition of mocking people by asserting that their long term livelihood will be in a fast food job. BD2412 T 01:48, 17 September 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).

Juno Averna

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. Legoktm (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I cannot ascertain why this redirects here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Googling finds a few unreliable sources that state Juno Averna is the same goddess/deity as Proserpina and/or Persephone. (which might be reliable) includes the sentence In ‘Metamorphoses’, Ovid describes how the Sybil (the prophetess or seer), shows him where the Golden Bough grows in the glade of Juno Averna (Persephone) and bids him break it from the trunk if he is to visit the Underworld and present the Bough to the Goddess. this source (that I can't find the bibliographical details for but is likely reliable) states Yet such a goddess obviously did not become a concrete personality and other identifications were suggested from time to time for the reigning power, although a feminine deity was regularly thought of, She is called sometimes Persephone or Cora, at other times Hecate or Juno Averna (2) so this seems like an alternative name. It seems unlikely that a redirect without a mention will be helpful in this case - it apparently wasn't for the nominator - which begs the question whether there should be a mention in the article (or somewhere else)? I'd rather leave that decision to someone with more subject knowledge than me, so I'll ping the Classical Greece and Rome and Mythology projects to try and find at least one such someone. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - the Loeb translation of the Metamorphoses - available via WP:LIBRARY - has (Book 14 line 114) Iunonis Avernae translated as Avernal Juno's, which is itself further glossed in a footnote as i.e. Proserpina. I'd probably want something a little more detailed in the target article though, but am not sufficiently knowledgeable to say what that might look like! Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:40, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment I came here in response to a request on the WP:CGR talk page. I have no opinion on the question of keep vs. delete, but I can provide some context for those unfamiliar with Latin poetry. The phrase Iuno Averna appears only twice in surviving Latin literature: once in the passage of Ovid already mentioned (Metamorphoses 14.114), and once in a poet of the next generation, Silius Italicus (Punica 13.601), in a line that clearly echoes Ovid. Ovid himself would have expected his readers to recognize his phrase as an elegant variation on Vergil's Iuno inferna (Aeneid 6.138). Another poetic variation is Iuno Stygia (Statius, Thebaid 4.526–527). All of these – infernal Juno, Avernal Juno, Stygian Juno – are just fancy ways of saying "queen of the underworld"; there is no evidence that they were ever used as actual cult titles of Proserpina, and they are never found in inscriptions or prose sources. This is a matter of poetic diction, not mythology or religion. Hades/Pluto gets the same treatment: the poets sometimes call him the "infernal Jupiter" (Seneca, Hercules Furens 47) or the "Stygian Jupiter" (Verg. Aen. 4.638; Ov. Fasti 5.448), which again are just poetic ways of saying "the ruler of the underworld", "the infernal equivalent of Jupiter". Once you start adding redirects for figures of speech, where do you stop? Shakespeare has Mercutio say that Romeo was cleft through the heart by the blind bow-boy's butt shaft; does that mean that Wikipedia should have a redirect from "blind bow-boy" to "Cupid"? As a one-off poetic expression, Ovid's Iuno Averna does not seem important enough to deserve a mention in the article on Prosperpina (and if it is, then Iuno inferna and Iuno Stygia have equal claims); and I have a hard time understanding how anyone would even think of searching for that phrase unless they were looking at one of the two lines of Latin poetry in which it is used, in which case they will already know what it means. On the other hand, it's just a redirect, it's not inaccurate, and it's not doing any active harm, so a formal discussion about whether to delete it seems like overkill. But the ways of Wikipedia are frequently a mystery to me. Crawdad Blues (talk) 14:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
  • SunloungerFrog, Thryduulf, Shhhnotsoloud, any further thoughts after Crawdad's explanation? Rusalkii (talk) 03:49, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
    @Crawdad Blues, first of all thank you for a very clear exposition on the subject. Having looked into it a little more over the past couple of weeks (learning in passing that Romans considered Lake Avernus to be an entrance to the underworld, which I didn't know previously, so at least I come out of this increased in knowledge), and from your description of the phrase as a one-off poetic expression I think my keep is becoming slightly weaker. Though I would still plump for keep because, as you say, it's not inaccurate, and it's not doing any active harm.
    What I had wondered was whether there was scope for creating an Epithets section or subsection in the Proserpina article and including it there, along with your other examples, (Iuno Stygia, Iuno Inferna)? Do they count as epithets? I note that there are such sections in similar articles on gods, e.g. Juno (mythology) § Roles and epithets and Ares § Epithets. I would be happy to compile such a section if it is warranted. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
    @Crawdad Blues: Thank you, that was very informative and useful. My thinking now is that a redirect without mention is definitely not going to be useful, but that a redirect to a mention is at the very least not going to be harmful and might help someone. So Keep if a mention is added, delete if one isn't. I'm entirely neutral on whether the mention should be added to the article or not. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
    fixing the ping: Crawdad Blues. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
    OK, I boldly added a small Epithets and poetic allusions section to Proserpina containing Crawdad Blues's references (diff). @Crawdad Blues if you think it's too much, please do revert; I would then be happy for the redirect to be deleted per Thryduulf. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
    While trivial, this is something that would get a note in a commentary. I'll refrain from wading into the Roman religion weeds here, but if you dug far enough into Varro (whose works on theology Ovid verifiably had recourse to) and the much later Macrobius, and then German (mostly) scholarship, you would find a theology specifically to do with chthonic instantiations of even celestial gods — or here some morsel of Wissenschaft probably deriving from an obscure cultic instantiation mentioned by Strabo, not just poetics or "mythology". Ovid does seem to make stuff up or put it together in new ways, especially in the Fasti, but while Shakespeare makes use of desacralized classical mythology in a thoroughly Christian world, that wasn't Ovid's jam — he was competing with and continually departing from Augustan orthodoxy in matters of religion and culture, in a world where that could get your show cancelled. If you're walking past the wafting altars of these deities every day, and Rome's first full-fledged autocrat is imposing radical cultural and religious reforms under the guise of "restoring" tradition and the Old Ways of the founders, the care with which you think, speak, and write about gods and religion will differ in urgent degree from the poetics of someone for whom such things exist culturally only in art and books, 1600 years later — just as in the 21st century I could write historical novels about Anne Boleyn and Protestantism with complete freedom to err and be frivolous, but not if I were a subject living under King Henry VIII. But as I said, the actual topic here is trivial. However, I always think it's misleading to readers to have a redirect if the search term is not explained in the article. Sign me "wary". Cynwolfe (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
    These are all excellent points, especially about the unexpected and often very weird links that show up sometimes between chthonic and celestial gods. But to address User:SunloungerFrog's specific question about whether it's appropriate to include these expressions in a section on epithets: the problem is that Iuno Averna and the other similar poetic turns of phrase are not actually epithets of Proserpina, according to the way that word is normally used in discussions of Greek and Roman religion. When we speak of epithets, we usually mean specific titles that identify distinct aspects of a god: Zeus Soter, Zeus Polieus, Zeus Agoraios, Zeus Eleutherios, Zeus Olympios, Zeus Ombrios, etc. Or in the case of Juno, Juno Sospita, Juno Regina, Juno Moneta, etc. Most of these are "real" distinctions, by which I mean that they are relatively well attested in ancient epigraphic and literary sources, and they seem to correspond to real distinctions in religious practice: the sacrifices and other rituals associated in Athens with the cult of Athena Polias, for example, are different from those associated with Athena Nike, or Athena Ergane, or Athena Phratrios.
By contrast, Iuno Averna and Iuno Stygia are not epithets of Proserpina. Or, to be more precise, Averna and Stygia are epithets, but in these phrases they are epithets of Juno, not of Proserpina. In the context, the combination of Juno with the epithet Averna can be understood easily enough by most readers as a poetic allusion to Proserpina (whether or not they are also aware of Varro or other sources that may lie behind Ovid's choice). But it's inaccurate to call this an epithet or cult title of Proserpina; in some ways it's more like the kennings in Norse and Anglo-Saxon poetry, where you find expressions like "sky candle" (= "sun"), or "sea horse" (= "ship"). Expressions like these are one of the things that makes ancient poetry more fun to read than prose (and most modern poetry), but of course they tell you little about the sun or about ships. In the same way, "Juno Averna" tells you little (except through metaphor and analogy) about Proserpina. Or so it seems to me; Cynwolfe may disagree.
However, by heading the section "Epithets and poetic allusions" rather than simply "Epithets", you have finessed your way around this criticism, and I don't see any reason why they can't stay in the article under that heading. I don't spend much time on WP and I'm not much interested in policy, but my general attitude toward articles on Greek and Roman antiquity is inclusionist when it comes to information about the ancient world (even relatively unimportant information), and exclusionist when it comes to pop culture and trivia. So I would much rather see these isolated passages from the Latin poets included here than, say, a reference to a video game in which one of the characters has a cat named Proserpina. YMMV. Crawdad Blues (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Excellent, thank you everyone. I'm happy to keep now. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:05, 23 September 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).

Bombardment of Fort McHenry

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 22#Bombardment of Fort McHenry

Funky town

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 Funkytown (disambiguation). Legoktm (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

These should point at the same target. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  • I actually think Funky town should point to Funkytown and Funky Town should point to the disambiguation, which would match the natural capitalization of the spacing differences. The song title being one word has the 't' lowercase and the disambiguation page having things that are two words has the 'T' uppercase. -- Tavix (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • DAB for both. "Funky Town" is correct for multiple topics, presumably none of which are primary, and "Funky town" is incorrect due to either capitalization or two words vs. one word. Would someone have most likely meant the song? Maybe, but the dab page has that right at the top, and sending them there in case of a minor error to let them pick isn't a heavy burden. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • I say we should swap the targets because I agree with Tavix. Thanks, 1isall (talk/contribs) 21:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • I agree with ArthananWarcraft that they should go to the same target. I would suggest DAB for both. If we take the "small differences" seriously, the best matches for "Funky town" are probably Fort Worth and Memphis (but realistically, a reader might search for "Funky town" when looking for any of these topics – I don't think readers take capitalization as seriously as we sometimes like to assume at RFD). "Funky Town" would likewise be a reasonable search term for any of these topics. Second choice: target Funkytown with both. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Disambig for both. Tduk (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Disambig for both. I'm persuaded by Mx. Granger's arguments. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 23 September 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).

Alternate version

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 23:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Ambiguous term. Currently redirects to Parallel universes in fiction but could refer to many potential things referred to as "alternate versions", like director's cuts, special editions, remixes, forks, remasters, and so on. Has very few incoming links, mostly from Marvel Cinematic Universe-related articles. Should be either disambiguated somehow or retargeted to an existing disambiguation, or, if that is unworkable, deleted. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  • delete. too vague for a redirect, too alternative for a dab consarn (grave) (obituary) 14:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Too vague for a DAB, too ambiguous for a redirect. Incoming links can be removed or piped as appropriate. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mx. Granger. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Disambig to all the suggested alternate versions of the definition of alternate version. This phrase is in common use and there's no need to ignore that fact. Tduk (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Search results would better serve our readers than a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 15:22, 20 September 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).

Pokal

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 22#Pokal

Exciting light

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) 03:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

technically vague, as the term has a small handful of meanings in the context of light, but no fitting target i could find for any of them consarn (grave) (obituary) 12:08, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete I've read a lot of optics, never heard of "exciting light". Johnjbarton (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete Sounds like a brand name or work of fiction. Constant314 (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment Since @Consarn seems to know 'a handful of meanings' perhaps that would be helpful information, as everyone who stated an opinion seems unaware of a valid use of the term. Tduk (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    wikt:excite, all definitions consarn (grave) (obituary) 14:22, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment for those who haven't figured it out, many references can be found to the phrase if one adds "physics" to the search term. However, it isn't clear to me that it is a proper phrase, and many uses seem to be describing the use of light in the context, not a particular kind of light. The article Raman scattering contains a use of the phrase for instance. Tduk (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    Also Photoacoustic effect. If one adds "definition" to physics in an internet search, there are definition for it floating around. Tduk (talk) 14:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    if it helps, i haven't actually figured it out either, especially in the context of this redirect, since i still haven't found any targets that seem to be fitting, and the "closest" seem to be excitation (magnetic) (really weird title tbh) and electron excitation... neither of which are primarily about light. so a reader would have just as much material for light excitation (whatever that is, the target isn't really clear on it) as for light shows or staring at the sun for 15 minutes straight, which is to say only a little more than none consarn (grave) (obituary) 16:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    Maybe a solution would be to create a stub/disambig page, or maybe it even deserves its own article? Tduk (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    i think we'd need to be sure that the targets currently found are actually plausible (or even correct) first, at which point it'd likely go to light excitation instead... or just excitation consarn (grave) (obituary) 19:31, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    Redirect to excitation makes sense for the time being. Tduk (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Oppose "retarget to Excitation" per WP:PTM. Steel1943 (talk) 15:23, 20 September 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).

Israel Diaper Forces

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. Legoktm (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Not an established term, not mentioned in target article. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 08:43, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. मल्ल (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete while WP:RNEUTRAL is an important policy and non-neutral redirects should exist, this is not a helpful one. It does not help the reader as if they do not know someone using that term is using it to refer to the Israel Defense Forces, then they'll be confused how they ended up on that page and if they do know, then they don't need the redirect. Casablanca 🪨(T) 19:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete - not actually used by reliable sources, not "established term", and it is not the purpose of RNEUTRAL to allow people to shoehorn in slurs, derogatory terms, and antisemitism under the guise of being a redirect. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 20:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:G10 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:A4A0:C638:A0B9:A4A (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to wikt:Israeli Diaper Forces. This is a surprisingly-well attested derogatory term, we don't have encyclopaedic content about it but a sister project does have relevant content that includes an etymology and a link to the Wikipedia article about the force. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    Meh, the Wikitionary result is the first one you get anyway. As per WP:SSRT says we should only make these for terms often re-created or commonly sought. It's not really searched for on Wikipedia, it's not linked in mainspace (and likely never will be). (The Wiktionary entry itself...might be less accurate than it appears, the creator is currently blocked for disruptive editing indistinguishable from trolling) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary where there's relevant content. Since creation, the Wiktionary article has gotten 6 page views per day. Thepharoah17 (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect per Thryduulf Tduk (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not an established term, and it is a violation of NPOV. Nehushtani (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary. WP:SSRT be darned, better guiding readers to something than nothing, especially since it seems as though this redirect may not have WP:REDLINK potential. Steel1943 (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Wiktionary entry is for Israeli Diaper Forces; there is not an entry for Israel Diaper Forces. Redirects to Wiktionary should be exact matches due to how the entries are set up (ie: if 'Israel Diaper Forces' is attested, a separate entry for it would be created). -- Tavix (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete because the Wiktionary entry looks unlikely to pass their own policy on attestation and has a completely unsourced etymology. I think SSRT is overrated (slash, doesn't really state what the de facto community consensus is), but it's not helpful to point our readers toward potential misinformation, especially given the topic area. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 06:41, 23 September 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).

Detroit People Mover (Airport)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 23#Detroit People Mover (Airport)

Entantomer

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 💬 06:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Unlikely misspelling, both a missing and an extra letter. A web search supports the implausibility. 1234qwer1234qwer4 04:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. Two separate errors do make this implausible and means it definitely should not have been created, but is also unambiguous and harmless. Now that we're here though, probably ought to clean this up. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:46, 16 September 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).

Madhya Pradesh League

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 7#Madhya Pradesh League

Greyglers

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. Legoktm (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

No mention of this supposed staff neologism at the target article. People who want to read the article on "Google" would search for "Google". Utopes (talk / cont) 03:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Delete; WP:RETURNTORED at best, WP:NOTURBANDICT at worst. Either way, the target shouldn't be Google.
That said, um...
People who want to read the article on "Google" would search for "Google".
...You do realize that the entire purpose of a redirect is to help when they don't, right? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
My point was that people who search for "Greyglers" would not just want to read the article on Google (with no mention of Greyglers), or else they would've just searched "Google" if that's what they wanted. Therefore a subsection or anchor would be required to pinpoint this redirect but there is none. I might have mixed up the verbiage, apologies. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or soft redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to wiktionary entry --Lenticel (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Per {{Wiktionary redirect}}, "Readers search for it on Wikipedia" is one of the requirements for a soft redirect to be there. With a grand total of 10 page views this year before the RfD listing, delete. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per Chaotic. enwiki has nothing to offer on this, readers would have to "Google" the term! Jay 💬 02:26, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:55, 15 September 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).

Sher-E-Punjab T20 Cup

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 send to AfD. Legoktm (talk) 04:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Redirect with no mention at target page. Vestrian24Bio 09:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete whilst that article did previously list the event, its is correct to only list notable events there e.g. ones with articles. Thus, this event should not be listed at target article, and so redirect is not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Restore, and AfD again if its failing GNG. The previous AfD did not have any support for deletion, and the closer did not got for a soft delete either. Jay 💬 11:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per the previous AfD, which did not have any support for keeping the article—the only !vote was for deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Restore List of regional T20 cricket leagues in India and retarget there per my comments here. This would give those wanting restoration a viable target that actually aligns with the AfD in question. -- Tavix (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of regional T20 cricket leagues in India closed as redirect, so restoration of that list is no longer viable. I'm now back to my original delete recommendation. -- Tavix (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Restore and send to AfD per Jay. I'll note that @Vestrian24Bio opened the previous AfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Restore and send to AfD per above. Utopes (talk / cont) 21:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete We already had agreement from AfD that this shouldn't exist, we don't need to play ping-pong yet again. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:52, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Delete; it's not the typical use of WP:SNOW but let's be real: Is there any reasonable reason why AfD would give any result other than Delete, given there's been no functional change to the article since it was AfD'd last if we restore it, and we just proved that Redirecting isn't a viable option? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
The last AfD did not actually give a result of delete. Tduk (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try... Primarily to allow Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of regional T20 cricket leagues in India time to run its course.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:54, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Restore and send to AfD per many others. Tduk (talk) 15:09, 16 September 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).

UK Rampage

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/send to AfD. Legoktm (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Both pages were redirected because they lacked "in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG". This creates a new problem where the target article makes no mention of the events. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 15:46, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

WWF European Rampage should probably simply be deleted, as none of the sourcing actually refers to event(s) of this name.Onel5969 TT me 01:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
I think if UK Rampage needs to be redirected/deleted for having zero proper sourcing (which I do agree is accurate) then the same should probably be done to UK Rampage (1992) and UK Rampage (1993) as well. If anything they are even worse. Hbkid2 (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
The better target is WWE in the United Kingdom. Onel5969 TT me 09:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes target UK Rampage to WWE in the United Kingdom (I have also contributed to it and it has a mention now of that topic). On the other hand WWF European Rampage may not be currently covered in WWE but it's still the only sensical place to target it to if it must. Hbkid2 (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 25 August 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) 03:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • AFD People should not BLAR articles to articles that don't mention the subject. It is annoying. Restore and send to AfD so interested parties can decide notability. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 04:53, 24 September 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).

Clicky-clack keyboard

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 Keyboard technology#Notable switch mechanisms (WP:NCRET). Legoktm (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't seem all that useful, kind of ambiguous, as this could definitely be referred to as Mechanical keyboard. This should be either deleted or retargeted to that article. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 20:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:35, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Delete as novel. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Retarget to Keyboard technology as per Thryduulf; if ImStevan is correct and people do use this term, Justjourney is still correct in that it's ambiguous. The proposed retarget discusses pretty much all possibilities, including buckling-spring keyboard, mechanical keyboard, et al. I'd like to note however that the proposed refinement to #Notable Switch Mechanisms is an oddly formatted section; the title presents it as a discussion of multiple mechanisms, but only buckling-spring is talked about, with other mechanisms being discussed further up at Keyboard technology#Keystroke sensing. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Keep: A quick search shows that there are people using this term — IмSтevan talk 08:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
@ImStevan When referring to what keyboards? Justjourney (talk | contribs) 15:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague. This is clearly a term people use but not for with a consistent, specific referent. Mechanical keyboards and certain "gaming keyboards" appear to be the most common meanings, along with 80's and 90's style keyboards like the Model M but not specific to this product. I agree with Lunamann, this could refer to any number of keyboards. Keyboard technology is a better target than a specific section, since the term is not used with specificity, but this seems too broad to be helpful. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:31, 26 August 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) 03:52, 15 September 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).

Varahagiri, Venkata Giri

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 24#Varahagiri, Venkata Giri

Anti-Israel

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 22#Anti-Israel

Business Data Catalog

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. Any editor should feel free to restore the article if they want to. Legoktm (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Not currently mentioned at target, though apparently contents of the article previously existing at the title had been merged into the target at some point. 1234qwer1234qwer4 00:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, Business Data Catalog was a thing, and Sharepoint would be the closest match to it. Maybe tag with Template:R with history and Template:R from related topic? Or just R from related topic? Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 17:50, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
  • It was merged to the target in 2007 and I have tagged it as an {{R from merge}}. Jay 💬 15:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Restore, do not keep. No mention of a "catalog" anywhere on the page. People who search for "Business Data Catalog" will be misled by the existence of a redirect that does not answer their questions. It does not seem as if there was any discussion to merge, so undoing that seems to be the action. If people wanted to read about SharePoint instead of Business Data Catalog, they would've searched for "SharePoint". Utopes (talk / cont) 05:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 20:14, 23 August 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) 03:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Restore per Utopes. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone is willing to demonstrate that the topic may be notable. -- Tavix (talk) 15:30, 22 September 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).

COVID mask

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 diaper, Keep mask. Jay 💬 06:59, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

I went and boldly retargeted COVID maskCOVID mask to Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic after it targeted surgical mask. Maybe face diaper should be deleted, though? Thepharoah17 (talk) 02:29, 15 September 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).

Curing diabetes mellitus type 1

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 Cure for diabetes mellitus type 1, delete the rest. Legoktm (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Literally nothing in the target about curing diabetes. I think search results would be the best thing we can offer here. Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

This is an {{R from merge}} after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cure for diabetes mellitus type 1.
We could add an {{anchor}} so #Cure links end up at Type 1 diabetes#Transplant or Type 1 diabetes#Research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep Cure for diabetes mellitus type 1 as {{R from merge}} and delete the rest. The other pages don't have much history other than serving as redirects to the now-merged article. Diabetes type 1 curing is especially awkward and therefore implausible as a search term. § Transplant and § Research are both plausible refinements in theory but neither is clearly better than the other and neither focuses on nor comprehensively discusses the concept of a 'cure'. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:59, 15 September 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).

These United States of America

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. Legoktm (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect. Not how United States is referred to. Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

  • Keep The phrase "These United States (of America)" became prominent in the wake of the American Civil War, while usage has declined, it's unambiguous and can only serve to help the reader. Casablanca 🪨(T) 21:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete unless there is a retargeting option found for the quote per Casablanca Rock's "keep" vote. This quote would represent a specific event or the such, and not be expected to be used to locate United States itself. Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete, burn, bury and salt. How is this even up for discussion? Is there any evidence of referring to the US in this manner? CAVincent (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
    "How is this even up for discussion?" Because a discussion needs to occur to get it deleted... Steel1943 (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
    "Is there any evidence of referring to the US in this manner?" Yes. -- Tavix (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete unless a more specific target can be found, per Steel1943. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, agreeing with Casablanca Rock. For those wanting quotes, here's a few I found from a cursory search: . -- Tavix (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's less common than "These United States", but if "These United States" is reasonable, why not "These United States of America"? It's not an error, and since it's the country's full name, it's reasonable to encounter it too. "These United States" was indeed a bit common at one time; cf. Emperor of these United States, a title announced in 1859. Nyttend (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Casablanca Rock and Nyttend. Thryduulf (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
    I also agree with Tamzin below regarding discussion of the term itself. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Casablanca Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Disagree with the nomination, but Delete per MYCETEAE. The target provides no information on the redirect term, and does not help the reader who is looking for the usage, not the country. If the usage in speeches or in context of "God bless" can be added to United States § Etymology or Names of the United States, retarget there. Jay 💬 05:29, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless there's discussion of this as a stock phrase in and of itself, this isn't a useful redirect. In a bit more detail, who is this actually supposed to help, and how? Is anyone really going to be so bamboozled by this that they can't otherwise find their way to the article on the US? Does someone typing this in even want to go to the article on the US? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep as a valid way to refer to the US. If discussion of the phrase itself were added somewhere, that would probably be a better target, but that doesn't make this a bad target. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 09:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    It would be helpful if you could respond to the question I posed immediately above: "Who is this supposed to help, and how?" Being "valid" isn't enough; it has to be plausibly helpful. Again, given the triviality of finding the main article on the US, it's better to assume that someone typing in this specific phrase is looking for information specific to it, and not trying to find their way to the main article. How does redirecting them there actually help? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    Who is this supposed to help? People searching the phrase "These United States of America". How is it supposed to help them? Well, when they type it into the search bar, they will be taken to the article on that thing. A redirect taking you to the subject of the phrase you searched is expected behavior. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    That's not what redirects are for...do you really think someone sees "These United States of America" and doesn't know it's referring to the "United States of America"? And if they don't, do they really want to read our article on the US? It's an implausible search term on its own unless someone really wants further info on the specific phrasing, which we don't have. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    What is the "thing" you refer to here? Do you see it as an alternative name for the country? The redirect is tagged as "From an incorrect name". Is that how you see it too? Jay 💬 07:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, it's an alternative name for the country. Or, maybe not a name, but an alternative way of referring to it, just like The U S of AThe U S of A. It certainly should not be categorized as an incorrect name. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 07:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks, I would now be interested in your replies to IP's questions above. Jay 💬 17:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
    I think that redirecting a term to thing that it refers to is essentially always reasonable. The IP's question is premised on the flawed assumption that a redirect should only exist if someone couldn't guess what the thing means. But if that were true, probably most of the redirects at Special:WhatLinksHere/United States would have to go. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:50, 22 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Disambig page, explaining that the phrase may refer to events/speech in the Civil War, or just to the country itself. Tduk (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    That doesn't sound like it would be a valid disambiguation page, since the former would likely fail WP:DABMENTION. I wonder if United States as a plural noun is a viable article topic though. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 16:19, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    I am not sure that I agree that Wikipedia:DABMENTION applies. For the disambig page, one would point to the country itself, under the reasoning that the phrase can refer to the country. If they are aliases I don't think that counts in the same way as if they are unrelated terms (as say, redirecting a politician to the country). However, American Civil War would need to include the term, and it doesn't right now. Tduk (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tamzin. This redirect does have an extra degree of usefulness in that it implicitly tells the reader that we have no information on this specific term, and in a quicker manner than letting them wade through unhelpful search results. J947 ‡ edits 22:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete per 35.139.154.158. In addition, J947's point above about telling the reader that we have no information on this specific term is disputable, since readers might still try to look at the search results, and our redirects are not always updated when more helpful targets emerge. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:02, 18 September 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).

Starchy vegetable

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 22#Starchy vegetable

Transacetalization

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 Acetal#Acetalization and ketalization and removed the anchor as suggested. Also added a hatnote to Transacetylation. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Not explained at target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

  • Delete for now. Probably used to be described at target, and perhaps the best outcome is for it to be once again. But absent that, delete to encourage content creation and avoid confusion with transacetylation. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
    • Refine to Acetal#Acetalization and ketalization and remove the anchor. While I'm not sure "acetal exchange" and "transacetalization" are exact synonyms, I am fine with the mention and it justifies the redirect. Change target to the section header instead of the anchor so that a {{Redirect-distinguish}} hatnote for transacetylation at the top of the section will appear when redirected (which I can add). Mdewman6 (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. Synonym of acetal exchange, which was already described in target; have just readded the original term (Special:Diff/1311724603, Acetal#Transacetalization). Preimage (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks! If @Mdewman6 retracts their vote I can withdraw my nomination. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:31, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
    Happy to support @Mdewman6's suggestion to Refine as above. Preimage (talk) 17:53, 20 September 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).

Grenada (city)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 22#Grenada (city)