Could not load that page.

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 8

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

April 8

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 8, 2026.

WP talk:Astronomy

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 with a link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 18#Semi-automated bot request to redirect asteroid stubs > 2000 in the deletion log summary. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:39, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

"WP talk:" is not a recognized pseudo-namespace. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep: Low benefit to deletion & a high cost. See recent request for undeletion here. If this redirect is deleted, then it will break 11,853 old edit summaries. Redirects are cheap, so why not keep it? This was made at the same time as WT:Astronomy in 2015, since I figured they were similar enough to not matter, but it is what it is.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:33, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: This page was deleted twice due to R2, which says that that the speedy deletion criterion applies to redirects from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help:, and Portal: namespaces. The redirect was then undeleted by Graeme Bartlett. Note that the redirect itself is from the main namespace and the target is in Wikipedia talk: namespace. I see the speedy deletion criterion as not having exceptions for the talk namespaces of Category talk:, Template talk:, Wikipedia talk:, Help talk:, and Portal talk:. However, based on the fact that the request for undeletion was successful despite two previous deletions due to R2, there seems to be at least a few editors who think that talk namespaces of the five mentioned are also exceptions to speedy deletion criterion R2. There needs to be a clarification if certain types of talk pages are exceptions to R2 at Wikipedia:Speedy deletion § R2. Cross-namespace redirects. This venue is probably not the right place about discussing about this speedy deletion criterion, but given that having clarification on the criterion can have an effect on the outcome of this discussion, I decided to post comments here. Mathguy2718 (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tom.Reding. Not worth breaking ES's. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:51, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. WP talk isn't a valid WP:ALIAS or WP:PNS, which makes this an unwanted mainspace redirect. It's the only page using this prefix, and we don't want to encourage similar shortcut misuse by other editors. - Eureka Lott 00:22, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 18 to fix the edit summaries (which had a section link to a particular discussion now located in that archive). Regardless of past mistakes, breaking 12,000 links is generally considered a bad idea. J947 ‡ edits 01:34, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
    This is still my first choice, but I would strongly prefer deleting with a helpful log action summary to keeping as is. J947 ‡ edits 23:10, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete with an edit summary with a link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 18 § Semi-automated bot request to redirect asteroid stubs > 2000. This cross-namespace redirect is particularly harmful because it shows up as the second drop-down search option when inputting "wpta", the first being WPTA. Readers given a Wikipedia talk page as a search option would be confused if they are just looking for a television station. The edit summaries are already broken anyway even if they were kept, so keeping is unhelpful. (I'm going to guess this is because the section contains ">" and that interferes with internal searching for the section throughout the archives.) I believe the best way to 1: not have an inappropriate cross-namespace redirect, 2: not interfere with reader search (which is a significant issue given WPTA gets about a thousand views every month), and 3: best help someone in the rare instance that someone needs to use the link in one of the thousands of edit summaries (for whatever reason this is necessary), would be to delete the redirect (satisfying 1 and 2) but have the edit summary mention the bot request section (to satisfy 3). Decluttering search for readers is much more important than preserving non-essential non-article links only visible in the history, so I believe deletion (preferably with an edit summary with the mentioned link) would be the most helpful action. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
    I don't think it's a massive problem that this redirect shows up in the search dropdown for "wpta" and "wp t". 99 times in 100, it's as irrelevant a search result as all the others are (WPTD, WPTZ, WPT Five Diamond World Poker Classic are also very unlikely to be what the reader is looking for). J947 ‡ edits 05:25, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete after looking at the history of this redirect: it was created in January 2015 by User:Tom.Reding, deleted in June 2015, re-created later that day by Tom.Reding again, then deleted again in August 2015. It seems to have then stayed deleted after that for a decade, until a few days ago Tom.Reding posted on WP:REFUND and it was inexplicably undeleted by User:Graeme Bartlett. Since it stayed deleted for such a long time, I see no good reason not to restore the status quo. Mathguy2718's suggestion to include the link in the deletion message is a good one, to help navigation for anyone who clicks through from these 11853 cryptic edit summaries (all on edits by Tom.Reding, no one else seems to have used it thus). It's unfortunate that Tom.Reding created an incorrect shortcut (using "WP talk" rather than "WT", which was already documented in 2015) and used it in a bot run of some sort, but I don't see a pressing need to preserve that mistake for all time. Anomie⚔ 13:28, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment: If deleted, please include a link to the Archive 18 target in the edit summary per Mathguy2718.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:23, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tom.Reding. WP:R2 should include explicit exceptions for these unusual cases where there is actually benefit to an XNR, but even without that IAR applies. This is an unlikely search term for anyone not following a link or looking specifically for this as it is dissimilar to all but one of the over 7 million articles (or all but three if you include redirects) with less than 650 views this year between them, so the chances of anyone finding it accidentally are very low - even more so for those searching in a case sensitive environment as the others all start "WP T". This means the cost of this XNR is significantly lower than average and the benefit significantly higher than average. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete with edit summary to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Archive 18#Semi-automated bot request to redirect asteroid stubs > 2000. Page view data starts 1 July 2015. From there to 8 August 2015 it got 11 views before being deleted the next day and staying deleted until 2026. It will hardly be missed and is not worth polluting mainspace. As an admin I can see at there have been 8 other "WP talk:" pages (3 made by Tom Reading). All were deleted. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2026 (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).

Keith Tollefson

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 Survivor: South Pacific#Contestants. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:34, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Wanting to redirect this page to Survivor: South Pacific. However, as I found, he has a child with his castmate Whitney Duncan. Furthermore, he also appeared in The Amazing Race 25 with her. Now torn between the South Pacific season article and Whitney Duncan#Personal life. George Ho (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon talk 23:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

* Weak keep. Since there's a few valid options, I'm leaning towards keeping the redirect where it is. Someone looking for the South Pacific Survivor season will be able to find a link from the current list page. If we retarget to the Amazing Race article, we lose the readers who were looking for his participation in Survivor, and vice-versa. So they seem like equal options to me? For the personal life retarget, I understand the appeal since he has a child with Whitney Duncan, however, since there's an option to not just associate him with the personal life of another person, I'd prefer that option. Katiedevi (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2026 (UTC) Retarget to the South Pacific page. George Ho makes a good point about users needing to sift through a lot of information to find Keith on the list. Katiedevi (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  • I'm leaning towards keeping the redirect where it is. Someone looking for the South Pacific Survivor season will be able to find a link from the current list page.

    With all due respect, the whole list would be harder to navigate without using the Ctrl + F tool. Even anchoring or redirecting to a section still doesn't resolve my issues with the list itself. Furthermore, this person hasn't reappeared in another Survivor season. If you like to leave out the "Personal life" option, then let's go for South Pacific instead, his only season so far. George Ho (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
    Thank you for the respect. It was a weak keep because I completely understand that the different options are valid.
    If I am understanding correctly, you'd like to retarget all redirects from the list of contestants to the shows the contestants participated in instead? Because it's difficult to navigate the list?
    That sounds good to me. Especially because South Pacific article mentions his participation in the Amazing Race so a reader could navigate to that page quite seamlessly too. Katiedevi (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Survivor: South Pacific#Contestants per Katiedevi. J947 ‡ edits 03:29, 15 April 2026 (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).

Rachel Foulger

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 Survivor: Blood vs. Water#Contestants. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 06:14, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Her only Survivor season is Survivor: Blood vs. Water. Nonetheless, she's the current wife of Tyson Apostol, whose notability I previously contested but then inadvertently proved amid the AfC process. Just to be safe, I'd prefer the page to be retargeted to Blood vs. Water, but then she may be more suitable to the Apostol article under assumption that her husband's notability will stand the test of time. George Ho (talk) 07:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon talk 23:06, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak Retarget to Survivor: Blood vs. Water. I am leaning to this page over the list because she's mentioned considerably more so a reader searching 'Rachel Foulger' would get a lot more information this way. Katiedevi (talk) 04:46, 9 April 2026 (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).

Communist Manual of Instructions of Psychological Warfare

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. Left guide (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned in article. Also, incorrect. The marketing material said this book was actually based on, "Communist Manual of Instructions of Psychopolitical Warfare" (which does not exist but oh well) not psychological. So that's not even correct. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon talk 23:05, 8 April 2026 (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).

John Fincher

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 06:12, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Recently re-retargeted the page back to Survivor: Samoa. However, as I realized just now, he is an ex-husband of Parvati Shallow. Uncertain whether he is better known as either a Survivor: Samoa contestant or Parvati Shallow's ex-husband (i.e. Parvati Shallow#Personal life). From what I read, Shallow gave him a domestic violence restraining order before divorce. George Ho (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon talk 23:05, 8 April 2026 (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).

Dirt Squirrel (Survivor)

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. Left guide (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Discovered that the nickname "Dirt Squirrel" was given to Alina of Survivor: Nicaragua by another contestant. Nonetheless, I don't see the nickname in that page. Uncertain whether it's the issue with WP:BLP policy. George Ho (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon talk 23:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems like she was only called a 'dirt squirrel' once and there's already a redirect for Alina for the Nicaragua page. Katiedevi (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2026 (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).

Chicken (Survivor)

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. Left guide (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Thought about redirecting this to Survivor: China because one of the contestants was nicknamed "Chicken". Nonetheless, it may also refer to Mark the chicken in Survivor: Kaoh Rong. It also may refer to other chickens seen (...and slaughtered!) in other Survivor seasons. Delete by default if there's no agreement on which appropriate target and the list is no longer a suitable target. George Ho (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon talk 23:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Nom's comment – I reaffirm my stance to have it deleted by default primarily if no one opposes. George Ho (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2026 (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).

Jannsen

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 setindexifiy with thanks to J947 for doing the leg work. -- Tavix (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Also Uwe Jannsen. 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:50, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  • Based on pageviews, Johann Voldemar Jannsen may be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the surname, even if you discount the spike in July 2025 when the article appeared in WP:DYK. Web searches don't appear to show a primary topic, though. If Johann Voldemar Jannsen is determined to be the primary topic, it may make sense to create a surname page at Jannsen (surname), since there's also Lydia Jannsen. - Eureka Lott 19:14, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Either create a surname page or work that content into Jansen (surname). BD2412 T 15:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Setindexify. Don't think there's quite a primary topic. Let's keep it separate from Jansen (surname); all its different variations listed in the sidebar appear to have separate pages. J947 ‡ edits 06:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or dabify?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, thejiujiangdragon talk 23:04, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Drafted surname index. J947 ‡ edits 22:00, 15 April 2026 (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).

tilde double-dipping

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 16#tilde double-dipping

Will Shakespeare

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. Rusalkii (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Retarget to William Shakespeare (disambiguation). While the Bard of Avon is the primary target for the name "William Shakespeare", he's not usually known by nicknames. As such, a person looking for "Will Shakespeare" is probably looking for one of the other William Shakespeares. ~2026-83591-2 (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Keep Will Shakespeare is a somewhat odd, but not entirely uncommon, way to refer to the bard. No one else at the DAB goes by "Will". Potentially, Will Shakespeare (TV series) could be moved to Will Shakespeare, but I think most people typing said phrase are looking for the playwright rather than the TV show. Casablanca 🪨(T) 17:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. The current arrangement is the best arrangement. BD2412 T 19:41, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Move Will Shakespeare (TV series) to this base title and add a hatnote to the dab page. None of the entries at the dab page are commonly referred to as "Will" according to their pages, while that is the name of the TV show. The playwright is so well known, and is so well known as "William" rather than "Will", that we can assume that people searching for him should be using his full first name in this case, when there's a specific topic using "Will" instead. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment I see Deacon Vorbis's point, but there was a move discussion on Talk:Will Shakespeare (TV series) in December. 4 people rejected the idea that Will Shakespeare was the primary topic for "Will Shakespeare" and it was closed. I don't know what policies there are, but this discussion doesn't seem like a good way to reopen that one. Aoeuidhtns (talk) 23:46, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
    Hmm, well that's certainly awkward, then, but I still maintain that the TV series is clearly primary over the person, and WP:CCC ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:07, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not an uncommon name for Willie S. - SchroCat (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Talk:Will Shakespeare (TV series). This doesn't seem like the correct place to fight out which is the primary topic for "Will Shakespeare", but also I agree with the talkpage discussion that it should probably go to the Poet rather than the Tim Curry TV series made about him. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:38, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. While consensus may change, it seems unlikely to have done since December and the correct venue to overturn that decision if you think it has is either Move review or a new RM, not an RfD. However, I would have !voted the same way as the majority in the RM if I were aware of it and would opine that the historical figure is the primary topic if a new one were opened today. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. Common misspelling. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2026 (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).

Protestant movement

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 16#Protestant movement

Alexandra Stewart-Matthews-James

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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned in target. I couldn't find an article relating to Home and Away with this name or with the individual surnames Suonii180 (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2026 (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).

Template:It

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 and salt * Pppery * it has begun... 00:29, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Confusing redirect. {{it}} is often understood as either {{in lang|it}}, {{lang|it|...}} or {{langx|it|...}}, not {{Italic title}}. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 12:04, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Weak keep The transclusion count for {{it}} is at 114, which is lower than I would've expected; however, there are no few other templates that exist as redirects to {{lang}}/{{lang-x}}/{{langx}} in this way that I can find from Special:WhatLinksHere. With that said, it seems that this works fine as is. Casablanca 🪨(T) 13:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Replace with intended targets and delete/salt: Nearly all of the intentional transclusions of this redirect were added by a single editor, its creator. This template and many like it used to exist as two-letter redirects to indicate the language that a source was written in. They were all replaced by {{in lang}}. Since it used to perform this language-related function, and probably still does on Wikipedias in other languages, editors will inevitably and erroneously use this redirect for that earlier purpose, such as at File:Sky Sport - 2015 logo.svg, where it does not do what the inserting editor intended. This template should be replaced in each case with its intended targets (either {italic title} or {in lang|it}) and then salted so that it cannot be recreated for any other use. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is completely lazy and makes understanding the Wikitext unnecessarily harder. I agree with Jonesey, replace usages, delete template and salt it. Gonnym (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete It's hard enough to identify what's causing the title to appear in italics without having to look for a cryptic two-letter template name. It would only be used once per article or template, so there's no reason to so heavily abbreviate the template name. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    )     17:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt as shown by this discussion - Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Alberto della Valle - it's not easy to find and it's target has changed in its various iterations. Nthep (talk) 20:38, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt. This page has been deleted three times already, the first time as a WP:CSD#G8 following Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 23#remaining link language wrappers - at that time it was a redirect to Template:It icon, and had been for eight years. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete and salt. It was either a template for Italian text or a redirect to such a template from 2006 to 2020. it is the language code for Italian and such templates with language codes were well-known by numerous editors until they were deleted and replaced with language parameters to general templates. The current redirect has only existed since July 2025 and easily causes confusion, both for users trying to mark Italian text and users wondering why a page name is in italics. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • I have started knocking off the incoming links, starting with the biological species name titles, which I believe have to be in italics. Fixed 10, and it is at 104 now. I'm replacing {{it}} with {{IT}}, the uppercase, which I assume is not ambiguous as it's an acronym for Italic Title. Jay 💬 18:48, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
@Jay: Don't do that. {{IT}} should also have been nominated. It's not as easily confused with the language code but it's even harder to guess it's italic title. IT nearly always means Information technology. Just write {{italic title}}. There is no good reason to use an abbreviation. There are tools which can make the replacement efficiently if the discussion closes with delete. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:43, 16 April 2026 (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).

Hello Earth

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 Hounds of Love. No prejudice against adding relevant hatnotes. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ edits 06:09, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned on this page, and searching about suggests this was a catch phrase and website he ran (but not finding it in an RS in a way that I could add to the page). It would seem better to have this redirect to the Kate Bush album Hounds of Love which contains a song called "Hello Earth". Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree that it is an incorrect redirect. The song is the closest, although Hello, World is an iconic photograph from the Artemis II Moon mission and could be discussed as well, The song should not be a hatnote on Hello, World (different wording and not close enough for a hatnote). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
The Hello World disambiguation page seems like a reasonable target in general, eventhough no "Hello Earth" instances are listed. Possibly a reasonable confusion? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:03, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment - It seems that he was initially planning to call his show "Hello Earth" when he initially haggled his way into getting it (has now been noted in the article, with a citation). However, it seems that this title wasn't actually used for it. Seems safe to retarget/DABify/whatever to me. 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 13:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Retarget to Hounds of Love per nom. There is a third possibility - 2018 Commonwealth Games opening ceremony - but that and the proposed Riley Martin show can adequately be covered by a hatnote. Tevildo (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2026 (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).

Mt.a

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 16#Mt.a

Wikipedia:OLDMANDIES

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. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:34, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

As per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#WP:OLDMANDIES, this redirect may create confusion because the term "WP:OLDMANDIES" has historically been used in a very different way from what the target guideline says. Users have used the phrase "WP:OLDMANDIES" to highlight a perceived banality of frontpage blurbs, which the target guideline does not explain. It was not intended to be a real wikilink, or if so, it would have been intended to refer to a very different essay. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:10, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete No mention at target as to what this means. Unless it points to an essay with relevant content, this gives the misleading appearance of being a guideline.—Bagumba (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2026 (UTC) In fact, WP:ITNRDBLURB allows that

    The death of major figures may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC that determines there is consensus that the death merits a blurb.

    Recent examples are the posting of a 96 year old and 88 year old.—Bagumba (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
  • This may do well being converted into its own essay on the concept. @Masem and Natg 19: from ITN talk seem to have the strongest grasp on how this term is used and what it means, so I'm wondering if they might have an idea of how to do it. Left guide (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
    I believe the reason why such an essay was never written, is because it's very gaudy to write much detail about the value and significance of people's deaths. It seems people have not felt too inspired to write this essay yet. It might exist in the future, but I wouldn't force it. It would be easy for such an essay to come across as extremely tasteless. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:58, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
    Yeah, keyboard warriors using a cheeky phrase they wouldn't use at funeral. —Bagumba (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
I will not be writing an essay on this concept, as I disagree with the use of OMD. It is just a handwaving way to ignore the "major figures" criteria and to say that all deaths (of old age) should be RDs. Natg 19 (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or retarget to somewhere that explains the term. The term is basically used (or at least was when I was a regular at ITNC) to say that when the entire story is that an old person has died of old age then it belongs as an entry in the recent deaths section rather than as a blurb. This is explained at the target section, and I'm not sure that an essay could usefully expand on that. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete In first place, it's unclear what does make a person 'old' in this context (surpassing an arbitrary age threshold, retirement from public after an arbitrary period of time etc.). Furthermore, Wikipedia:ITNRDBLURB doesn't even mention the word 'old' or any age-related criteria. That said, this is just someone's original research that has never been widely discussed within the community as to whether it can become a policy. I agree that this could be an essay. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:50, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete as another unneeded addition to the mess that is the criteria for or against death blurbs. I'm in the same camp as Bagumba is in particular with the concern about guidelines being viewed as outright criteria, which is something that I've encountered with frequency in debates over the general validity of death blurbs. Truthfully, I think the whole section should be 86ed, but we can start by not having a cheeky redirect like this that was not agreed upon. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Retain per Thryduulf. No opposition to retargeting to somewhere more appropriate (especially given it only currently has nine use-cases). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:37, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete Since this is relatively new and is causing some confusion or disagreement about how it applies to the relevant guidance, it seems more trouble than it's worth. I don't see any issue with someone writing an essay, or having that become more than an essay with appropriate consensus, though I don't think "replace with an essay" is a reasonable RfD outcome unless someone actually prepares one. --BDD (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2026 (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).

Esoteric

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. Consensus is to move the dab page Esoteric (disambiguation) to the title Esoteric. Epicgenius (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Western Esotericism is certainly not the only thing meant by"esoteric" (cf. Esoteric (disambiguation) and Esotericism (disambiguation)). This has been correctly challenged before but looks like there are incoming links here, so starting a proper RfD. I propose this be rd'd to Esoteric (disambiguation) or there be a hard redirect to wiktionary, the current target certainly shouldn't stand. Gotitbro (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

This is an odd redirect, because from a cursory review of the history it appears that no-one intended for it to be this way. It exists because in this 2015 edit a bot fixed a double redirect which was likely caused by a page move on a related different page. The only subsequent efforts to preserve this seem to be in the name of preserving links on articles so they're not broken/mistargeted. My initial impression from this research is move Esoteric (disambiguation) to Esoteric, although the links would need to be taken care of. Left guide (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Move per Left guide. Having the disambiguation at the 'default' term of Esoteric makes more sense than having this 'default' term be a redirect to a certain variety of Esotericism. 🔥HotM̶̰̓e̷̜̓s̵̼̊s̸̜̃🔥 (talk・edits) 11:48, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Swap with Esoteric (disambiguation) per Left guide. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:51, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
Move/Swap I just got to this page from Kabbalah as one of the first links (linked quite reasonably i might add), and I really dont feel like jewish esotericism counts as the western variety. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
It is discussed as western esotericism, so this wouldn't change that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2026 (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).

Carboniferous Peirod

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. There was no oppostion to deletion, unlike the 2017 RfD. Jay 💬 06:22, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Unlikely and obscure typo that was the only result when searching "Peirod" instead of "Period". It inhibits search, so I do not believe this specific redirect is useful and should be deleted. Mathguy2718 (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

  • Delete to allow anyone making the typo "peirod" to see all search results, and not just this specific possible topic of interest out of many. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:32, 8 April 2026 (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).

Peroidic table of elements

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 💬 06:19, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Another case of rather obscure typo redirects inhibiting search, see Special:Search/peroidic. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:48, 8 April 2026 (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).

Ronald Reed

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 April 15#Ronald Reed

Scorpion (Marvel Comics)

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 Mac Gargan. Also retargeted Scorpion (comics) to the same target. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:41, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

It's a little ridiculous, in my eyes, that Scorpion doesn't redirect to Mac Gargan, since that is his common name. But, suffice to say, I believe that Scorpion (Marvel Comics) should redirect to Mac Gargan, and then on top of the Mac Gargan article we add a for template that would look something like "For other characters known as Scorpion, see Scorpion (disambiguation)". I think this would allow us to fix the issue of Mac Gargan not only serving as Scorpion, while also keeping his common name and acknowledging others that have used the mantle.

This would be the same way the Kingpin article works right now. ModlordD (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Support both retargets to Mac Gargan. This is sensible choice, I'm surprised it wasn't already pointing here to begin with. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:46, 14 April 2026 (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).

Reedman

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 Setindexify. (non-admin closure) Chess enjoyer (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:45, 8 April 2026 (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).