Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 10

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was soft redirect to Wikt:Paleocytology. Rusalkii (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• Paleocytology → Cell biology  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Not mentioned here nor anywhere else on en-wiki. It's a real discipline folks might search for but they won't find any information on it here. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Weak retarget to the Wiktionary entry for paleocytology. PokémonPerson 05:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

This has eight incoming links, which may qualify as commonly wikified per WP:SOFTSP criteria. However, it seems like encyclopedic content could be added somewhere, in which case WP:RETURNTORED applies. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Weak retarget. Regarding adding its def somewhere, I googled for phrases like "Paleocytology is", "called Paleocytology" and the like, found nothing. The term is used, "everybody knows" what it is, (cytology of ancient/archaeological remains), but nobody cares to define.--Altenmann >talk 18:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  That's a good point. I confess I did not search around for usage of this term–I fell into that "everybody knows" group because the meaning is obvious to me, having studied related fields. I don't think it would be obvious to a general readership. Google Scholar has only 28 hits and assumes it is a misspelling of paleontology. Combined with your findings, this term appears to be relatively obscure. This does strengthen the case for a Wiktionary redirect. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Soft redirect to Wiktionary for now, per PokémonPerson. ApexParagon (talk) 01:43, 12 February 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).

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. wbm1058 (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

• The role of Armenians in the cursades → Armenians in the Crusading movement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The role of armenians in the cursades → Armenians in the Crusading movement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The role of Armenians in the Cursades → Armenians in the Crusading movement  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unnecessary redirect. Misspelling. Cursades in place of Crusades. QEnigma 论 17:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• No redirect is unnecessary, unless it's implausible, and I can see the letter swap (crusades>cursades) happening easily. While there HAS been only a total of three views, the redirect has also only existed for two weeks, so pageviews aren't a good tool re: gauging usefulness. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  Also please bundle this with the other two Armenian Crusades redirects. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

   Done (Rationales were identical). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:13, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  For the record, I'm of the opinion that the "Cursades does not exist" argument below is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument; we're not talking about Cursades right now, after all. Its existence/nonexistence should not impact these redirects. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Delete I think that the wikipedia search engine can sort this one out. For comparision, Cursades does not exist. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 01:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete recently created implausible misspellings. We don't have cursades. Jay 💬 08:34, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, not only as a misspelling but also an unlikely search term. The correct spelling, The role of Armenians in the Crusades, doesn't exist. Mathguy2718 (talk) 14:39, 18 February 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).

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 Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• Battle of Turkana → List of Star Wars planets and moons#Star Wars Legends planets and moons  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target nor anywhere else on Wikipedia regarding Star Wars. I don't know if there is a better target connected to the Turkana people or not. Probably delete. TNstingray (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 15:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Legacy (Star Trek: The Next Generation) talks about a civil war on Turkana IV. Jay 💬 05:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Googling "Battle of Turkana" gives me predominantly Star Wars results. To redirect instead to information on a Star Trek conflict that's highly unlikely to be referred to this way would be surprising. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:10, 1 March 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).

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. Village is not required as both the state and the country don't have village-specific information. Town has been replaced with the unambiguous Town (Georgia, United States) Jay 💬 16:18, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• Village (Georgia) → Village (United States)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Town (Georgia) → Town#Georgia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This could refer to both villages in Georgia (U.S. state) as well as villages in Georgia (country); maybe disambiguate? Duckmather (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment The town one is probably worth disambiguating. The village one I'm not so sure. We don't have any "villages" officially here in Georgia (USA), as they do in New York, for example, AFAIK. I think, legally, all Georgia municipalities are cities, but town is definitely colloquially used for smaller ones. "Village" is really more of a Northern US dialect. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 04:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Adding on to my initial comment to explicitly state I support deleting Village (Georgia) based on the discussion below. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:04, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: This discussion should probably be folded into the similar discussion on City (Georgia) which has been running for some time. The considerations will be nearly identical for each of the three redirects. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:51, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'm actually wondering if these two should be unbundled and nominated separately, based on the discussion so far. This all hinges on specific meanings and usage of village, town, and city in the context of the state and the country. I don't think we're necessarily in WP:TRAINWRECK territory with just two redirects but the decisions could diverge. I would not bundle these with the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 30#City (Georgia). Adding two new redirects so late and after so many different opinions have been expressed there is likely to prolong the discussion and make it more difficult to assess consensus. The eventual outcome there may be informative for handling these redirects but I think it will likely come down to whether and how each designation is used in each Georgia. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Fair comment. I withdraw my merge suggestion. It's pretty clear that Village (Georgia) will have no usage in connection with the US state, and I can find no mention of a similar concept for the country of Georgia either, so I support deleting it. (Some places in the country of Georgia are described as villages (e.g. Lalisquri), but that seems to have no specific meaning beyond the everyday one of 'small settlement'). However, Town (Georgia) is different, There are many places in Georgia US that call themselves towns, even though there is no legal distinction, so it's valuable to have that redirect to take people to an article which explains that. I would like to see the links to City and Town in articles on cities and towns in Georgia US and in templates such as those in Category:Georgia (U.S. state) county navigational boxes tightened to use the Georgia-specific redirects. As for disambiguation, I doubt anyone would use either of those as a search term, so I don't think it's necessary to disambiguate it. All similar articles about the country of Georgia (such as List of cities and towns in Georgia (country)) lump together cities and towns without distinguishing them. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  Town (Georgia) targets the main Town article, so it might just be worth adding a section about the country of Georgia to that article rather than disambiguating. There's also Daba (settlement), which seems to be about a type of town in the country, but could be discussed at the main article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  Town (Georgia) actually redirects to a section of Town specific to Georgia (US). Colonies Chris (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  It should be unrefined then and content about the country added to that article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'm struggling to see the utility of keeping this redirect, then. If it's not for searching and only for linking in articles about Georgia (US state) and Georgia (country), why not just use the Town link in such articles? Why use a redirect that implies a more specific subject but just points to Town, where readers will have to search for which Georgia they are interested in? Or why use a link at all, since town is a fairly generic concept and we don't have anywhere more specific to send people? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  The Town (Georgia) link is only intended for use in articles about Georgia (US). There appears to be no call at all for a similar link for the country of Georgia, as our articles don't make that city/town distinction.

  Why use a redirect instead of a direct link to the target article#section? To quote two paragraphs from WP:REDIRECT,

  Shortcuts or redirects to embedded anchors or sections of articles or of Wikipedia's advice pages should never be bypassed, as the anchors or section headings on the page may change over time. Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links.

  and

  Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.

  And why use a link at all? Because readers will tend to assume that a town and a city are different, and in some states they are and in others they are not, so it's helpful to clarify that distinction (or lack of it, in the case of the state of Georgia). Colonies Chris (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: Although I can indeed find no settlements in Georgia described as a village in our articles, there are a couple of mentions in Chattahoochee Hills, Georgia implying that 'village' and even 'hamlet' have some sort of legal meaning in Georgia. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Interesting. The article is explicit that a city is the only type of municipality allowed in Georgia and later describes (emphasis added) hamlet, village and town typologies. I read village, town, and hamlet as having the colloquial or generic meaning but the discussion there could perhaps be clarified or simplified. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Village (Georgia). First, the 'delete' arguments for City (Georgia) at the concurrent RfD generally apply here and I agree with them. This is an unusual way to form a disambiguation and is not a plausible search term. More specifically to this redirect, as detailed in the discussion above, village has no special meaning in either the state or country of Georgia. It's a fairly common word that has a colloquial, if imprecise, connotation. It may be used to describe human settlements in either Georgia but there is no specific meaning and no encyclopedic content to add anywhere. Pointing this to Village (United States) risks misleading or confusing readers. Since villages are legally defined in other US states, readers might erroneously assume the same is true in Georgia or they'll be left scratching their heads wondering why we've sent them to an article that doesn't address the redirect topic. I'm unsure what to do about Town (Georgia) at this time.—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  Neither City (Georgia) nor Town (Georgia) are plausible search terms, but that's not their purpose. They're intended for use in articles about towns and cities in the state of Georgia, to lead the reader to an article#section which explains the significance of those terms in Georgia. The fact that they're not likely search terms is a benefit - it means that disambiguating them between the two Georgias is unnecessary. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'm familiar with these arguments from the other RfD and I still find the 'delete' arguments more persuasive there. But again I have specific objections to Village (Georgia), which I have detailed. Those are far more relevant to this discussion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Disambiguate/Delete: The related discussion on City (Georgia) has just closed with a consensus to modify all City (Georgia) links to City (Georgia, United States), and then delete City (Georgia) (in fact, this has already been done). I suggest the same solution for Town (Georgia). Colonies Chris (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

  I support this approach with 'Town'. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: There exists Towns, Georgia. This isn't what Town (Georgia) should target, but it could be ambiguous if Towns (Georgia) is created. Mathguy2718 (talk) 02:44, 13 February 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).

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 Rashap
• Delete San Vestras
• Delete Tarentians
• Delete Tyberian wbm1058 (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
• Rashap → List of Star Wars species (P–T)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• San Vestras → List of Star Wars species (P–T)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Tarentians → List of Star Wars species (P–T)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Tyberian → List of Star Wars species (P–T)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No targets on Wikipedia, nor Wookieepedia or Google for that matter. Delete as non-existent terms. TNstingray (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per G3 as blatant hoaxes. ~2026-47839-7 (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
• San Vestras and Tyberian are redirects from merge (diff and diff), and I have tagged them as {{R from merge}}. Rashap can be made a disambig page for Resheph and Solomon Pappenheim. Jay 💬 18:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:59, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Drafted the dab at Rashap. Jay 💬 10:12, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete due to them not actually being characters in Star Wars. ApexParagon (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Disambiguate Rashap per Jay; delete and note non-bot contributors Talk:List of Star Wars species (P–T) for San Vestras and Tyberian to satisfy attribution requirements (Tyberian is Polish strongman pl:Tyberiusz Kowalczyk's nickname but there's no solid content on him on enwiki); retarget Tarentians to Taranto as what I assume was a Roman demonym of Tarentum (Google Books). J947 ‡ ^edits 01:38, 23 February 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).

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 to mainspace and delete 2 avoided double redirects. wbm1058 (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• Template:Gaza war infobox → Gaza war  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Template:Israel–Hamas war infobox → Gaza war  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Template:Israel-Hamas war infobox → Gaza war  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unexpected cross-namespace redirect; I would have expected this to either be a true infobox template or deleted outright Duckmather (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

• I've updated the second so it's no longer a double redirect, in hopes this will make for a cleaner close. (At nomination, it was still pointing to Template:Gaza war infobox.) We can use {{avoided double redirect}} if needed, but "have something be a double redirect" isn't a valid outcome. That's not even a matter of opinion—even if discussion formed such a consensus, a bot would fix it shortly thereafter. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
• Keep Template:Gaza war infobox for attestation purposes. The template was merged into the target article. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
• Move Template:Gaza war infobox without redirect to a title in the article space that applies as essentially a {{R from merge}} since the template was most likely substituted at Gaza war. Delete the other two as figurative G8 speedy deletions at this point. Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget all per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

  Umm... Retarget "where"? Didn't seem as though the nominator specified any target. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

  • @Steel1943: To Gaza war. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

    You probably mean "keep", then, since that's their current target. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

    That's where the redirects currently target. Vote "Keep" instead if that's what you mean ApexParagon (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Delete all. Such trivial attribution can be given with an edit summary (we are dealing with key-value pairs which I highly doubt can be copy-right in any country and is certainly not in the US). This never should have been in a stand-alone template. Gonnym (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

• Keep Template:Gaza war infobox per Tavix, delete the other two. मल्ल (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Move Template:Gaza war infobox without redirect to Gaza war infobox per Steel. Delete others per all. Jay 💬 13:08, 22 February 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).

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. This is unambiguously a metaphor referring to cattle, and not anything plausibly on-topic to the cattle industry. wbm1058 (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• Having a cow → Bart Simpson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Have a cow → Bart Simpson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Had a cow → Bart Simpson  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Marked as a double redirect to Don't have a cow!, which redirects to the disambiguation page Don't have a cow, which has four items, none of which could plausibly be referred to as "having a cow". Possible options include deletion, retargeting to wikt:have a cow (which discusses the idiom), or retargeting to Cow#Economy if we want to be more literal Duckmather (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

• Disambiguate, as "having a cow" can also mean owning or possessing a cow, which could refer to Cattle industry, or perhaps "You have two cows", or could refer to a cow giving birth (e.g., Calf (animal)#Gestation). BD2412 T 19:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

  Facepalm –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

  This seems like it's actually just a way to cover your eyes so you can avoid seeing the ambiguity of the phrase. Obviously "Have a cow" as a phrase exists and has meanings relevant to encyclopedic senses. BD2412 T 22:22, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Absolutely useless. For crissakes, no one who wants to learn about the cattle industry is going to search for "have a cow". I think my brain is leaking out of my ear. (And both the simpsons catchphrase and the two-cows thing are fixed and not subject to alternate formations). Dab pages exist to disambiguate (shocker) things that could reasonably be titled the same, not for vague guesswork bespoke search engine results. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:24, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
• Have a delete per Deacon Vorbis. Jq talk 💬 contributions 19:51, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
• Dabify, including:
  -A soft redirect to wikt:have a cow
  -Links to Cattle industry, You have two cows, and Calf (animal)#gestation as per BD2412
  -A link to the Don't have a cow! dab page. Alternately that dab page could be merged with this proposed one. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
• Disambig per above. My weak preference is for a single dab page covering both "have" and "don't" have senses as there is some overlap but if others prefer separate ones that's also fine by me. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf: I would definitely agree with having the term at the base title, "Have a cow", with "Don't have a cow" merged and redirected there. Obviously the expression, "Don't have a cow", is contingent on the existence of a concept of "having a cow". BD2412 T 19:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

• disambig per above per above Oreocooke (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)
• Soft redirect Have a cow to wikt:have a cow and retarget the other two to Have a cow. The idiomatic expression is the primary topic—probably the only topic readers commonly search for using these phrases. "Have a cow" is a bizarre way to refer to the cattle industry and the other suggestions. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2026 (UTC)
  • @Myceteae: "I want you to get that particular point. There are so many fellows trying to feed poor cows profitably. You can't do it You have got to have a cow. When I say a cow I mean a cow that is a cow that makes a profit, not these old skates that you find around on a good many farms". Erf, Prof. Oscar (1923). "The Subject of Feeding for High Production". The Jersey Bulletin and Dairy World. 42: 1295. BD2412 T 04:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

    @BD2412 I'm not denying that the words have a cow appear in other contexts, including the literal meaning. But it's a well-known idiom that is even defined in many dictionaries. Someone searching this is almost certainly looking for this set phrase. It is highly implausible that someone would read a passage like tho one you shared and decide to learn more about the subject by searching have a cow. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

    • Given enough people, highly implausible things will happen. I could at least see someone looking for You have two cows this way. In any case, if we have a soft redirect to Wikitionary, readers will have to make the same number of clicks to get to that Wiktionary entry as if we have a disambiguation page including the same Wiktionary entry at the top of the page. Ergo, there is no real downside to disambiguating. BD2412 T 04:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

      Sure, but DAB pages are for compiling wiki-ambiguous terms topics where everything has the exact same name/title, or at least is commonly called by that name. In assessing for primary topic we don't give highly implausible referents equal standing. The overwhelming primary topic for have a cow is the saying have a cow. We don't typically compile markedly different phrases ("You have two cows") or things that could theoretically be described that way but where it would be highly unusual to do so (Calf (animal)#gestation). We might a well add "Having cowpox" and "Have a nice day" which are about as similar as the other entries suggested. I remain unconvinced that this is an appropriate DAB page. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I₂Overcome ^talk 23:22, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• …or Delete. Do not DABify. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment. I added a Wiktionary link to Don't have a cow (disambiguation). I'm trying not to have a cow over the cretinous quality of some of the discussions I find here at RfD. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose disambiguation, don't mind between targetting Don't have a cow, wikt:have a cow, or deletion. J947 ‡ ^edits 01:43, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
• First choice: Delete per nom, Deacon and Myceteae. Second choice: refine to Bart Simpson § Hallmarks. Oppose disambiguation per Deacon and Myceteae. Jay 💬 10:59, 24 February 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).

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. No prejudice against any non-delete actions (e.g. restore content, or provide attribution on the target's talk page and resend to RfD). I've removed the entry at Yaka. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ ^edits 04:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Yaka (Star Wars)Yaka (Star Wars) → List of Star Wars species (U–Z)#Yaka  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not significant, only mentioned on Wikipedia on the Yaka dab page. Delete, and remove entry from Yaka. TNstingray (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

• This was merged to Lists of Star Wars species and I have tagged it as an {{R from merge}}. Jay 💬 18:50, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 19:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 22:25, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• Revert The relevant content lasted quite a while, until November 2022. The editor, @ELdEL69:, appears inactive, but I'll ping anyway. They removed it since the Yaka only appear in "Legends", aka Star Wars elements that became non-canonical with the Disney acquisition. ELdEL69 also started a discussion on the talk page, so all in all I think the removal was fine per WP:BOLD, but from what I can tell, none of the lists exclude Legends content as part of their criteria. Some of it is explicitly included and marked. So I suggest we simply revert the removal. --BDD (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Presumably this was removed because it lacked sources, so this would mean restoring uncited content: ==Yaka== The Yaka are a race of near-human cyborgs. They were transformed after their home planet was invaded centuries ago by superintelligent inhabitants of Arkania, a neighboring star system. The Arkanians forced the Yakas to undergo surgery in which they implanted cyborg brain enhancers, increasing the species' intelligence to genius level. Thus, the brutish-looking Yakas are much smarter than they appear. A side effect of the implants is a twisted sense of humor that all Yakas possess.{{Citation needed|date=February 2007}} – wbm1058 (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

    Fair, but it looks like a majority of the article is uncited. And at least it was tagged as such. --BDD (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 23:18, 10 February 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).

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 Palestinian genocide allegations. (non-admin closure) J947 ‡ ^edits 01:52, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• Israelis committed genocideIsraelis committed genocide → Gaza genocide  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

...huh? The combination of the past tense with an indefinite plural seems to leave more questions than answers. Note that the slightly less ambiguous Israeli genocide redirects to Palestinian genocide allegations. — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. The wording is way too specific to warrant a direct to Palestinian genocide allegations or anywhere
  I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 23:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  Striking my vote as I am not ECR and thus not allowed to participate in this discussion. I will not be engaging with this thread again. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 20:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Palestinian genocide allegations per WP:RNEUTRAL. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget per Thryduulf. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 01:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Palestinian genocide allegations per Thryduulf, same target as Israeli genocide. Should be categorised as redirect from non-neutral name, plural, other tense, etc. CNC (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. More a shout than a title and not going to find anything faster. NadVolum (talk) 14:47, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Palestinian genocide allegations, per Thryduulf, and because it's a broader topic than the more-specific Gaza genocide. Seems like a less common search term but not unplausible. ApexParagon (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Palestinian genocide allegations per Thryduulf. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget as per Thryduulf with tagging as per CNC. I'm not convinced by the argument that this is implausible, and the Palestinian genocide allegations article is more broad. If the user was looking for the article specifically about the Gaza genocide, that's easily reached via existing hatnote. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per deletion reason #3 - A non-neutral redirect, which this is, should be deleted when it uses "not established terms and [is] unlikely to be useful" per WP:RNEUTRAL. Coining (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  Except this is a minor variation of an establish term that is very likely to be useful. Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  What minor variation and what established term are you referring to? Coining (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  This is a minor variation of the established terms "Israeli genocide", "Gaza genocide", and many other similar ones that are the entire subject of the article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  "Israeli genocide" is not an established term, and "Israelis committed genocide" is not a minor variation of "Gaza genocide". That's at least my take, which is why I think delete is the appropriate way to go. Coining (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

  We have an entire article on allegations of "Israeli genocide", the exact term gets multiple pages of results on both Google Books and Google Scholar, it is undeniably an established term. Even if it weren't it is unambiguously a useful search term, so, no, deletion is not the appropriate way to go here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  If by "an entire article" you mean the page you've proposed retargeting to, Palestinian genocide allegations, then it proves my point that "Israeli genocide" is not an established term. I doesn't use the phrase "Israeli genocide" even once in its text.

  Even less of an established term is "Israelis committed genocide", which is what this redirect actually is. Even assuming that "Israeli genocide" is an established term, and that that's the reason it already redirects to Palestinian genocide allegations, that wouldn't imply that "Israelis committed genocide" should be its own redirect, just like we don't create redirects for every misspelling that someone could type into Wikipedia. Coining (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  At this point it's clear that you're going to continue moving the goal posts so I'll stop wasting my time. Thryduulf (talk) 02:15, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  Jeez, can you not do a simple google search right now and see for yourself the very existent relation between the terms "Israeli" and "genocide"? Here, I will do it for you: https://www.google.com/search?q=israeli+genocide&oq=israeli+genocide BarntToust 03:40, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  No need to be snarky - the redirect isn't for "Israeli genocide" it is for "Israelis committed genocide". I'm sure there are a bunch of folks who believe that every time the world word Israel is uttered, it should be followed by "genocide" -- that doesn't make it an appropriate redirect. Coining (talk) 09:52, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'm sure there are a bunch of folks who believe that every time the world [sic] Israel is uttered, it should be followed by "genocide"

  You do realize that this is you admitting that this is a plausible, actively-used, established phrase, then? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  "Israeli genocide" perhaps, but not "Israelis committed genocide". Coining (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  Exactly what is the difference there? I have a feeling there's some sort of gap between what you're thinking of and what we're thinking of 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  If by "an entire article" you mean the page you've proposed targeting to.... then it proves my point

  I also don't get how "pointing something to the article that talks about it" is, in any way, shape, or form, proof that that something is an unused term. Either way, the very first sentence of that article is Since its foundation in 1948, Israel has been accused of carrying out genocide against Palestinians during the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

  There. Right there, I spelled it out for you. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

  The article doesn't talk about the phrase "Israelis committed genocide" -- the phrase simply isn't used in the article. I'm not objecting here to the redirect from Israeli genocide to Palestinian genocide allegations. Under the theory being proposed for retargeting, there should be redirects for "Israeli genocide", "Israelis genocide", "Israelis committed genocide", "Israel is a genocide committer", "Israel is genocide", and so forth. It is simply not the case that the association of Israel with genocide means that any phrase that uses versions of both words deserves a redirect. Coining (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  Under the theory being proposed for retargeting, there should be (other redirects that don't exist)

  This is a WP:PANDORA-style argument; thus I'm going to bring in WP:BACKINBOX. We shouldn't be worried about what other redirects do or don't exist, we need to focus on THIS one and look at ITS merits. (I'd also perhaps like to bring in User:Bugghost/essays/Keeping_isn't_creating-- keeping this redirect won't force us to create any of the other hypothetical redirects you just mentioned. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not arguing for those other redirects. What I'm saying is that the arguments for THIS redirect are actually arguments for a redirect on "Israeli genocide" (a redirect that separately exists), not arguments for THIS redirect. That can be seeing in phrases like This is a minor variation of the established terms "Israeli genocide" and We have an entire article on allegations of "Israeli genocide", as well as the link above to https://www.google.com/search?q=israeli+genocide&oq=israeli+genocide. I agree that the focus should be on THIS redirect. Which is why THIS redirect should be deleted, and your concerns should be directed to all those who are acting as though this were a redirect from "Israeli genocide", which it is not. Coining (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  Which is why I'm wondering if there's some sort of gap between what you're thinking of and what we're thinking of _{quoting myself there lol}

  When I parse the term "Israeli genocide", my brain comes up with "A genocide that's either caused by, or committed against, the Israeli people". Given where it's targeted, it's clear that that's the correct way to parse it-- specifically, "a genocide that's caused by the Israeli people" is what Palestinian genocide allegations is talking about.

  Meanwhile, when I parse the term, "Israelis committed genocide", it comes up with much the same-- "A genocide that's caused by the Israeli people". Thus, in my eyes, it should be targeted to the same location-- Palestinian genocide allegations.

  I'm over here wondering if that's where the issue lies-- if when you parse one of those two statements, you're not getting the same results. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  It's not a matter of parsing. I don't see sufficient evidence that the term "Israelis committed genocide" is an "established term". The applicable guideline doesn't say "established term or parsed or derived ancillary terms", so on what basis, even if your statement about parsing were correct, wouldn't it be appropriate to delete this redirect? Coining (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  The applicable guideline doesn't say "established term or parsed or derived ancillary terms"

  Honestly, the issue I have is that this position is just... flat-out pedantry. Who rightly cares if the established term does or does not include the word "committed", given its meaning with or without the word is the exact same?

  Even throwing out the "...okay you're just being pedantic now" argument, there IS something that says that "...parsed or derived ancillary terms" is an okay thing, and that's the existence of avoided-double-redirects. If a given term would, for some reason or another (typos, misspellings, et cetera) redirect to a title that is itself a redirect, that's an avoided double redirect and should target the same target as the otherwise-target redirect. By this logic, Israelis committed genocide would be an ADR of Israeli genocide. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 00:53, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Who rightly cares about the "established term"? It's the phrase used in WP:RNEUTRAL. That's enough reason to care.

  Deleting the redirect also avoids any double redirect concern. Coining (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Palestinian genocide allegations per Thryduulf. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 03:10, 15 February 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).

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 Grip. Left guide (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• The gripThe grip → Influenza  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Probably a weird pseudo-translation of la grippela grippe which is also a redirect to Influenza and is an attested synonym that appears in English-language sources. I would expect "the grip" to have something to do with one of the dozens of meanings listed at Grip. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Definitely not delete as there's an there are multiple articles named "The Grip" listed on the dab. It was common to call influenza "the grip" in the 1800s and early 1900s (Spanish flu § Descriptive names and Epidemic Influenza; Commonly Called "The Grip." (1894) for example). But given the rarity of that now, weak retarget to the dab page given there's an album called The Grip. Separately someone could refine the reference to influenza on the dab to make that more clear if they decide it's an improvement. Skynxnex (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  The dab page would be better than the current target. "Grippe (influenza)" is listed under 'See also'. A more specific entry for "The grip" could be added elsewhere on the dab page, pointing either to Influenza or Spanish flu. Per your description, Influenza would be the better dab page entry since this term was apparently used to refer to (epidemic) influenza more broadly. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to the dab page Grip instead. Cfls (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
• Ehhh, retarget to The Grip I guess, since that's at the base title and capitalized...this could also refer to one or two other works there, but this one is currently primary. The only other possibility is really influenza; I've always seen that as "the grippe" instead, but apparently this exists as well...both are archaic though, so I'd favor this as a title of a modern work over that, even despite the capitalization. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:43, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget to Grip, or to The Grip?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Grip, as WP:PT. The album has capitalization disambiguating it (wonder if that's enough for smth seemingly obscure) but this is in lowercase Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 01:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Grip per EasternShah. ApexParagon (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget to Grip. Clearly an ambiguous term and cretainly "infuenca" is not its primary meaning. --Altenmann >talk 16:24, 13 February 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).

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) 01:12, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• Salvatore Nuara → Epstein files  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Someone by this name has been mentioned by a US congressman as appearing in the unredacted Epstein files. However, nothing is known publicly about who this is and there's no mention in the target article (WP:RSURPRISE). The same applies to Leonic Leonov and Zurab Mikeladze. Fences&Windows 22:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete: This seems like a quasi-BLP issue (minus the B). — An anonymous username, not my real name 22:50, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. No other information about this person is known or reported in RS. (We don't even know if this is a real person who prefers privacy, or a pseudonym). If not for the latest file reveals, this person would not be getting any coverage at all. Not notable, and no verifiable information availale. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 22:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete due to the lack of reliable sources covering this person at all, let alone in a way that wouldn't violate WP:BLPCRIME. ApexParagon (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RSURPRISE Anybar (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• To add, they appeared in a SDNY line-up and have no connection to Epstein. Fences&Windows 03:51, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Daask (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment The Guardian is reporting that Salvatore Nuara, Leonic Leonov, and Zurab Mikeladze were in the files because they were part of a photo line up; they don't have ties to Epstein. Anybar (talk) 21:50, 16 February 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).

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. wbm1058 (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

• Consequencies of the spanish flu → Influenza  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete. Spanish flu would be a more reasonable target but between the misspelling and the vague intended meaning of 'consequences', this is a bad redirect. It was originally a long but poorly written article with zero references. It survived for less than an hour before being BLAR'd in 2004. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Spanish flu#Effects which is a section all about the consequences of the Spanish flu. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to say delete becuase fo teh mispeling. It's not a very common one, and will likely never be used. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 22:42, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:13, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Delete unplausible redirect, consequences is not pronounced with anything like an I in any dialect i've heard. Sahib-e-Qiran, EasternShah 01:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per all. The creator had realized his mistake and created the properly spelled Consequences of the spanish flu 6 minutes later. Jay 💬 08:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  Indeed, but they still miscapitalized Spanish. I history-merged their first edit to the other page. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:40, 19 February 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).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy keep as withdrawn. Left guide (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Homer's Coming Back For SecondsHomer's Coming Back For Seconds → The Simpsons Movie#Sequel  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No mentions of this phrase at the target article. Sugar Tax (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per {{R from tagline}}, a mention has been added. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Withdrawn now that a mention has been added. Sugar Tax (talk) 23:14, 10 February 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).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Rusalkii (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

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

not what that word means, or the primary topic. might be eligible for g5, though i'm not entirely sure the timeline matches consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

It could probably just be G1 deleted. "Pianie" is a nonsense word that doesn't appear in any online dictionaries. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 23:02, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I've tagged it with {{db-g1}}. Sugar Tax (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

wikt:pianie consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 00:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I missed that, thanks for pointing it out. It doesn't indicate "piano" anyway (it's apparently either a bird-related word or a Polish translation), so I think a G1 deletion is still warranted. Thanks. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 15:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Delete completely implausible, ridiculous aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete -- implausible redirect created by a long-ago blocked abusive account. (Note: I overturned the WP:R3 speedy deletion per request because it was not "recently recreated.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by CactusWriter (talk • contribs) 00:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Comment For what it worth, the word does exist and is in use in Stay Awake: Various Interpretations of Music from Vintage Disney Films, See Personnel for D7. However I failed to find reliable sources - all I see is discogs, which, while generally trustable, bit prone to vandalism; just like Wikipedia. Unfortunately the Wikipedian who added the piece, in 2007, user:Mhedblom is long gone. --Altenmann >talk 04:32, 11 February 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).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was disambiguate. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Bot note: False conclusion (disambiguation)False conclusion (disambiguation) ^{(talk · links · history · stats)} is a related redirect of "False conclusion "

• False conclusion → Irrelevant conclusion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

the target doesn't necessarily imply that the conclusion is incorrect (intentionally or otherwise), only that it's irrelevant to any given issue. for example, i can say that pushing ai is bad because it's hogging ram i want to use to play ultrakill, and while both claims will be true (hence, not a false conclusion), the conclusion will be irrelevant to the claim because it misses the wider points in favor of an admittedly really good game. good thing i'd never deliberately pull a trick like this

other fallacies seem to not be all that accurate to this term either. most have the chance of false conclusions, but aren't reliant on them, and some do rely on the conclusion being incorrect in the contexts of its own arguments, but not necessarily on the conclusion actually being incorrect

all of this is to say that i'm not entirely sure what would be a good target for this. either applicable definition of non-sequitur might be the closest, but even those don't necessarily inherently rely on a false conclusion, so what do? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 19:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy close: Disambig, because there is no single "good target". Suggested text:

A false conclusion is a result of reasoning that is false. It may refer to:

• Error
• False (logic)
• Fallacy
• Jumping to conclusions

==See also==

• Reductio ad absurdum

--Altenmann >talk 21:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

doubt that'd be a speedy close, but this is probably a somewhat good place to start. i'm still torn on whether or not to add lie to it, though consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

a "lie" is not a "conclusion" --Altenmann >talk 02:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Feel free to draft the disambiguation below the RFD notice. --Joy (talk) 12:26, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  altenmann already did consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguate per Altenmann ApexParagon (talk) 20:09, 15 February 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).

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. Jay 💬 20:26, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Delete per being a unlikely search term. ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm even surprised that this redirect has lived for over 2 decades. ~2026-36939-5 (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep. This got 43 hits last year, which is way more than I would have expected so I went to Google to see how common a typo it is. What I found was a mix of results about a basketball player named Taihland Owens about whom we have only a couple of passing mentions that I've found, and typos for the country. It's not common enough a typo to be a clear keep, and the basketball player means we can't be certain that all 43 users were people were looking for the country, but on balance since it's not harming anything (I've not investigated whether the sportsperson is notable enough for an article, but if they are the article will be at their full name not their first name) so it's enough for a weak keep. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiMacaroons^Cinnamon? 14:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.zglph^•talk• 14:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. This is strikes me as an implausible misspelling/typo for the country, although I take Thryduulf at their word that they encountered such examples in the wild. My search on- and off-wiki overwhelmingly returns hits related to the basketball player Taihland Owens, who, as noted, is mentioned in two articles. At best, this is ambiguous and, for the average reader, the redirect effectively blocks search results that do reveal (limited) coverage of the basketball player. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
• keep useable search term; not everyone knows how to spell it corrently ZNático (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
• delete. ultimately, this doesn't seem to be a particularly plausible phonetic spelling, so readers would be best served by autocorrect or search results consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 20:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

  For an English speaker, this seems to be more plausible phonetically than the correct spelling if someone knows there is a "h" in there somewhere (the correct spelling implies a pronunciation of /θaɪ.lænd/). Thryduulf (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Thryduulf. Non-negligible views, presumably stemming from knowing there's an "h" in Thailand but not being quite sure where. This sort of thing is much more likely to occur in searches than printed content, given you'd hope people would check the spelling before publishing information. I find the basketballer's first name an unlikely search term. His name is probably a misspelling of Thailand anyway, adding to the plausibility of this search term. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:56, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete along with Tailand. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 18:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep contra Yovt. Tailand is phonetically even more plausible than Taihland, but neither should be deleted. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, no one has demonstrated any real plausibility to this, and I see none either. On the contrary, this is actively harmful, as a cursory web search finds pages of nothing but a college basketball player with this as a first name, so it gets in the way of searches for him (of which there are in fact a couple hits). While omitting the 'h' from Thailand is a phonetically plausible error, sticking in some random place two letters later isn't. Could people ever make this error? Probably, but redirects that cover spelling errors should be plausible, not just possible. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:23, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• delete - searchability on Wikipedia promotes an illusion that it is a plausible spelling. --Altenmann >talk 21:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Keep: while moving the letter 'h' by two letters is an unlikely typo, it's a plausible misspelling because (1) it's not pronounced with a "th" sound, (2) it's common to remember the letters but not the order, and (3) moving the 'h' only one letter (Tahiland) is clearly incorrect due to adding a syllable. Jruderman (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Taihland and Tailand. Although both are phonetically closer to the correct pronunciation than Thailand, they're still not common enough to warrant a redirect. (Plus, Tailand also implies a pronunciation of "tail-land.") If we deleted the redirect and someone did happen to search either of the misspelled terms, Thailand will still be the top option.

I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 23:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Implausible typo. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  I agree it's an implausible typo, but that's not relevant because it's a very plausible misspelling for the reasons detailed above. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: It's very possible to misspell Thailand as Taihland. Most people know how to spell "land", but "Thai" can be difficult to spell, given the "th" is not pronounced as it is in "the". Because of this, people may drop the h and think of Tailand. But since apparently this "implies a pronunciation of "tail-land", someone might add an h after the i to make Taihland. A native English speaker might find this unlikely, but it's more likely for people who aren't native English speakers. For the issue of ambiguity with Taihland Owens, it's better to target Thailand even if he had an article because the basketball player is not known by his first name, but the country is known by a single word. It's the same reason that Canidate redirects to Candidate instead of Trung Canidate: candidate is a single word (and is also what most people are looking for). If someone was looking for a specific person, they wouldn't search for a specific single name unless it was the person's common "known as" name, which is not the case for Taihland Owens. Mathguy2718 (talk) 15:33, 11 February 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).

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. Unopposed disambiguating proposal. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• Memey → Bizarrap discography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned; wikt:memey says it's related to memes. ZNático (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Speedy close: disambig. Suggested text:

Memey may refer to:

• Cut Memey
• Valentin Memey
• Memey Suhaiza
• ==Fictional characters==
• In Tribu
• In Kung Fu Pocong Perawan

--Altenmann >talk

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Synthetic Watermelon as too ambiguous and misleading. Synthetic Big Watermelon makes about as much sense as Merge Big Watermelon. I just wish Chinese gamers would figure this out on their own and quit wasting our time with this trivial stuff. wbm1058 (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Synthetic Watermelon → Suika Game  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Synthetic Big WatermelonSynthetic Big Watermelon → Suika Game  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not only does the Suika Game page not mention the word "synthetic" anywhere, this is arguably WP:XY with the idea of flavoring. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

technically a translation of the title it was adapted from. refine whatever isn't deleted to §Development and release, where it would be mentioned if it was mentioned. User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 02:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

where it would be mentioned if it was mentioned Except it's not mentioned there??? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

it's not mentioned anywhere in the article, but if it was mentioned it would be mentioned there. sorry if that part was unclear. User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 23:42, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

keep and refine synthetic big watermelon per my above reasoning, but delete synthetic watermelon because it feels a lot less plausible, potentially due to the fact that i've never seen it phrased that way before, only things like "synthetic big watermelon" and the mentioned "merge big watermelon". User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 02:18, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I don't understand what "synthetic" is a translation of. Jay 💬 05:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
• Refine to Suika Game#Development and release per Oreocooke. Although the target gives the translation of 合成大西瓜 as "Merge Big Watermelon", the translation softwares I've tried give "Synthetic [Large] Watermelon". More importantly, there's a fair few Google results that refer to this game this way – more than for "Merge Big Watermelon" – most of which are without the "Big". J947 ‡ ^edits 05:06, 1 March 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).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 05:41, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Aladdin XAladdin X → Suika Game  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

As denoted by the page, Aladdin X is a company that is mainly focused on projection hardware; Suika Game's success happened by accident. I can see someone trying to look up information on this company and getting really WP:SURPRISEd when they see this. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

If, nevertheless, they are known for Suika Game then this seems a reasonable redirect barring an article about the company itself. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 19:27, 3 February 2026 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Sigcov from accidents is still maintained for the company and is sufficient for a redirect. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep per Go D. Usopp. if sigcov from accidents wasn't sufficient for a redirect, then for instance Orteil would likely be red, as he has said the game was an accident^[1][2] User "Oreocooke" (speak of the sun and it shines) 17:53, 14 February 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).

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. wbm1058 (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

• UAE national team all-time record → United Arab Emirates national football team all-time record  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• United Arab Emirates national team all-time record → United Arab Emirates national football team all-time record  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a {{R from move}} but it is ambiguous with teams representing the United Arab Emirates in other sports, although as far as I've found none of those have separate articles for their records. There also isn't at present a disambiguation page listing all the country's sports teams this could refer to. I'm bringing this here for discussion rather than recommending deletion, or any other specific action (see also #Welsh national team). Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 00:56, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 03:44, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• Delete - remnant from a page move from an ambiguous title. Jay 💬 07:49, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  Delete the bundled United Arab Emirates national team all-time record as well, as ambiguous. Jay 💬 05:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. I guess this is slightly more ambiguous than United Arab Emirates national team all-time record (the country is, after all, primary topic for UAE, but everyone knows that football is the primary topic for Sport in the United Arab Emirates, though other sports are indeed played in that country. If someone wants to create a disambiguation including stuff like United Arab Emirates national cricket team § Records and statistics have at it, but please don't bog down this overworked project with a {{Dabr}}, just be bold and do it yourself. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to bundle United Arab Emirates national team all-time record as pointed out by wbm1058.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• but everyone knows that football is the primary topic for Sport in the United Arab Emirates Do you have any evidence for that? I didn't know that. Sport in the United Arab Emirates doesn't redirect to football, but does include sentences like Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is widely recognized as a national sport and describes football only as "one of the most popular sports". Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  I apologize for my failure to trigger your sarcasm detector. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:55, 19 February 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).

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 deleet. ^Complex/_Rational 22:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Ph33r t3h ... → Leet  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

1337 h4×0rz can finish their sentences, i believe in consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• [)31373: 1ph 7#15 vv45 ?4r7 0ph 4 10^63r ?#r453 ^^3^710^3) 1^ t3h 4r71<l3, ! <0v1) ^^4y83 533 7#15 45 4 ?l4v51813 534r<# 73r^^, 8v7 17 15^'7. @ 700!< 47 t3h 4r71<13 45 17 vv45 vv#3^ 7#15 vv45 <r3473) 4150 )035^'7 5h0vv 4 ^^3^710^. @ 534r<# ph0r "Ph33r t3h" d435^'7 5#0vv 4^y7#1^6 vv0r7# 4))1^6 70 t3h 4r71<l3. [#355 3^j0y3r (741!<) 07:33, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  You know, I think I overdid it. Chess enjoyer (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  is it bad that i could read it just fine? consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  `/35. [#355 3^j0y3r (741!<) 01:49, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  Reminds me of good old times of recreational obfuscated programming... Wait, Wikipedia say it is still popular! --Altenmann >talk 16:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  Good Lord, I had a stroke reading that.

  Delete as a very unlikely search target. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 15:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Deleet. This may be an example of 1337 but since it is not mention and does not appear to be a notable example of the 'language', this redirect is unhelpful, especially for the uninitiated. I can't phantom a situation where we would take a random word or phrase from a language and target it to the article about that language. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 04:01, 12 February 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).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Rusalkii (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• A guide to the hacker language → Leet  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

per blar. also doesn't seem to be the title of any of those rectangular thingies with paper and squiggly lines on them, or of anything else that actually exists consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 14:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. This is almost always the wrong venue to contest a blar, but in this case if we restored the pre-blar content it would be speedily deleted (it's either an A10 duplicate of leet or with an uncharitable interpretation of the creators edit summary A11 as made up). That out the way, hacker language is a red link and an internal search for the exact phrase found no relevant results in the article namespace (just a few instances of "Hacker" on the line above the label "language" in infoboxes). My first thought was the Jargon File, but I can't find any evidence that this title is used for that, indeed the only result on google for "A guide to the hacker language" -Wikipedia is a page on onelook.com (a dictionary aggregator) for "Words that start with "agui"" (of which this obviously is not an example). Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Essentially per Thry's reasoning, but I also want to add the reason we can skip the trip to AfD or usage of any CSD, is because the page would have a WP:SNOWBALL's chance in hell to survive either process. A CSD couldn't be used, however, because the redirect does deserve a non-speedy discussion. Deleting something the slow way per WP:SNOW is not an argument you get to make every day, haha! MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 04:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:SNOW (the "This is the wrong venue but it would last five seconds in the correct venue" sense, not the typical "yeah it's been five seconds but there's already enough to establish a unanimous consensus" sense), as per Thryduulf and MEN KISSING. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 21:05, 12 February 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).

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) 01:17, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• Next papal conclave → Conclave#Modern practice  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Target doesn't mention any specific future conclave in contrary to the redirect name, and therefore seems frankly unuseful. The discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next papal conclave ended in draftifyDraft:Next papal conclave, an article which has since become the conclave that we eventually got. But in the absence of an article about the future post-Leoine conclave, I don't think a reader would be helped with a redirect essentially amounting to "the next conclave will be a conclave".
I suggest we delete this pagename, or possibly turn it into an article about the post-Leoine conclave specifically (though I doubt there are sufficient sources for that right now). Rose Abrams (T C L) 13:39, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Will ping @Philip Stevens who made the current form of the page. Rose Abrams (T C L) 13:41, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• delete useless nonspecific collocation. --Altenmann >talk 21:38, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Like similar 'Next Fooian election' and 'Next king of Foo', this may have served a purpose and had an appropriate target at one time, but it no longer does. The current target describes general conclave procedures but does not really cover the concept of the 'next' conclave. The only history here is the creation of the redirect and multiple retargets. There is no article content that needs to be preserved. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. Next foo redirects are valuable assets when we have content about the next foo, about when the next foo is likely/scheduled/expected to happen, or a list of foos that will reliably contain a link to the next one. It's uncommon that we have this content for foos that occur on a somewhat predictable schedule and/or are the subject of notable speculation about the timing/content. We have no such content about the next papal conclave beyond that it will occur shortly after the current pope dies or resigns, but someone using this search term will almost certainly already know that. Thryduulf (talk) 00:02, 13 February 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).

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 Jet pack#Rocket chair. Left guide (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• Rocket ChairRocket Chair → Rocket  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

come on, why's this gotta be unmentioned? where's my rocket lawnchair? i guess results are generally lackluster and torn between differing definitions of both halves of the term, literal or otherwise, and also between the specific ways in which they're then associated with each other (rockets strapped to a chair, a chair strapped to a rocket, a chair inside a rocket, a rocket-branded chair, etc.)... but that's boring and besides the point, i want a metal slug meme older than some people in mainspace, but sources don't seem to be in the mood to cover it or variations of it, least of all enough to justify this redirect's existence

actually, i did find a good few mentions of the term "rocket lawnchair" in reliable enough sources, but seemingly not any that actually define the term, so i can't really justify "rocket lawnchair" as a redirect either. sadge consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 13:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm certain there has to be (or should be) somewhere on Wikipedia that goes into better detail on the topic of strapping rockets to a chair. If not, though, then I think we should at least retarget to Wan Hu, as the Chinese official who (according to legend) actually had a literal rocket chair built and then attempted to fly in it. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 04:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I added a section on this topic with citations and updated the redirect to point to it at: Jet pack#Rocket chair. Wan Hu is a good find; I'll add that now. -- Beland (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Ooo, retarget to Jet pack#Rocket chair, then. Or, I suppose you've already retargeted it. Which you're technically not supposed to do for a redirect under discussion, but in this case I can't imagine it would have anything less than unanimous support. MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 22:28, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

right, yeah, had to revert that. less out of opposition or anything of the sort, more just to avoid potential jank with gadgets consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 22:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to Jet pack#Rocket chair per Beland. ApexParagon (talk) 18:11, 12 February 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).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• 1997-20041997-2004 → The Mad Capsule Markets discography  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete as very ambiguous, could mean so many things. Geschichte (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• Keep I was all set to recommend deletion per the nominator, but when I checked to see examples of other things it could refer to I found that Spotify and Amazon at least regard "1997-2004" as the full title of the album, and it's not actually implausible given the only other text on the cover of all the album in all the pictures a Google image search is showing me is the band's name. The only other things this is a specific name for are clearly partial title matches (And Love Said No: The Greatest Hits 1997–2004 and Best Of (Chapter One 1997–2004)) or a subtitle (From Here on In (The Living End album)). The only other results a search for "1997-2004" site:en.wikipedia.org brings up are 1997 in British television (and clearly nobody using this search term is looking for that article), and four articles about British train operating companies (West Anglia Great Northern, Arriva Trains Northern, First North Western and ScotRail (National Express)) which fall squarely within my area of core subject matter knowledge and as such I can categorically state that this is not a remotely plausible search term for these articles. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

  Edit actually, I've just spotted there are more pages of search results but all of them are equally improbable search terms relating to things like Barak Obama's tenure in the Illinois Senate, Paul Scholes playing career with the England football team, Mary McAleese's first term as President of Ireland, the product lifespan of the Chevrolet Corvette (C5) 2-door coupé. Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I₂Overcome ^talk 11:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per Thryduulf. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• Just tagged as an {{R from album}}. Jay 💬 09:47, 20 February 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).

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. Multiple alternatives to deletion were suggested, and there was no explicit support for deletion or the proposed retarget. Jay 💬 05:01, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Italian AlpsItalian Alps → Alps  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The existence of this redirect showing up on search results makes it look to readers like we have an article on the Italian alps. We don't, not even a section at the target. We could retarget to Northern Italy#Geography, which is reasonably informative, or delete the redirect. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:27, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• Italy is mentioned dozens of times in Alps. Shouldn't that article just be improved to further clarify the geography of the mountains in the countries they overlay? BD2412 T 22:37, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• It's a bit shocking that unlike other languages (d:Q3509494) we don't have an article here. There's the French Alps, Swiss Alps, and even an article on the very delimitation of the Alps, but not the Italian Alps. Over 100 articles link to this redirect. But given how the Alps are traditionally divided East/West rather than North/South, an article would be a bit of a hodgepodge. That can be seen in other languages' articles. In the interest of avoiding redundancy and helping the very many readers who come across redirect, I think a better idea than a redlink, which still encourages article creation, is a very short broad-concept article that briefly discusses Italian aspects of the Alps (like French Alps does) but mostly focusses on directing readers to the different subranges of the Italian Alps (e.g. Cottian Alps, Bergamasque Alps). Like it:Alpi italiane, but for now in much less detail. J947 ‡ ^edits 22:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)
• I'm generally thinking along the same lines as J947 but my first thought was a list to complement Category:Mountain ranges of the Alps. If that were structured by country we could target this to Mountain ranges of Alps#Italy but I'm not sure how optimal that organisation would be? Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:52, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:15, 10 February 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).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep. Jay 💬 05:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

• Template:Canadian politics/leadership electionTemplate:Canadian politics/leadership election → Category:Canada leadership elections infobox templates  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is an improper cross namespace redirect. Gonnym (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

• How so? J947 ‡ ^edits 00:53, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Keep as useful for navigation. When we delete XNRs, it's because they're liable to confuse readers, not because we think all XNRs should be deleted on sight. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:15, 10 February 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).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• Soviet submarine K-377 → Soviet submarine K-64  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There were no submarine with this name neiter in Alfa class nor in Soviet Navy, so I propose to delete this redirect. According to яussian souяces K-64 have never had this name. Rave (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

delete I didnt find neither "K-377" nor "К-377" submarines (although I did find some amusing things, such as "Preciosa Czech Bead Kit for Embroidery Pattern # K-377 , "Birds"" :-) --Altenmann >talk 02:51, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• Just notified of this discussion at the target and creator talk pages. Jay 💬 06:16, 17 February 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).

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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:04, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Upon a quick web search, it appears there are quite a few people by the surname of "Jickling." There are two article pages here that cover two people with this last name, while the redirect itself appears to be unused, which makes it unnecessary to have. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 04:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• The redirect wasn't tagged. Please make sure to do so in the future. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  It appears my edit didn't go through, which I do apologize for not checking thoroughly; however, thanks for informing me of which. 8BitBros (talk • edits) 05:44, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Setindexify as drafted. That's the done thing for an ambiguous surname. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Setindexify per J947 Sahib-e-Qiran, He Who is Otherwise Known as ‪EasternShah‬ 06:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Setindexify per above. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  (ot) I loved this neologism. I looked at it enbepuzzlified for, like, 15 seconds :-) Added Wikipedia:Glossary#Setindexify. --Altenmann >talk

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was soft delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• Rathfarnham Girl Guides → Irish Girl Guides  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Propose deletion of redirect. Individual Girl Guide group is not mentioned at target. Nor should it be. (Individual Guide groups are not independently notable.) Guliolopez (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: This was a merge-and-redirect from 2006, and I have just tagged it as such. Jay 💬 04:13, 19 February 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).

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G14. Thryduulf (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Haitch (disambiguation) → H#Name  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect contains "(disambiguation)" but does not target a disambiguation page, though Haitch used to be a disambiguation page. On a side, I found this redirect through this search method that finds pages that contain "disambiguation" but don't target disambiguation pages, which are mostly errors with a few exceptions. Mathguy2718 (talk) 01:15, 10 February 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).

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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:NCNAMEWikipedia:NCNAME → Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I've been looking at this redirect for a while, and determined that its current target doesn't sit well. I'd think someone looking to this redirect would be searching for something like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (name) or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names); however, neither one of those exist. It seems the intent of this redirect upon its creation is to redirect to a naing convention for "people", but even then, it could potentially be ambiguous with the advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Style advice#Titles (which should probably be its own "Naming conventions" page [or section of another naming conventions page] at this point, but that's a discussion for another day.) In addition, we also have Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) which includes the word "names". Quite frankly, it's not clear what readers may be trying to find when searching this shortcut, but it really cannot be assumed it's about people; the fact that the redirect doesn't have any incoming links doesn't make it any clearer.

With all that being said, my preferences for the fate of this redirect, in order of most preferred to least preferred, are the following 3 options:

1. Delete due to lack of clarity of what this redirect is meant to refer.
2. Retarget to Wikipedia:Article titles, the target of redirect Wikipedia:Naming conventions, though it may be a bit redundant since it's like saying "naming conventions name".
3. Disambiguate if anyone else can figure that out as I have no idea how to assemble such a page since I have no idea what would be valid on it.

– Steel1943 (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

• Weak keep, as silly as having a "naming conventions for names" implies, the fact that we're already talking about a naming convention implies (by the maxim of quantity) that "name" refers to an additional qualifier that we might designate as such, rather than generically to article names. I'll admit that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) is also quite redundant by this very same maxim, and I wouldn't be opposed to it being trimmed down to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geography) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I₂Overcome ^talk 11:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to vote keep here per Chaotic Enby. "Name" does lightly imply a person's name, more so if "naming conventions" is already part of the title. It could also maybe be retargeted to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Nicknames, pen names, stage names, cognomens as a bit of humor (NCNAME spoken phonetically sounds like "nickname"). MEN KISSING (she/they) T - C - Email me! 03:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
• I am good with deletion as a shortcut that never caught on, and is unused. I am also good with the keep !votes. Jay 💬 06:30, 17 February 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).

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 💬 06:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Lebron movie → Space Jam: A New Legacy  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

For one, the redirect is not synonymous with the target. For two, if the point of this redirect is to associate it with LeBron James, then the redirect is ambiguous with Shooting Stars (2023 film). Delete. Steel1943 (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Retarget to LeBron James#Filmography where his movies are listed. LeBron James is the primary topic of "Lebron". -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:18, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• Retarget per Tavix. Left guide (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete, "⟨Name⟩ movie" is not a reasonable format for redirects to filmographies, especially when it's just a first name. I'm especially dubious of the reasoning above where Lebron James is freely assumed to be the PTOPIC for "Lebron", but the specific movie isn't (even though one of those movies is far more well known), especially in light of Shooting Stars, which is about him, but doesn't feature him in the cast, and so isn't listed at the filmography section at his article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  It's not an assumption that LeBron James is the primary topic of "Lebron", it's the way Wikipedia has it set up given that Lebron redirects to LeBron James. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  You're missing the point, which is that you're okay with having a PTOPIC for "Lebron", but you don't even consider the possibility (or didn't indicate that you did and dismissed it) that "Lebron movie" might have a PTOPIC itself (spoiler, it doesn't, because of what's mentioned above). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Well shoot, since I got spoiled I guess I won't watch that Lebron movie. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:11, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Which one, the one with him, or the one about him? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:12, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  Both. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as an ambiguous term that lacks a good target. A disambiguation page wouldn't be appropriate for a search term. - Eureka Lott 22:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete. I was initially sympathetic to the suggestion of LeBron James#Filmography, but this excludes Shooting Stars (2023 film) since he does not actually appear in the film. I agree it's not suitable for a dab page since there is no list of encyclopedic topics all named "Lebron movie". —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

  We could create a short list "list of films featuring or about LeBron James" Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

  It's creation should meet WP:GNG, not merely to fulfill a fringe search term. —Bagumba (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

  +1 —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The arguments against a redirect in favor of delete are pretty convincing, but let's see if we can get more involved in the discussion and gain a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Servite et contribuere (talk) 00:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete as ambiguous. A disambiguation page with this term does not seem like it would be that helpful or encyclopedic. Zzz plant (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Search term doesn't lend itself to be a suitable disambiguation page. Retarget to filmography doesn't account for outlier Shooting Stars about him.—Bagumba (talk) 06:25, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

• Delete. Too ambiguous for redirection of any kind. Go D. Usopp (talk) 09:13, 11 February 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).