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. Hog Farm _talk 00:53, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Pizza oven → Pizza#Baking  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

after moving into a small town, i got a job as a pizza. admittedly a pretty weak nom, but wouldn't masonry oven be a better target, since it's the article about the thing that is most associated with turning raw pizzas into edible material? consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 22:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the section says that pizza can be baked in an oven with fire bricks above the heat source, an electric deck oven, a conveyor belt oven, or in traditional style in a wood or coal-fired brick oven. A wide variety of ovens can be used to bake pizzas, and masonry ovens are just one type of such oven. Plant🌱man (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Plantman. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep masonry ovens are not the only type of ovens used for baking pizzas𝕒𝕥𝕠𝕞𝕚𝕔𝕕𝕣𝕒𝕘𝕠𝕟𝟙𝟛𝟞 🗨️ 🖊️ 15:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose traditional pizza ovens are not the only type of specialty pizza oven. They make countertop units for home nowadays, and there's the IR-blast oven for pizzas, and the conveyor ovens found in most delivery pizzerias -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Heinrich Himmler's Great Chair → Occultism in Nazism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Redirect from an article that was AfDed in 2007. About a chair with some esoteric carvings. If this is a notable thing it's not notable under this title, and is not addressed at the page it targets. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the referenced AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heinrich Himmler's Great Chair, which closed as redirect. Mandsford is the only participant still active. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While the AfD did talk about a sentence being merged, that seems to be long gone and there is nothing relevant in the target article today. As the content here was unsourced and tagged with the former "totally disputed" template (which after some investigation turns out to have been a combination of {{POV}} and {{Disputed}}) it seems very unlikely that it will return. If someone were to add content about this chair now it's all-but completely certain they would not use any of the previous content so it doesn't need to stick around for attribution purposes. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reason to keep antique spam about antiques. Skyerise (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ngreedia → Satiric misspelling  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Non-mentioned pejorative term for Nvidia, not mentioned in that article either. Xeroctic (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not helpful to readers. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 19:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has other satirical misspellings as redirects that aren't directly mentioned as well, such as "Ru$$ia", for example. Also, it shouldn't be surprising that satirical misspellings are almost always inherently "pejorative" by nature. I don't see that as a problem. It's about the concept, and since "Ngreedia" is a quite frequently used misspelling for a major company, it absolutely makes sense to be redirected to this article when typing it in Wikipedia's search bar. It's a sensible and relevant redirect that should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxeto0910 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have neither cited any relevant reasoning other than preference nor have you made a vote. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 19:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have cited reasons: It is a frequently used satirical misspelling (numerous hits on Google), so the relevance is clearly given and the target article absolutely makes sense for this to give readers context. And yes, I have made my vote more than clear: "It's a sensible and relevant redirect that should be kept". You, however, have not given any reason as to why you think the redirect would be "not helpful to readers". Also, your reference to Wikipedia:ILIKEIT doesn't make any sense at all as I have not expressed my personal opinion on Nvidia or the misspelling anywhere. Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

per wp:burden (or at least sort of per it, since it's in a discussion here as opposed to an addition there), you could end this in like 15 seconds by adding a source to the article. as is, people looking for this would end up in an article that has nothing to do with it, making it surprising consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 11:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no mention yet at the target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as confusing/unhelpful this and any other unmentioned mispellings pointing to this page. No one searching for "Ngreedia" is going to be happy with information about the concept of satirical mispellings, they either want to know what it is (Nvidia) or why people might call it that (which we don't have content on). I don't think this one is notable enough to be mentioned at the target page, which should not be catalogue of every possible example of the phenomena. Rusalkii (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "[...] they [...] want to know [...] why people might call it that [way]." Answer: Because it's a satirical misspelling, which the redirect makes clear. The portmanteau itself is quite self-evident, so I don't think it needs an explanation. I'd keep this redirect, just like the unmentioned "Ru$$ia" redirect, as per Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. Both terms are notable because they have numerous hits on Google. Even if very few people will type them into Wikipedia's search bar, having these redirects does absolutely no harm to anyone and at least potentially shows some people how this type of word is called. Maxeto0910 (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Maxeto0910 again, what will readers gain from this specific r without mention? if they're targeted to nvidia, it's effectively an easter egg. if they're targeted to satirical misspelling, it's also an easter egg, but more surprising. and again, if you want this issue to stop being there, you can add a mention with the results you allegedly found

  the existence of the others only really means they should probably be discussed as well, so i have no idea why people even bother with otherstuffexists arguments consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 12:37, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Both of your cited Wikipedia guidelines (regarding easter eggs and surprise links) apply to links in articles, not redirects. Like I already wrote: a direct mention is not necessary because the article title already makes it clear what this type of word is called. If you type in a word in Wikipedia's search bar and get redirected to an article titled "satiric misspelling", it is obvious from the context that this word is a satiric misspelling when it is clearly a modified version of a company's name. I never made an "otherstuffexists" argument in the first place because I never said that "Ngreedia" should be kept because we have "Ru$$ia"; I said both redirects should be kept because both are frequently used satirical misspellings. Obvious satirical misspellings that do not need an explanation and are heplful to readers because they may have heard one of these terms and type it in Wikipedia's search bar, whereupon they are shown what type of word this modified country/company name is. Maxeto0910 (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unmentioned. Steel1943 (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• if it needs to be said, delete as unmentioned, and only change to keep if a sourced mention is added consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 12:38, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. There was minimal participation despite two relists. Participants were inclined towards the latter target (Microsoft Windows), hence making that the consistent target. Jay 💬 04:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Timeline of Microsoft WindowsTimeline of Microsoft Windows → List of Microsoft Windows versions  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Timeline of Microsoft Windows releasesTimeline of Microsoft Windows releases → Microsoft Windows#Timeline of releases  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

These redirects should both target the same place, but I'm not sure which is best - both targets contain different timelines of Windows releases, List of Microsoft Windows versions is more detailed but Microsoft Windows#Timeline of releases is perhaps the clear overview? The first redirect is the result of a consensus merge in 2021, the second was created as a redirect to the current target in 2022. Thryduulf (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Inclined towards the latter target because it includes {{Timeline Windows}}, but the former article could easily be edited to include it. Tule-hog (talk) 21:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 💬 06:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Metropolitan MuseumMetropolitan Museum → Metropolitan Museum of Art  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Ambiguous term, the title of this redirect doesn't have "art" in it, so it could refer to any museum, art or not art. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but create a dab page. Metropolitan Museum of Art seems to be the primary topic based on a Google search (plus the Metropolitan Museum has a journal, the Metropolitan Museum Journal).
However, other, less famous metropolitan museums exist, such as Metropolitan Museum of Lima and Metropolitan Museum of Manila, and these can be listed at Metropolitan Museum (disambiguation). We could also add a hat note to Metropolitan Museum of Art, the primary topic, pointing to this dab page. In fact I’ll WP:BOLDly do it when I have the time. Plant🌱man (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done drafted disambiguation page at Metropolitan Museum. Note that I would like Metropolitan Museum to be a redirect, and Metroplitan Museum (disambiguation) to be the actual dab page. I just haven’t made the actual dab page because I want to see what others think. Plant🌱man (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the draft dab a bit, possibly slightly too much, so feel free to trim. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! Plant🌱man (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a primary topic redirect. The disambiguation page should be at Metroplitan Museum (disambiguation). older ≠ wiser 15:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be pedantic but I think you meant “Metropolitan” not “Metroplitan”. Plant🌱man (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being very pedantic, I only copied and pasted the link you put in your comment. older ≠ wiser 13:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. Plant🌱man (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and create a separate dab page per Plantman. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and convert to dab page, if this is ambiguous. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Epicgenius:, Keep and convert to dab page are mutually exclusive options. older ≠ wiser 13:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not the way I intended it; I'm agreeing with what Plantman and Thryduulf said. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Andrew Gordon Macpherson → Random Acts of Violence (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Person-to-film redirect, leading to a film that does not represent the person's strongest potential notability claim. He's a two-time Canadian Screen Award nominee for his work on the television documentary series Dark Side of the Ring and Who Killed WCW?, and a three-time Canadian Screen Music Award nominee for Dark Side of the Ring and Tales from the Territories -- so he shouldn't be redirecting specifically to just one film in his prior filmography, where his presence is limited to a name in the infobox, if the primary reason why anybody might be looking for him has a lot more to do with Vice documentary series about wrestling than it does with that film. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or restore former article Macpherson is potentially notable, so a redirect doesn't seem appropriate. This is a former article that was BLARed, but it was only a brief stub. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:02, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 Equus major. Now listed at the infobox there as a synonym, so I'll tag with {{r from alternative scientific name}} (non-admin closure) Cremastra _talk 20:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Equus robustusEquus robustus → Horse  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the target and the redirect unclear. Per research, it seems the subject of this redirect is a theoretical ancestor of the target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's linked at Norwich Crag Formation#Land mammals but that's just an entry in a prose list so better either retargetted or left as red link. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, retargeting to Norwich Crag Formation would provide a reader with little context other than that it means "horse", and point them back to Horse, where no comprehensive list of synonyms or fossil ancestors exists to expand upon the name. Ideally all of the synonyms for a species should point towards the species article, but only if the name is actually mentioned somewhere. Reconrabbit 13:43, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• If it's a once proposed taxon, it shouldn't be deleted, but redirected or made into an article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't have a good target to redirect to, and yes an article would be ideal but a redlink is preferable until one is written (see also WP:RETURNTORED). Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Equus major. Admittedly the phrase does not currently appear in that article, but the single source that is there [1] refers to it as a nomen dubium that has been subsumed or superseded by Equus major. There is another source that supports this too: Alberdi, M. T.; Ortiz-Jaureguizar, E.; Prado, J. L. (1998). "A Quantitative Review of European Stenonoid Horses". Journal of Paleontology. 72 (2): 371–387. ISSN 0022-3360.. I am entirely not a taxonomist, and was unsure about how best to include a relevant, correct sentence or two about Equus robustus and its connection with Equus major in the article, but that might be straightforward for other editors. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Easiest way would probably be to include in the infobox as a synonym, though this technically violates MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I have done this for now and addition in the running prose, if any, to other editors. Rusalkii (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Equus major per [2] Alberdi et al. established that E. major has priority over Equus robustus Pomel, 1853... While brief, it clearly indicates that it is considered a synonym of E. major and not the modern horse. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 to encourage creation of an article on the series. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:57, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• UFO Cowboys → List of The Roku Channel original programming#Reality  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Between the current target and The Roku Channel, there are no TV series redirects that target either of these articles besides the nominated redirect. In addition, the subject of this redirect is apparently in its 2nd season and has not been cancelled. For these reason, delete per WP:RETURNTORED/WP:REDLINK as having high article potential. Steel1943 (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain: Usually a mention in another article is enough to keep. Fuddle (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RETURNTORED in order to encourage the community to write this article. It appears to have significant coverage in reliable sources independent of itself, and, having been renewed, it is likely to get covered more. Here are some sources to demonstrate notability and potentially to use when writing the article:

• https://www.newson6.com/story/66e98da73ab222626775b12d/ufo-cowboys:-a-journey-from-oklahoma-to-the-unknown
• https://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/is-rokus-ufo-cowboys-real-or-scripted-fake-rumors-explained/ar-AA1qLPMw
• https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/exclusive-ufo-cowboys-season-2-150000597.html
• https://www.myheraldreview.com/news/lifestyle/ufo-cowboys-of-roku-series-fame-come-to-willcox-in-search-of-unexplained-phenomena/article_01980808-88ba-11ee-bb92-9fbbca1d04f6.html
• https://comicbook.com/tv-shows/news/ufo-cowboys-roku-reviews/
• https://deadline.com/2023/10/roku-reptile-royalty-ufo-cowboys-lincoln-log-masters-1235576522/

StainedGlassCavern (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all. Jay 💬 15:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 23:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Léharová → Lehár (surname)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Non-existent surname. The redirect to the similar Hungarian surname does not make sense. A redirect created by blocked account. FromCzech (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 Franz Lehár. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• LéharLéhar → Lehár (surname)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Non-existent surname. The redirect to the similar Hungarian surname does not make sense. A redirect created by blocked account. FromCzech (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Franz Lehár to keep similar to LehárLehár. It seems like a generally feasible misspelling for someone who doesn't speak Hungarian and doesn't seem to cause issues. On a largely unrelated note, the creator of the redirect Charles Matthews isn't banned from Wikipedia, but I might be misunderstand what you're saying with that. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 20:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Casablanca Rock Could it not just be kept at the current target? There are two “Lehár”s on Wikipedia. Plant🌱man (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In other words, why Franz Lehár specifically? Plant🌱man (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No specific preference to Franz Lehár over Lehár (surname), just keeping it aligned with LehárLehár. The only object would be that we should swap Lehár (surname) to be at Lehár and have Lehár (surname) redirect there. Also we'd want to add a hatnote to Lehár (surname) as LehárLehár has been redirecting to Franz Lehár. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 18:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand it now! Seems like Franz Lehár is the primary topic. In that case, I agree with retargeting to his article, to keep things consistent. Plant🌱man (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment @Casablanca Rock I believe what they mean is that the other redirects they listed (Léharová, Léhařová, Léhař) were indeed created by a sockpuppet (User:Rocksprech) of a banned user (User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg) and assumed that was the case with this redirect as well. Plant🌱man (talk) 18:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Léhařová → Lehár (surname)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Non-existent surname. The redirect to the similar Hungarian surname does not make sense. A redirect created by blocked account. FromCzech (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Léhař → Lehár (surname)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Non-existent surname. The redirect to the similar Hungarian surname does not make sense. A redirect created by blocked account. FromCzech (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Islam box → Kaaba  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

It is somewhat box-shaped and unambiguously connected to Islam, but I don't think this a remotely common usage. Google hits are dominated by a youtube channel, Islam-themed gift boxes, and a whole assortment of miscellany that has nothing to do with the Kaaba. Rusalkii (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as abusive. It is not a box. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 14:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Death of Bill Cosby → Bill Cosby  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete per WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 29#"Death of" redirects to people who are alive. Silcox (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the linked discussion. Bill Crosby is currently alive and there no notable rumours, hoaxes or similar related to his death mentioned in his article or that I can quickly find on Google. Thryduulf (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cosby is alive so this redirect serves no purpose. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 Reliability of Wikipedia#Other false information. I leave any moving or merging of content up to the discretion of other editors. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Brazilian aardvark → Circular reporting#Examples on Wikipedia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I think this should be redirected to Reliability of Wikipedia#Other false information which describes the Brazilian Aardvark incident in more detail than does the current target. Plant🌱man (talk) 03:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The former link includes a few more sources, so they should be included at the latter if retargeted. An {{anchor}} is probably called for as well. Tule-hog (talk) 04:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support moving the target and copying the sources to the new target as discussed. Diego (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Reliability of Wikipedia § Other false information is good as it is, which is adequate summary in a short paragraph. Adding the additional sources will be overkill. I would support the retarget without these additions. Jay 💬 15:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 Grease (franchise)#Plans for a third film. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Grease 3Grease 3 → Grease (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to Grease 2#Plans for a third film Grease (franchise)#Plans for a third film. There is no film called "Grease 3", and there there is no mention of anything to do with a third film that I can find at the current target, but there is a section at Grease 2 that does mention the various plans. It doesn't however mention the prequel TV series Grease: Rise of the Pink Ladies which could be considered "Grease 3" so maybe a hatnote there? Thryduulf (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per below, I now prefer retargetting to the franchise article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Grease (franchise) and add a section for the proposed sequel there (copy a summary from Grease 2) -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good idea. I thought about a franchise page, but it isn't listed at Grease (disambiguation) (I'll fix that) and I didn't think to look further. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have copied Grease 2 § Plans for a third film as Grease (franchise) § Plans for a third film. Jay 💬 15:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was delete. ✗plicit 03:48, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Grease 3: high school musical → High School Musical  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not the actual title. RanDom 404 (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but not per nom. Whether it is the actual title doesn't matter, what does matter is whether it is a plausible search term for the target and it doesn't seem to be, and anyone who does use it to find the current target isn't likely going be helped much as "Grease" does not appear anywhere in the article. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Last time I watched Grease, it wasn't similar to High School Musical at all. This redirect implies that Grease and HSM are at least similar, which isn't true. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 14:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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).