Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 20

February 20

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 20, 2025.

Main page/sandbox

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. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded cross-namespace redirect. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the page main page is in mainspace, I think it is natural to append /sandbox directly. It does not appear in search results so there is no clutter for readers. Ca talk to me! 15:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 22:40, 20 February 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).

Ấp

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 Hamlet (place)#Vietnam. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese for "hamlet", delete per WP:FORRED. Sees very little page views, only 4 in the past 30 days. (if not delete, then possibly retarget to Village#Vietnam?) I am bad at usernames (talk) 21:59, 20 February 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).

Town ("US state not mentioned in the Town article")

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. Consensus is clear that these redirects pointing to the general article when the specific section doesn't exist is more helpful than deletion. This closure should not prevent the redirects being refined to the relevant section when content is added. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Each of these redirects has a disambiguator that is not mentioned anywhere in the target article. Yes, these states are part of the United States (which is probably why they target the section they do), but there's no information in the target article regarding the states themselves, leaving readers with no real information about anything specific to these states that could be a useful or exclusive to the United States ... which seems a bit misleading, considering that redirects such as Town (Washington)Town (Washington) target specific sections in Town regarding towns in the state represented by the respective redirect's disambiguator. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget each redirect to its state-specific section Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...Again, such sections don't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is a whole set of redirects of this form which redirect to the appropriate US state section in Town, or to the United States section where no state-specific section exists. It is perfectly possible (and desirable) for someone to add a missing state section to that article, at which time the relevant redirect can be modified to go directly there. In the meantime, the general description of what is meant by a town in the US is at least some help. Colonies Chris (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since there are more readers than editors, that's probably not going to happen unless it occurs by someone responding to this RfD. Readers will try to skim through the page, trying to find information about these states, and find nothing. Utilizing WP:RETURNTORED (deleting these redirects) has a better chance of encouraging editors to add the missing information and/or articles than leaving them intact. As it stands, the lack of specific information about each state referenced in the disambiguators of each redirect in this nomination suggests that the target has state-specific information at it for each individual redirect, which it does not. Steel1943 (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified/corrected statement with strikeout and italics. Steel1943 (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. We need no "consistency" here, other than that of the redirect layer faithfully reflecting the article layer and not leaking. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. If there's no state-specific information at the target, then these are not helpful. I suspect that some of these states do not have formal "town" definitions like those listed at the target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Colonies Chris. These seem like clear cases of redirects with possibilities. Content may be written about what's meant by a town in Tennessee, but for the time being the reader is at least taken to a section talking about the situation in the US generally.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem I see with that is in most cases where a redirect is tagged with {{R with possibilities}}, the redirect represents a subject that is at least mentioned in the current target article, presumably to give article creators a basis of where to find initial information to create such an article. In other words, I believe that redirects that can be tagged with both {{R without mention}} and {{R with possibilities}} do not make sense. Steel1943 (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably keep, because they might have possibilities, but it is important to actually show that they are possibilities per Presidentman's concern. I checked South Dakota and apparently it has 154 towns and 914 townships, which I assume overlap in some way. That's not a definition, but it does show it's a used term someone might want to look into. CMD (talk) 02:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree there's potential for some of these titles to possibly hold content, especially given the South Dakota example above. However, in my experiences with dealing with redirects, the purpose of stating a redirect is a {{R with possibilities}} means that the target article has content specific to the subject of the redirect they can be used and/or moved to create content specific to the subject of the redirect; in this instance though, that is not the case since information specific to these redirects's states is not in the target article. Without content at the target specific to these states, WP:RETURNTORED could have a higher potential for content creation since there would be no confusion of a redirect targeting nonexistent content, meaning it so a potential editor could then create the content at/and this title in the same edit(s). Steel1943 (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'm generally supportive of RETURNTORED for redirects which don't have a clear target yet are clear standalone article topics, but I've not really encountered it in the context of the possible content being perhaps a paragraph in a larger article. (I suspect the best course of action would be clearer if the United States section was its own article (Town (United States)?) and you could have a section for South Dakota that would be due even if it just said the number of towns without a definition.) CMD (talk) 14:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's useful to have these redirects, to confirm that towns exist in the state and what they are. Some can be retargeted, for example Town (Delaware) to List of municipalities in Delaware. Peter James (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not keen on the idea of this redirect, as it seems to me that a user clicking this link would be looking for the definition of 'town' in Delaware, rather than just a list. However, the list in the target article does classify municipalities into 'city', 'town' and 'village' so there clearly is a distinction that could usefully be added to Town by someone with the knowledge. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Most lists for states not currently in the town article mention that some municipalities are cities and others are towns but there is no legal difference. I'm not sure about West Virginia and South Dakota as the introductions are very short and do not explain much. Mississippi is the exception, where they are classified by population. Peter James (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per all. What would you call a redirect that points to Delaware § Towns for example, or to List of towns in Delaware? How is pointing to a list that has no information better than articles that have some information? Is Georgia a state or a country? Jay 💬 21:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've added paragraphs for GA, MS, SC and TN in Town, and adjusted the redirects appropriately, so they can be removed from this list of proposed deletions. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominator comment: If this discussion gets relisted, I'm good with that. Either way, my initial rationale no longer applies to the aforementioned redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy with keeping any redirects for which content has been added, but my delete !vote still applies otherwise. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:16, 16 March 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).

Porkberry

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 💬 22:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the target article and the redirect unclear. Also, per third party search engines ... they don't seem to know what this redirect means either: searching "porkberry" returns odd fictional pictures of pigs to look like berries, and searching Porkberry without quotes makes search engines think it's a misspelling of pork belly. Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 20 February 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).

Miwiki

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 List of Wikipedias#Māori. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how plausible of a misspelling this is (per the rcat). However, it could also refer to Maori Wikipedia. Duckmather (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absent clear evidence of real-world usage in reference to this subject. Very implausible typo, and looks like a joke.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not a plausible typo of "Miyuki", why don't we retarget to List_of_Wikipedias#Māori instead? Duckmather (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For what it's worth, "miwiki" does not seem to be an alias for any Wikimedia project. Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at Māori Wikipedia (Q2732019) it's pretty clear that "miwiki" is one of the wiki's names, as I was saying all along. Duckmather (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Duckmather: Yeah, I mean that the "miwiki:" prefix in the search bar returns results on this Wikipedia, meaning it is not technically a prefix/alias that is used to navigate to a Wikipedia of another language. Steel1943 (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The correct prefix would be "mi:". Miwiki is just a short name for Maori Wikipedia, in the same vein as enwiki for the English Wikipedia. mwwv converse∫edits 14:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, have to use "mi:" and not "miwiki:". Yep. Steel1943 (talk) 14:47, 21 February 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).

Identitarian

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 2#Identitarian

Parachute Type foundry

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) it's lio! | talk | work 14:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect as we have Parachute Type Foundry - also a typo. I was trying to be clever by moving the lowercase redirect over the correct one, but then forgot to suppress the redirect in the process. ASUKITE 15:55, 20 February 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).

PE infection

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was move without redirect to Portable executable infection. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was merged into the target, but that one no longer mentions it. 1234qwer1234qwer4 03:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It is still in the target article, but is named differently, with "PE" spelled out. The edit history should be displaced to portable executable infection, since "PE" is opaque and has multitude of meanings unrelated to the merged content. In particular, an infection can cause a pulmonary embolism. And "Pe" can refer to Pseudomonas entomophila, which can cause an infection. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 07:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 14:06, 20 February 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).

KWHY-TV

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) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A series of call sign moves has left us with the sort of pickle that only an RfD can properly address.
In January, the original KWHY-TV (channel 22), which had held that call sign since 1966, changed to KSCN-TV. Then, another station in the same area, KBEH (channel 63), became KWHY (note no suffix). The page moves have left KWHY-TV redirecting to KSCN-TV but KWHY as another article title. It does have a hatnote. In preparation for this move, there are no direct links in article space.
That said, I'm unsure if repointing KWHY-TV to KWHY is appropriate. Nearly all printed references to KWHY-TV will want KSCN-TV, but there's also now another KWHY that is a TV station, and that has to be considered as many news media mentions of TV stations are very imprecise with suffixes. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 04:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This sounds like a job for hatnotes and article content explanations. As you say, anyone finding a reference to exactly "KWHY-TV" is going to want "KSCN-TV". Now, a "KWHY (Television station)" disambiguator might need to be a DAB. But the exact title match should work like an exact title match. Fieari (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 14:02, 20 February 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).

P:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was No consensus. The consensus below is leaning towards keep, but not by enough for me to close it as such. Retargetting was suggested but didn't find favour although wasn't discussed enough for me to proclaim a consensus against. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not useful as an open-ended redirect when no article title is given for it. There are mainspace articles such as P:Machinery and P:ano that could have very well been sought, but instead these two characters (which would otherwise indicate portalspace if a portal's name was given to them), take readers to a portal of its own choosing. People looking for portals using the P: pseudo-namespace, can do so by typing in "P:", followed by the name of the portal they were after. I'm not convinced an "empty"-titled redirect is going to be of much use here. Targeting P seems more useful, if it targets anything. This one doesn't even point to portal space. Utopes (talk / cont) 14:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I don't follow your reasoning. It's not for users looking for a specific portal, and it doesn't take users to a portal of its own choosing. It's a shortcut to portal space, and while it doesn't technically go to a portal space page, it goes to the contents for portal pages. Whether that's the best use for P: (as opposed to going to P (disambiguation)), I don't know, but it does make sense as a shortcut. Mclay1 (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A shortcut to portalspace is good. I'm just not convinced that people who type in one singular alphabet character and a punctuation is looking for information on portals. Because all articles have a title, there is nothing specified after the "P:" so there is never any assurance that a portal is being sought after. And PNRs are not widely known about to our general reader-base, and especially so as this PNR is just the letter "P", so I don't think there's an automatic assumption here that adding a punctuation to this letter "P" would take someone to Wikipedia:Contents/Portals. We try to keep a barrier up to prevent readers from falling into the backrooms while navigating the encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Contents/Portals already has P:CP and P:PORT. P:P doesn't exist but perhaps it should in place of this titleless pseudo-namespace redirect for the simplest trapdoor people can fall into without catching innocent reading passerbys who were on their way to the P:ano content article but hit enter too early after the colon. Very plausible to type this in while looking for a mainspace title, which means that the search result should stay in mainspace and these two characters as a XNR is impeding that, imo. I'd suggest targeting P (disambiguation) where the portal page can very well be hatnoted. Utopes (talk / cont) 13:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Other similar RfDs have ended in deletion. If this is going to be a keep contra all those, I'd like to see some more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 18:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, mwwv converse∫edits 14:00, 20 February 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).

"Christian Tămaș"

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 14:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per below nomination. No need for the quotes. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:38, 20 February 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).

"Drug-liking"

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 14:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:UNNATURAL, no need to have the title in quotes. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:35, 20 February 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).

Desert cities

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 💬 09:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The word "desert" is not mentioned in the target article, potentially leaving readers unclear why they are redirected to the current target when searching this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tule-hog (talk) 19:09, 22 February 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).

City work

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 💬 10:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Though the word "work" is mentioned about 70 times in the target article, it does not seem the target article adequately and unambiguously describes a subject as referenced by the title of this redirect. (Is this about working in a city, is this about working on building structures in the city, improving the city, etc.?) In other words, readers searching this phrase may most likely not find what they are looking for if they are redirected to the current target. Steel1943 (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and reasoning in #City employment. Didn't find better targets at work (human activity), labor (human activity), or employment. Tule-hog (talk) 06:53, 22 February 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).

City employment

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 💬 09:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The word "employment" is mentioned in the target article a few times, but not necessarily in a way which defines the term of this redirect. In addition, this redirect is somewhat ambiguous: Is the phrase referring to employment by the government of a city, employment in the private sector in the city, etc.? The phrase just seems helplessly vague without clarification. Steel1943 (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Old version from around redirect's creation shows there are no relevant sections lost to time. Tule-hog (talk) 06:47, 22 February 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).

Insular city, Insular cities, Island cities

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 14:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "insular" redirects, The word insular is nowhere in the target article, leaving readers potentially not finding the information they are looking for and searching terms. After doing some digging around, I established that the words "insular" and "island" are synonyms when referring to cities in this context, which is why I also added Island cities in this nomination: Each of these redirects seems to refer to a subject that is not adequately described in the target article. The word "island" is mentioned in the target article a few times, but not in a way where it helps to find what these terms mean. (Note: I did not include the redirect "Island cityIsland city" in this nomination because it redirects as an {{R from other capitalisation}} to Island City, a disambiguation page which includes multiple topics known by the proper name, but no topics explaining the general concept of an island city.) Steel1943 (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tule-hog (talk) 06:45, 22 February 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).

Sat (Romania)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 3#Sat (Romania)

Città

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 💬 08:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED. Target subject does not have affinity to the Italian language. Steel1943 (talk) 08:44, 20 February 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).

Batembo

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. No one actually made a bolded !vote, but what the multiple participants were explaining is that redlink / returntored is good when there is scope for an article being created. Jay 💬 08:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article, leaving the connection between the redirect and the target unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Batembo are a pygmy people mostly located in South Kivu and North Kivu in the DRC. Many live in Kalehe Territory of South Kivu. A search on the term shows enough sources for an article. The article Pygmy peoples says "There are at least a dozen pygmy groups, sometimes unrelated to each other.", but does not name the Batembo. They are mentioned in the articles on Kalehe Territory, Mai-Mai, Minova and Nyambasha.
The mention in Pweto Territory, Katanga, may refer to a different pygmy group.
The article on Fuliru people seems to refer to a different Bantu group.
I hate to turn a legitimate title into a redlink, which discourages expansion. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wp:returntored actually implies the opposite is true. if someone sees a red link, it could push them to expand on it consarn (prison phone) (crime record) 20:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not if they try to start the article and see A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted. That sort of implies that wikipedia has decided there should not be an article on the Batembo. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:RETURNTORED suggests that a redirect being deleted promotes article creation at that title. Also, see WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 24 February 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).

Bangladeshis held in the Guantanamo detention camps

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 6#Bangladeshis held in the Guantanamo detention camps

State of the Turks

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. Retargeting to Mamluk Sultanate, disambiguation and deletion have all been suggested as solutions, none of which have found consensus. (non-admin closure) it's lio! | talk | work 02:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This name is more than a little ambiguous, and it doesn't seem like a particularly natural search term or general way of referring to Turkey. — Anonymous 21:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Mamluk Sultanate, since that's what it's referring to. CheeseyHead (talk) 22:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed I made it lol. Definitely was a mistake on my part having it lead there. CheeseyHead (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disambiguate or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget. The Mamluks definitely established a state, whilst the Second Turkic Khaganate sounds like a barbarian chiefdom; retargeting to the Mamluks, with a hatnote for the khaganate, seems better. Background thinking — is "state" correct, when it's in a language spoken by a pre-state confederation? I'm just wondering if there were alternate meanings, comparable to English "realm" or "domain" or "chiefdom". Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Another possible target would be Turkestan. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as unusual title and especially since it is ambiguous. Will reconsider if we have other page titles of the form "State of the <ethnic or regional people>" (State of the Russians, State of the Chinese, State of the Arabs, etc.). I see we have State of the Jewish People redirect to Jewish state. Turkish state redirects to Turkey. Does it make sense to have redirects of "State of the xyz" to correspond to "Xyz state"? Jay 💬 13:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:30, 20 February 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).

ready mixed

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 Ready-mix concrete as the primary topic. -- Tavix (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

was about to retarget the "mixed" redirects to heavy mix concrete, but results, at least on my end, were a little torn between concrete and mortar. admittedly on the extremely weak end of noms since concrete was still a primary enough topic and the article on mortar doesn't mention its ready mix flavor, but i'm pretty sure i'm missing something consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 20:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I stand by my edit from 13 years ago for the last one, lol. I think they should all redirect to Ready-mix concrete if they all refer to concrete. I have never heard anyone say "Ready-mixed concrete," but if I did, I would immediately assume they meant Ready-mix concrete. I like to saw logs! (talk) 09:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: When I hear "ready mix" I think ready mix food or instant food powders. Remove "concrete" from your search, and all the food results you get was my idea of the primary topic. Anyway we don't have an article on ready mix powdered foods, and concrete seems to be the primary topic. No comment on the nomination. Jay 💬 12:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:28, 20 February 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).

Court packing

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. Consensus is that these terms are broader than just the US Supreme Court, that we presently lack an appropriate broader target article and that deletion will encourage its creation more than redirection to the narrower topic that does exist. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

It is unclear why these redirects target where they do instead of Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. Seems the aforementioned article deals more with these phrases than the current target does. (However, the redirects have a complicated history, having an RFD in 2020 to "keep" the redirects targeting Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, but then the Court packing was retargeted in 2021 to its current target.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would expect that the change was made because there were a flurry of proposals at the beginning of the Biden administration to more or less undo Trump's Supreme Court picks by expanding the court along the same lines as was proposed in 1937. Rather than redirecting anywhere, perhaps the best solution is to create a separate article on the concept of court packing, in terms of attempting to change judicial outcomes by changing the composition of the courts deciding them, with discussion of both the 1937 Bill and the Biden era proposals, along with instances of this occurring or being attempted with respect to other courts, including state supreme courts and federal appellate courts. BD2412 T 21:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's unclear to me why this is a redirect; court packing is a notable concept in the U.S., perfectly capable of being covered independently from the articles on any individual court.⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 00:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Added Packing the court to the nomination. @BD2412 and Swatjester: Pinging current participants in the event this addition changes their comments. Steel1943 (talk) 06:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This addition redoubles my comment. BD2412 T 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom; it's far more relevant to the 1937 attempt than to any other currently existing article. Anyone's free to write an article about the subject, and until that happens, it's far better to serve wannabe readers of the 1937 article than to encourage article creation by deleting the redirect. (If we did that, probably someone would come along and recreate it as a redirect to the 1937 article.) Nyttend (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Court packing was merged to the target (then called Court-packing Bill), and I have tagged it as {{R from merge}}. Jay 💬 09:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current target discusses both the 1937 and 2021 efforts. That said, I would welcome creation of a general article on the topic, especially if it's a concept that exists in other countries. -- Tavix (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. Court packing is not limited to the United States. For example this paper on comparative court packing lists about 100 examples, of which only 6 are American. [4] -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Patar, this is not a US-specific topic and should either have its own article or redirect somewhere that covers the topic generally. I may take a stab at it later today, we'll see how the sources look. 02:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusalkii (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input is definitely needed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:23, 20 February 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).

Harry Oppenheim

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 24#Harry Oppenheim

2025–26 College Football Playoff

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 24#2025–26 College Football Playoff

Transparency (Guatemala)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 March 11#Transparency (Guatemala)

Half black half white

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jay 💬 16:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things are "half black half white", not just (a subset of) multiracial people. More of a search term than a name. Rusalkii (talk) 06:06, 20 February 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).

Rex Pacificus

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 14:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No clear reason for this orphaned redirect - Google scholar has a range of uses for this term. Golikom (talk) 05:53, 20 February 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).

Draft:Toy Story 6

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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I normally don't care to nominate redirects from the "Draft:" namespace that have essentially no content, but ... with the only content every being at this title stating "Toy Story 6 is a potential film.", and then redirecting it to Draft:Toy Story 5 (later moved to Toy Story 5), this redirect is both unhelpful and has WP:RETURNTORED potential in the "Draft:" namespace in the event there is ever news that the series will have a 6th title. Steel1943 (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is a potential delete candidate.
All jokes aside, we should not have this redirect just laying around. + when Disney does what Disney does best and pummels cheap sequels of your favourite movies because 'nostalgia', there would inevitably be a draft for the 6th entry in the movie. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:33, 23 February 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).

"Carolingian system"

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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need for quotes surrounding the title. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 00:33, 20 February 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).
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_20