This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 19, 2025.

• Pottery Museum → Southeast Asian Ceramics Museum  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Inadequately specific title that doesn't seem to actually be a recognised alternative name for the current target. Is there a BCA or SIA this could be retargeted to? Ceramics museum maybe? Paul_012 (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is an ambiguous term, pottery exists in museums everywhere. BarntToust 01:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Abandon Ship or Abandon All Hope → Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Rather low pageview count. RanDom 404 (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't watched the movie but from some Googling I'm unsure what this phrase has to do with it. It appears to be the title of a song from Rise or Die Trying, but I wouldn't retarget to there because there's essentially no discussion of the song on that page. Aprzn (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nominator hasn't presented a reason to have the redirect deleted: "Low view count" means that the redirect is being searched by someone, and thus makes it de facto helpful (unless it is determined the target is wrong ... but such a claim hasn't been presented yet.) Steel1943 (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Aztec treasure of cortez → Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Does this need a redirect? RanDom 404 (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Combination of misspelling and extra word (all other mentions I could find call it "Treasure of Cortés"), and not mentioned in the article. Aprzn (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Toy Story 4.5 → Lightyear (film)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not really a suitable redirect. RanDom 404 (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete The only use of "Toy Story 4.5" to refer to Lightyear (film) that I can find is this Forbes article, and it's just characterizing the film as a "Toy Story 4.5" rather than calling it that. That said, it is relatively unambiguous—I didn't find anything else being called that—and WP:CHEAP. Aprzn (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as made up. Lightyear is considered a spinoff of Toy Story, and doesn't happen in the same universe, so giving it any designation in the Toy Story numbering system makes no sense. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Steel1943.—Alalch E. 00:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Steel. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 13:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop Pedophiles! Protect kiddies! → Democratic Labour Party (Australia, 1978)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

As creator: A recent statement from the DLP has clarified that contrary to media reporting, the WA party is not associated with the DLP. The current target article is therefore unsuitable since no discussion of the SPPK will be contained there. There is, at the moment, no alternative target. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 10:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to making it its own page, but as a temporary measure maybe just redirect it to the 2025 Western Australian state election page? Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 11:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Alternatively if it doesn't make up enough for its own page, redirect to Democratic Labour Party (Australia, 1978)#Copycat party in Western Australia) Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would have made a page for it but there is basically no secondary coverage of the group, and since there isn't any at this stage of the election, I doubt any will emerge. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 02:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Socio → Sosyo  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This was probably as a 'typo' for Sosyo, but it seems much more likely to me that this shorthand for sociology, as in "I'm off to Socio" said by a student off to their sociology class.

I would either retarget to sociology, or delete because reality it could be shorthand for a lot of other socio things, like sociopathy, sociolinguistics, socioeconomy.... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is an {{r from former name}}. Says so at the target. It is also a former name of webex Events[1], but this is not mentioned at Cisco Webex. Wiktionary has entries for socio and socio-, but they are not of interest here. Paradoctor (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm... somehow I missed that. Still, at this point, I'd retarget to a dab page. Socio as a drink is an extremely minority useage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Uh, what dab page? As of now, the current target is the only article defining the term. Paradoctor (talk) 11:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anecdotally, I've only ever heard sociology abbreviated as "soc" (pronounced with an "sh" /ʃ/ sound for the c). Aprzn (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wikt:socio has a sourced quote. Paradoctor (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• S.P.D. → SPD (disambiguation)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Should an initialism with periods really point to a different place than the same initialism without periods? SPD goes to the Social Democratic Party of Germany but S.P.D. goes to the dab page. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (Goodbye!) 03:43, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If the target of the unpunctuated initialism is never referred to by a punctuated version of the initialism, then pointing to the disambiguation page would seem to be correct. Is the Social Democratic Party of Germany ever referred to as "S.P.D." with periods? BD2412 T 19:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is the grammatically pedantic form in English, so should exist and redirect to the disambiguation page. German seems to use fullstops differently? -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 00:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. Absent any evidence of a difference in meaning, an acronym with full stops and an acronym without them should go to the same place. This version gets far fewer hits than the other (13 and 1,130 in the last 30 days, respectively), so we should align this one to SPD, not the other way around. Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I found no sources using "S.P.D." for the party (maybe in older literature?), there is "S.P.D." (song). Furthermore, Space Patrol Delta carries this initialism. Paradoctor (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Specifically, Space Patrol Delta seems to consistently style the initialism with the periods, unlike most other usages. Aprzn (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• S.L.C → List of secondary school leaving qualifications  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Possibly a typo of S.L.C., both don't appear to be English acronyms for the target title, almost 0 hits and nothing links to the redirect (only one link from the talk of a Nepali village development committee). Can be safely deleted. Bertaz (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• retarget to SLC -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, let's not entertain the possibility of every missed dot in S.H.I.E.L.D. and similar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget It seems useless to target it to List of secondary school leaving qualifications. Which in that case, retarget to SLC. JustSomeoneNo (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget. The final dot is distinct in that it doesn't separate two letters in the acronym. While that's not "the point" orthographically, it's a more plausible typo than any other missing dot. Aprzn (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Why Wikipedia Sucks → Criticism of Wikipedia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Surprisingly, this redirect has survived multiple RfDs, while the very similar Why Wikipedia Is Not So Great that I listed recently was a fully uncontroversial deletion (no keep votes cast). I'm curious to see if community consensus has changed here. — Anonymous 20:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlikely search term; redirects are not for Google-style searches. It might also be referring to the harassment site "Wikipedia Sucks!", which the current target does not mention. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unlikely to type in a question, nobody is expecting an answer in the form of a baked-in redirect. Search results can definitely do their thing and we don't have redirects of this type for any other circumstance. If there was a subtopic of "Why Wikipedia Sucks" that received attention and coverage and a mention at the target, things would be different, but "Why Wikipedia Sucks" is mentioned nowhere and is not a plausible search term on an encyclopedia. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Utopes @Significa liberdade comment: isn't that an example of a "google search redirect"? Now that I know that google search redirects are, ill try to be more careful before making them, but it has "why" in the title doesn't that make it count? Would it be more appropriate if it didn't have "why" in the title? Anthony2106 (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - My opinion has not changed since the last RfD on this. I find it a plausible search term, with an unambiguous target. Fieari (talk) 07:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fieari, they could just as likely be looking for our essays Why Wikipedia is not so great or Improvement sucks. — Anonymous 02:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But this is a mainspace search, so mainspace content is strongly, STRONGLY preferred over namespaced content such as our essays. And we have information that matches what the search string is looking for... the Criticism of Wikipedia article does, in fact, have reasons why wikipedia sucks, colloquially speaking. Sometimes WP:XNRs are just barely okay, mainly for cases where it is clearly a situation of a prospective new wikipedian trying to learn how we work, and such a new wikipedian cannot be expected to understand yet what a namespace is. But here? This doesn't sound like a new wikipedian, it sounds like a user looking for encyclopedic content on the problems with wikipedia. We have that information. We can give it to them. Fieari (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Likely someone would search this when looking for criticism of Wikipedia. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dihydrogenmonoxid → Dihydrogen monoxide parody  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

missing space and letter. i put faith in the average reader to not miss two spelling mistakes in the samesearc consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 14:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as {{r from misspelling}}, I tagged it accordingly. Gets a hit every 3 days or so. I don't know how often the "average reader" makes double mistakes, but we don't limit our support to "normal" readers, right? Deleting does nothing useful here. WP:R#K5 applies. Paradoctor (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "Gets a hit every 3 days or so." No it doesn't. Pageviews shows about 2 per month over the last year. That's more like a hit every 15 days or so. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Weak delete on this one, but wanted to comment that the pageviews here are way lower than described, 6 in the last 90 days, which includes one random spike of four. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Full time series. I don't think 90 days is a terribly representative sample here. And deletion still does nothing useful here. Paradoctor (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Gets fairly consistent use, is an old redirect, target is unambiguous, harmless, and WP:CHEAP. Fieari (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• comment: a little late to note, but i found that this might not be a misspelling, but rather the term in a different language... though results are torn between it being romanian, german, and french, so that says effectively nothing. might even still be a misspelling in those languages consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 17:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been hanging around you Anglo-Saxon speaking jokers far too loong. xD As a native speaker, I really should've have caught that: w:de:Dihydrogenmonoxid. The other variant is a misspelling any language, French, Romanian and Hungarian included. Paradoctor (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  tbf that group doesn't actually include me. i'm latin as h*ck boiiii consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 19:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for finding this context; updating now to a regular delete now that this has reared its head as an WP:RLANG, which generally shouldn't be kept if there is no affinity for German. This page is about the dihydrogen monoxide parody, of which there is no affinity for German on the English Wikipedia. This specific spelling has multiple changes from the English version; anyone hitting BOTH of those alterations at the same time is highly likely to be seeking a deliberately German spelling, and this is not the German Wikipedia. (When I search "dihydrogenmonoxid" on Google, all of my results are German.) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm not convinced. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Utopes. Worgisbor (Talking's fun!) 22:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Utopes. BarntToust 01:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ghost Archive → Wikipedia:List of web archives on Wikipedia#Ghost Archive  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

redirects from mainspace to wikipedia space ―Howard • 🌽³³ 08:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

to be clear, i am nominating this redirect for deletion. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 12:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to WP:GHOSTARCHIVE --> Help:Archiving_a_source#Ghostarchive.org. Similar to WP:ARCHIVETODAY and WP:WEBCITE. The current target page Wikipedia:List of web archives on Wikipedia#Ghost Archive is a technical manual for bot and template writers not appropriate for general end use. -- GreenC 16:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This would be a perfect solution. Comfr (talk) 03:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move back to ghostarchive. Many Wikipedia pages contain "ghostarchive". I was confused the first time I saw it in Wikipedi. We should tell the reader what ghostarchive is. For example see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=1&search=ghostarchive&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&ns1=1&ns2=1&ns3=1&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns6=1&ns7=1&ns8=1&ns9=1&ns10=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&ns13=1&ns14=1&ns15=1&ns100=1&ns101=1&ns118=1&ns119=1&ns710=1&ns711=1&ns828=1&ns829=1. Comfr (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as I can tell, there isn't enough sigcov of ghost archive to warrant its own article. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 11:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget' to List of Web archiving initiatives where it is mentioned -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 21:13, 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! 08:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per 65.92.246.77. Not an appropriate CNR. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Ghostarchive, which appears at least 500 times in Wikipedia references. We should tell readers what Ghostarchive means. Comfr (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Kekius Maximus → Elon Musk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Meme coin. Musk changed his display handle to this at some point. Neither incident mentioned in target and I can't find evidence of it being used for him independently as opposed to "Musk changes twitter handle and memecoin prices soar!" type headlines. Rusalkii (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom, sources connected the redirect text to the target. It was a stupid fodder story but if reliable sources publish it prominently then a redirect is justifiable. BugGhost 🦗👻 00:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources connecting it doesn't make the person who searches for this and then ends up on the Musk page without context any less confused. Rusalkii (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not mentioned at target nor in any of the sub-articles describing Elon Musk's activities. A passing mention of a passing fad does not justify keeping this. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Bugghost. RodRabelo7 (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not worth keeping, it's simply a "joke" which is not notable enough to warrant a redirect. BeŻet (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Being covered by reliable sources is not particularly important for redirects if they aren't explained or even mentioned at their target. — Anonymous 02:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this redirect, people who search and want to read about this meme coin cannot do so, so the existence of a redirect is a false promise of content that people will be unable to find. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unlikely to become notable. Devopam (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per BugGhost. Enix150 (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has already changed his username to Harry Bōlz, and back to Elon Musk only a day or two later. This wasn't WP:LASTING, and is highly unlikely anyone will ever refer to him by this ever again (any anyway that's WP:CRYSTAL). 2603:6011:9440:D700:EDDC:FD01:31B7:151B (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Added a mention at Pepe the Frog § Kek. Jay 💬 14:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since a mention was recently added…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As nom, happy to retarget to mention. 18:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Arhat bed → Daybed  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Luohan bed → Daybed  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

Appear to be a daybed-like bed. Not mentioned in target. Rusalkii (talk) 07:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Joshua Sturm → Lacey Sturm  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This redirect is inappropriate because Joshua Sturm is a non-notable individual with no independent relevance to Wikipedia. He is only known for being the spouse of Lacey Sturm, which does not justify a standalone page or redirect. Egtj (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with analogy to the example in WP:INVALIDBIO Aprzn (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:INVALIDBIO. This is a formal guideline that expressly says that this kind of redirect is not only allowed, but encouraged. Fieari (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With the exception of alternative names, redirect topics are never notable. Subject is defined at the target, and there is no other place it could go to.

  Note: The Austrian skier w:de:Joshua Sturm seems notable, so if anyone feels up for stubbing... Paradoctor (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Keep per WP:INVALIDBIO, or create artcle about the skier. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:INVALIDBIO. BarntToust 01:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Wikipedians that poop → Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Per this previous deletion discussion. Recreating the page as a redirect is an end run around the deletion closure, since it categorizes tagged pages. The category is contrary to WP:USERCATNO, specifically "Categories that are all-inclusive" and "Categories that are jokes/nonsense". If the closure had been "convert to redirect", the page would have been converted to a redirect, but that was not the closure.

This page was recreated after deletion, then deleted per CSD G4, then recreated before a deletion review was complete. I retagged it with G4, but that tag was removed. Pinging Alalch E., Est. 2021, and Isabelle Belato, who have edited the page most recently. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All-inclusive? Speak for yourself! BD2412 T 00:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that deceased Wikipedians no longer poop, but I think the spirit of the guideline still applies. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete: Pretty clearly an attempt to get around the consensus found to delete the category. The category, since its creation as a redirect, has been repopulated. Should be G4 eligible from my perspective and I found this RfD because I went to G4 tag the category myself. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record (if I weren't recused from admin actions regarding user categories per promises I made in my request for adminship) I would have declined the G4 - I don't think a pseudo-category of this sort is substantially identical to the original category that was deleted. But I can see the argument otherwise. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. Personally I think it stops being a pseudo category when people treat it as a regular category, but I can also see the other point of view. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The page has content. The page has category members. The name of the page appears on pages that list it as a Category. The only thing that makes it different from a non-redirect category is that when you click on it from a member page, you are sent to the redirect target, where the member page is not even listed, perhaps counter-intuitively. It's a category duck. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Let's have the will to do the right thing, and not pamper people insisting they are above the law. We got the target in the first place because people lacked that will, so here we are almost a decade later ... * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What's the right thing regarding Category:Wikipedians who are dyslexic (CfD), which you created as a redirect? (Genuine question, not leading) —Alalch E. 03:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That should also be deleted. I only created that as a redirect many in April 2022 because I had myself tagged it for speedy deletion as empty in March 2021, and I figured that had I not done so that would have made me responsible for the fight that would have inevitably occurred when someone tried to empty it. So in short, I did the wrong thing because I lacked the will to do the right thing, and I acknowledged that in my edit summary. I've undeleted some of the deleted history to make what happened there clearer. And I still don't really have the will to do anything other than !vote in deletion discussions, because I've spent way too much of my time on enwiki lately picking fights with others. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC) (edited * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]

  All of these redirects exist for the same reason: Fighting over the "funny" user categories is a waste of time, and letting these category namespace redirects exist and point to Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages is a way to manage the overarching dispute. —Alalch E. 04:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And at the same time establish a culture that people are above the law and Wikipedia's deletion discussion venues are toothless. That's the problem. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Then let's RfD all of the members of Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages, because this one is no different than any one of them.—Alalch E. 03:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a good idea for any of the categories that have been deleted through consensus CFD discussions and then recreated. Either that, or change the WP:USERCATNO guideline. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's probably what comes next, but it's often a good idea to take the temperature of a situation by nominating a single entry prior to nominating a large batch. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Prior discussions on this concept: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 11#Category:Abusive, mean, petty Wikipedians (no consensus), Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 10#Category:Wikipedians who put really really long redlinked categories at the bottom of their userpage as a conversation_piece (no consensus, later quietly emptied and deleted). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, for historical context: Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for Comment on the guidelines regarding "joke" categories. —Alalch E. 04:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep - I'm not really familiar with standards around categories or user categories at all, and I was surprised to see the standard that user categories are not allowed to exist purely for humerous purposes (what's the harm?). That said, the target here is explicitly for exactly this kind of redirect... it is the sole purpose of the target page. So before deleting this redirect, I would STRONGLY prefer consensus to be gathered to delete the target, which would include a consensus to delete ALL the categories that redirect to it. Fieari (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOHARM, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:NOHARM refers expressly to articles, not redirects, and I'm not even arguing it (I was expressing surprise, not giving a reason to keep). As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... I feel that supports my procedural keep option. I'm not even arguing that this category should exist! My argument is more akin to @Alalch E.:'s above... either this one should be kept, or all of them should be deleted, and I don't think this specific redirect is the venue to discuss ALL of them. I think the venue to discuss all of them is CfD. Fieari (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Procedural keep may be the wrong wording here, what's the procedural aspect? It's fine to vote keep, but I think you're arguing for keeping on different grounds than procedure. Additionally, the category isn't actually being treated as just a redirect, as it's being populated. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The procedure I'm talking about is filing an XfD (in this case, a CfD) for the category that this goes into, because this redirect is EXACTLY what the category was made for. The category is populated by many many users who use deleted categories that redirect to this one. That's the purpose of the category, is for deleted categories to redirect to it, specifically so that those deleted categories will not exist per consensus, and to allow users to customize their user pages to their preference. If we don't want to allow the latter, then we have to delete the category that allows them to do that. There is no deleting of this redirect under the rationale that it bypasses the consensus of CfD without deleting ALL the redirects to this category, because they ALL do exactly that same thing, and in fact, that is the entire and sole stated purpose of the category that this redirects to. Fieari (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with you. Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages should be CfDd and the redirects should be G8'd. —Alalch E. 23:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't necessarily think that deleting is a fantastically productive outcome here, but I am registering my !vote as delete as a token of moral support to deletes with whom I entirely agree on a philosophical level. —Alalch E. 09:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep. I plan to nominate more of the categories after this, since they're clear efforts to evade the outcomes of CfD discussions that resulted in deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fieari: The category was deleted at CfD, and if this is "what the category is made for", then it's meant to be G4 deleted. There's no procedural keep in this instance because the only procedural process that would be involved would be a procedural G4 deletion in this context. I'm really unsure what you're arguing except to ignore all rules because some folks like it and don't like the outcome of the consensus building process. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is, as mentioned, a case of "we can have this anyway even though it was deleted". In some cases, creating a redirect after an article is AfD'd is fine. In some cases creating a category redirect after an category is CfD'd can be acceptable. This is not one of them. There is no encyclopedic use for this category, and there is no community need for this category. It's disruptive, pure and simple. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger: They don't have to be encyclopedic, they are user categories. That's the whole point of Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages, which is a longstanding convention and passed dozens of discussions with clear consensus. Was it a user category? Yes. Was it deleted? Yes. Are there Wikipedians wanting to retain it? Yes, so it goes to Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to anything policy or discussion related that supports this @Est. 2021? I'm not sure why the outcome of deletion discussions should be ignored. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete For reasons of consistency of application of rules, though I'm mildly concerned that only a few Wikipedians have working digestive systems. Also a bit concerned I'm not in this category, meaning I need to investigate just what I've been doing in the bathroom for several decades. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeCrumbs: For reasons of consistency of application of rules, the page should stay as a redirect to Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages, like any other deleted user category which Wikipedians chose to retain on their own userpages. How is it different? Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep things. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going to express an opinion one way or the other here — in an indirect way I'm sort of responsible for it, as the recreation came out of the slapfight that ensued when I tried to remove the redlinked category from the userpages that are in it.I will say that there are lots of ways to add some humor to your userpage without needing to fill the category system with jokes, so the common argument about the need to allow editors some leeway to express themselves in humorous ways on their userpages isn't a compelling one given the wealth of alternative ways to do that.
  And I will also say that the argument that the reverter tried to rub in my face after I removed the redlink was that because their userpage was theirs and not mine, anything they wanted to put on it is automatically sacrosanct and I have no right to touch it at all. Now, the lifers know that's not how things work — administrators and other cleanup gnomes don't need the user's personalized permission to clean up or remove content on user pages that's actually disrupting the encyclopedia, like redlinked categories, mainspace categories that violate WP:USERNOCAT or content that's obviously trying to misuse the userpage as an advertorialized alternative to a mainspace article about themselves — but the mindset is still out there, among more editors than it should be, that their userpage is hallowed ground for them to do anything they want to and nobody else is allowed to touch it at all. So some user education may be needed on that point.
  I don't have a strong opinion either way as to whether this should exist as a redirect or not — but what it absolutely cannot do is get deleted but stay populated as a redlink anyway. Again, not that I think the regulars are confused about that, but some more casual users (and the editors whose pages are in the "category" right now) might be, which is why I'm stating it for the record. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a recreation of a category deleted via consensus. Gaming the system by either leaving it as a populated red-link or as a populated redirect is circumventing a community decision, which leads to this completely pointless CfD as one was already had on this specific category. Nothing has changed since. Gonnym (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the redirect, users have a right to retain deleted categories on their userpages. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 18:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There never was any such right. All that has happened is that some people (including myself) have chosen to turn a blind eye to it in the interest of avoiding this sprawling mess. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is, as long as there's consensus on Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages. If you don't agree with it, I think you should challenge it by candidating the main category for deletion, instead of pointing fingers at Wikipedians that poop (weird!). Btw I don't think BrownHairedGirl and Tryptofish were closing eyes when they established this convention almost a decade ago. They did it out of pure respect for both users and consensus. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You're badly misreading BrownHairedGirl. In her own words: The deliberate disruption by a few editors is a selfish and self-indulgent action which should, as the nominator notes, be dealt with by removing it from their userpages. (I would not have used such personal-attack-ridden language). And your ping to Tryptofish was inappropriate canvassing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Est. 2021: Can you point to any discussion or policy which makes it clear there's "a right" to retain categories deleted at CFD? As I'm unaware of such a right existing. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Two pages that say they should removed are WP:G4, a policy, and WP:USERCATNO, a guideline. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's much more about a felt right about one's userpage consisting of such and such desired content, including redlinks. —Alalch E. 22:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because it's a felt right doesn't make it a right. At all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's why I wrote "felt right", otherwise I would have written "right" sans "felt". —Alalch E. 22:49, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. So I've been inappropriately canvassed, have I? Facepalm I still hold to the opinions I expressed a long time ago, that basically amount to saying that editors who want to have humorous or silly userspace categories on their userpages should be able to do so, except when it creates problems that spill over into mainspace. Or, equivalently, WP:MALVOLIO. The long-ago discussion involving BHG and me was over redlinked categories, because those spill over into requested categories, and we agreed that the aforementioned humorous categories should be kept blue. But I'm saying delete in the present case, because this is the wrong way to make them blue. If there has been a consensus that a category should really be deleted, then leave it deleted, don't redirect it to a nonsensical category of, in effect, deleted categories. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Adding: Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories is an appropriate parent category for, well, unconventional user categories. In contrast, a category for use of deleted user categories is unhelpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and I dare say scatological humor is beneath us. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:30, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]