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 Velazquez. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:46, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Velásquez → Diego Velázquez  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Several people have the name as Velásquez, and doesn't necessary just refer to Diego. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 23:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Velazquez, essentially reverting this edit from 2011. (Such a retargeting probably could have been done uncontroversally, given the age of the aforementioned edit.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & perhaps amend the hatnote at Diego Velázquez, who gets by far the most views. None of the others are very well known to English-speaking readers. Johnbod (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Velazquez per Steel1943. This spelling is one of the four listed on the page, and there are multiple Velásquezes (with the spelling) mentioned, so it's better to retarget there than to WP:ASTONISH people with taking them to a person with their surname spelled "Velázquez." Regards, SONIC678 04:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. N-grams show that the artist's name was most commonly spelled with an "s" (in English-language usage) before 1940. If the artist is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Velázquez and Velazquez, arguably he is for Velásquez and Velasquez as well. But at the moment he's not treated as the primary topic for the surname, and of the four spellings above only Velásquez is a redirect to Diego Velázquez.
  I would suggest making Velásquez a redirect to Velazquez for now, but reviewing whether that page should be retitled and all four spellings should be redirects to Diego Velázquez. The lede of the page Velazquez does say that "References to "Velazquez" without a first name are often to the Spanish painter, Diego Velázquez". Ham II (talk) 06:25, 31 January 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 speedy delete per WP:G7 by Whpq. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• L. Wallace → Lew Wallace  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Ambiguous with Lurleen Wallace, Lee Wallace, Leroy Wallace, Les Wallace, Loston Wallace, Lawnie Wallace, Louise Wallace, Lawrence Wallace, Luke Wallace, Litesa Wallace, Len Wallace, Lois Wallace, Lloyd Wallace, Lucille Wallace, Levi Wallace, Laura Wallace, and Lacey Wallace. Lew Wallace doesn't seem to have a particular affinity for this abbreviated name, and I don't think Wikipedia has disambiguation pages for this kind of abbreviation. (NPP action) jlwoodwa (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as author per nom. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Androidism → Robot fetishism  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Confusing term defined by Wiktionary as "the quality of being an android". At the very best, it might get a soft redirect there, but it seems unnecessary given the obscurity of this term. Anonymous 22:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, and maybe discuss either expanding wiktionary's entry or deleting it as well, as it could also be related to really liking and/or wanting to bang the os consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 11:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget soft to wiktionary:androidism per nom. 67.209.130.188 (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

soft retarget per anon, unless it's mentioned in the target. It should be noted that two interwikis have variations of androidism their title (Galician and Portuguese). LIrala (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft retarget to wikt:androidism per Anonymous. Enix150 (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and consarn. No incoming links and no mentions anywhere, it is unclear what meaning readers are looking for. The article that was deleted at the 2006 AfD was about being sexually aroused by robots. Multiple votes at the AfD talked about "robot fetishism", which could be a reason this redirect created two years later targeting that. The Wikt meaning is different from that, and there are no usages on enwiki for the Wikt meaning. Jay 💬 18:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per Jay. I don't see any reason to do a soft redirect here. -- asilvering (talk) 23:06, 9 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).

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. No participation despite two relists and an additional 3 week wait. Retargeting to List of gender identities per the nomination. Jay 💬 17:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Atypical gender identities → Gender nonconformity  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Different from gender atypical/gender-atypical, this refers specifically about gender identities, then retarget to its list. I'm not sure if the same can be said about atypical gender. LIrala (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:40, 30 January 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 Disambiguate * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Embro → Edinburgh  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Very old alternate name that is no longer the primary topic. [1] Cremastra (u — c) 00:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom and as vague. results gave me some clothing brand, a surname, embryos, and the best cash banooca character ever, there's no contest, don't @ me, i'm right (which i'm pretty sure is because his name got mixed up with the actual embryo results) consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 12:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate between Edinburgh and Embro, Ontario with a see also for Embryo. If anything else mentioned above is covered on Wikipedia, they can also be added to the disambiguation. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget or perhaps better disambiguate given that although the place in Canada doesn't have a separate article its actually called this. Google doesn't appear to return anything for Edinburgh. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I saw this nomination, my initial thought was that this redirect is a potential misspelling of Embryo. Steel1943 (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per the above. BD2412 T 02:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate as above. ⇌ Synpath 14:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Draft added ⇌ Synpath 15:00, 13 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).

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 00:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Gary Shi → Guinea pig  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

I can't find any connection between this and the target article, even on search. Delete. -1ctinus📝🗨 16:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Definitely delete and also huh??? The original target was plebs (?) when it was first created before the creator retargeted it with the edit summary "Whoops". There's only so much good faith that can be assumed for a case as bizarre as this, so perhaps the user's other contributions should be looked at. — Anonymous 23:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Strains AGF. ⇌ Synpath 14:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete probably someone's private joke that survived for nine years. Chubbles (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – a useless redirect. Drdpw (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete makes no sense VolatileAnomaly (talk) 21:29, 1 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).

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. asilvering (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Feast of Maximum Occupancy → Homer the Heretic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

An inside joke that will be confusing to readers unless they know, well.. the inside joke. The target doesn't mention "Maximum Occupancy" either in the Plot or Production. The redirect was tagged with {{R without mention}} from its first edit 5 years back. It was confusing enough that it was nominated at RfD by an editor who was looking for justification, and closed without discussion after seeing references from discussion forums.

This could be encyclopedic if Simpsons fans actually celebrate this in real life, but I could find no reliable sources. Not quoted at q:The Simpsons/Season 4#Homer the Heretic either, although the Italian q:it:I Simpson (quarta stagione)#Episodio 3, Homer l'eretico has "Maximum occupancy 65". Delete, unless we have content connecting this feast with the episode, or any other article. Jay 💬 16:48, 30 January 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 United States Army Military District of Washington#Organization. asilvering (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Priority Air Transport → United States Army  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Term is not mentioned in target article. Is confusing to arrive at the US Army article without explanation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PAT moves important senior officials around, as part of the U.S. Army Aviation Brigade as part of the Army Military District of Washington. See the high-profile crash right now in DC. I will redirect PAT for now to Military District of Washington. Buckshot06 (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, don't think I supposed to right now. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to United States Army Military District of Washington § Organization per Buckshot06, where it's covered some. Skynxnex (talk) 19:28, 30 January 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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sapphics → Sapphic stanza  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to Sapphic as template:r from plural. --MikutoH ^talk! 23:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Current target seems to be the only plausible plural subject. Otherwise, weak delete per my aforementioned statement. Steel1943 (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Steel. After looking at usage, this seems like the only reasonable target. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Sapphic or Sapphism: The most common usage I hear for 'Sapphics' refers to Sapphism, indicating people who are Sapphic, much like saying 'lesbians'. Retargeting to the DAB makes sense as well. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Sapphic. Common usage (e.g. [2]) seems to use this as a synonym for "lesbians" though encyclopedically the current target also makes sense. Probably best to send it to the DAB. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 08:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Sapphic (the dab page), per nom and Patar knight. Ham II (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Most of the results in a Google Books search relate to the Sapphic stanza, and it's the only article listed at Sapphic which uses the plural form. That said, if the plural "sapphics" is used in reliable sources in the context of sexuality and the term could be mentioned at Sapphism, then I think I'd be fine with retargeting. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Sapphic. I think enough people searching "Sapphics" are going to be looking for "lesbians" that we ought to send searchers to this dab rather than to Sapphic stanza directly. -- asilvering (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• No !vote, but I have added a hatnote at current target to the dab page. May be reverted depending on the outcome. Jay 💬 15:41, 10 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).

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 merge and redirect to List of ships owned by Maersk. Jay 💬 21:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Maersk Phoenix → Maersk Line  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention of "Phoenix" at the target page. After being merged 6 years ago, people who use this redirect are currently being taken to a location where their questions about a Maersk "Phoenix" are not addressed. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can tell, this was simply WP:BLARed, and was never merged. Information about the ship and its sister ships from the former article could be merged to List of ships owned by Maersk. - Eureka Lott 01:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the pre-BLAR page content?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to the list article, as a Former ship (no longer operated by Maersk). Here's an archived link to the dead MarineTraffic page [3] -- which combined with the archived page for the DNV page from the old article version would give you refs to show the ship existed at that name. The current MarineTraffic [4] shows that the ship is now named "Tiburon" ; the list article can just list the ship its type and its name for the Phoenix-- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree Merge and Redirect, per 65.92 - Davidships (talk) 13:19, 9 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).

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 14:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 41st millennium → Timeline of the far future  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Isolated millennium redirect not linked from anywhere. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Warhammer 40,000, where it is mentioned. This is a more specific redirect than Timeline of the far future and is likely the dominant topic when people search for this term. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the mention at the Warhammer article is generic and used in a way that could easily be rewritten to avoid, so an inappropriate target, and especially unlikely as a search term over the main title. Other than that, delete per nom. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The term is not generic in the context of the game and its fictional universe; indeed the millennium epoch is in the title and the premise of the game is that it is us, 38K years in the future. As an epoch in a speculative universe, it is not appropriate to redirect to the nonfictional Timeline of the far future, but for Warhammer 40,000, you will see this phrase used in the documentation of and stories surrounding this game. A Google search for "41st millennium" verifies this fictional world as the dominant topic for the search term. In this particular context, the term is relevant and a plausible search term. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If that's the case, then anyone who already knows about the game and the fictional universe would already know to search for something more appropriate. Based on these riveting ghits with reddit topics such as: "Do the humans in 40k actually call their current time "the 41st millennium"?" and "In WH40K, is the year 41,000 in the 41st or 42nd millennium? According to strict real-life convention, it would be in the 41st millennium." The inanity goes on and on. This redirect serves no purpose. It's useless at best, and confusing at worst. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per IP 35. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the redirect, as noted by others, it serves no useful purpose. Drdpw (talk) 02:53, 1 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).