February 25

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 25, 2025.

Redirects to disambiguation page "Jawi"

Seems misleading that these redirects target the target disambiguation page when all the subjects on the target disambiguation page are specifically spelled "Jawi". Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 17:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on it's lio!'s solution for Djaui / Chowie / Dyawi?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 21:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, feel free to refer to me as just lio :) it's lio! | talk | work 09:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could have said HKLionel but then they'll wonder who that is! Jay 💬 11:30, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mario finale

Not mentioned in target, a properly capitalized version has previously been deleted under the same rationale. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moumita Debnath

A RFC decided that name of the victim should be excluded from the article - 2024 Kolkata rape and murder ; However this redirect explicitly contains the name of the victim which leads to the page. Given the conclusion of the RFC, I suggest that this redirect be deleted. The AP (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep as is or delete. The suggestion to retarget is misleading, if anything. If we are going to remove the name from that page it should be removed from the others. It gets where one wants to go so I don't see the problem with it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on this. I would lean towards keeping, because this is a valid redirect even unmentioned. Since Tamzin has clarified that the RFC closure only applies to that article, I would say WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:RNEUTRAL apply here, and redirects are meant to aid readers get to the correct article from whatever search term they're using. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is ridiculous that the name is mentioned at other articles with reference to the incident, but cannot be at the incident article itself. If mention continues to be there at the Violence article, but not at the event article, then I would oppose keeping at the current target. We don't want readers trying to discover easter eggs on wikipedia. Jay 💬 11:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about this being an easter egg; this is a redirect from a valid search term (the victim) to the article that best explains what happened to her (the crime). It doesn't need to mention her by name for it to be helpful, and likewise an article that does mention her by name would be less helpful (I plan on removing those references to her in those articles at some point soon if nobody else gets to it first, I don't usually like touching topics like this but if nobody else is going to do it I should). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, actually changing my mind to delete. Not in that it is misleading, but if the BLP issues are so overriding that her name cannot be mentioned whatsoever in article space I don't see why we should not also abide by that in redirect/article titles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bundling with the other redirects as suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial autism therapy

A cursory search indicates that ABA is one of multiple "treatments" for autism, all of which appear controversial to an extent, with this particular one apparently attracting more controversy due to being the most popular. Therefore, I think this redirect is ambiguous (and even if it weren't, probably not a likely enough search term to justify a clearly non-neutral redirect). — Anonymous 03:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No I think it's just this one, as it is controversial in the autistic community and it's not just because it's the most popular, its because of the mental health outcomes of autistic people who have had ABA and because it encourages normalization (all of witch is mentioned on the page). There arnt any other ones that I know of that are as bad as this one. Anthony2106 (talk) 04:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask WP:AUTISM to come vote on my side or is that against the rules? Anthony2106 (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
too late, i already did that consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 12:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony2106, look up "bleach therapy" and "chelation therapy". They certainly appear much more controversial (and probably much less effective) than this. Also note that telling people to come vote on your side in any discussion is called canvassing and against WP rules. — Anonymous 13:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay these two you pointed out seem worse, maybe it should be changed, maybe re-targeted, couldn't be a disambiguation page could it? I've already made 8 bad redirects I don't wanna add to the list. Anthony2106 (talk) 13:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't usually make DAB pages for vague descriptive terms. Also, it seems we only have an article for this one. — Anonymous 14:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I support anyone developing a Wikipedia article on this topic, but opinionated disambiguation pages for topics where there are multiple perspectives are beyond what editors can manage. I support anyone criticizing this therapy. It seems developed in the 1960s, so I am sure like most psychological therapies it has been challenged. Wikipedia is not effective for setting SEO for disambiguation pages, so if the intent is to find readers seeking this term, then keeping this page will not achieve that anyway. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ABA is still controversial, enough said. LarryL33k (Contribz) 17:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @LarryL33k the problem the nom proposed is that it's not the only controversial flavor of "autism treatment" (whatever autism is) consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 20:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true, but Most people who search up "Controversial Autism Treatment" would most likely be looking for ABA, anyway. LarryL33k (Contribz) 04:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @LarryL33k, is there any way to prove this? If anyone ever actually searches it, we have no way of confirming which of the multiple "controversial autism therapies" they are looking for. — Anonymous 02:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me what is "whatever autism is"? There is an autistic person right here! Anthony2106 (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Consarn I forgot to @ you Anthony2106 (talk) 07:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anthony2106 the reason a good handful of "autism treatments" are seen as controversial can be attributed to them being based on misunderstandings of what autism is or isn't, and whether or not it's something worth "treating" or "fixing". case in point, i've been autistic all along! maybe! the diagnosis was done at birth and was torn between autism and a really shitty respiratory system so i can't actually be 100% sure until i have that checked again but shush
    that aside aside, this is why my vote will be to delete, since it wouldn't be a fitting topic for a redirect or dab. if the concept can be expanded into an article about controversial treatments, i'd really recommend playing it safe and working with a draft until it's at least c-class consarn (speak evil) (see evil) 11:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh cool you might also be autistic though I don't know how a bad respiratory system and autism can overlap, anyway good luck with an adult assesment especially if your a girl they might be sexist. The YouTuber I'm Autistic Now What? made some knowledge that might help:[1] Anthony2106 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we don't redirect descriptions of things to the thing itself. Google is there, as is the Wikipedia search engine. No need for this redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Autism therapies. While orange tagged, it does go over criticisms of various techniques, including ABA. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 19:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lindy Turn

Delete. No valid target, see Talk:Lindy circle for details. WP:RETURNTORED. --Altenmann >talk 18:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interstitial fauna

"Interstitial" is not mentioned at the target, and I think the term may be ambiguous with Microfauna. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interstitial fauna are those "Animals that inhabit the spaces between individual sand grains. The term is often used synonymously with meiofauna, mesofauna, and microfauna" (source) I assume interstitial fauna include both meiofauna (45 μm to 1 mm) and microfauna, but not larger fauna. Meiofauna is probably the best target but not ideal. The Interstitial disambiguation page has "Interstitial fauna, small aquatic invertebrates, larger than microfauna but smaller than macrofauna" (unsourced), which might be an alternative target, but has been proposed for deletion.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Multiple targets have been suggested including one (Interstitial) that has an AfD in progress following a contested PROD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sången han sjöng var min egen

Translation of song not listed on the page. Xeroctic (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cybersexism

Sexism is not restricted to bullying, and the target does not talk a lot about it anyway. There is wikt:cybersexism, but apart from that I am not sure how much relevant content we have to point the reader at. 1234qwer1234qwer4 05:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Wiktionary redirect rare term that is too vague to point a specific article. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to sexism as {{r from hyponym}} and tag as {{r with possibilities}}, per "Cybersexism: How Gender and Sexuality Are at Play in Cyberspace ". Paradoctor (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Traumnovelle and WP:RETURNTORED (though maybe, given the concerns expressed at the essay WP:AVOIDCYBER, a future article wouldn't be at this exact title). Search results are probably the best we can do for now as they show the Wiktionary definition, online gender-based violence, and Laurie Penny's book. Sexism doesn't contain any discussion of sexism in "cyber" contexts, so would not be a useful target. Online gender-based violence does mention the word "cybersexism" but isn't quite an exact subtopic/supertopic (as that article itself points out), so I don't think retargeting there probably would be much improvement on the current situation. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either sectionize if reliable sources are found, or redirect to Wiktionary otherwise. 67.209.129.142 (talk) 01:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target. I did not get what IP meant by "sectionize", perhaps it is to create a section about the subject in some article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cephalobaenida

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I’m putting this up again, for the reason that Invavita is also a cephalobaenid. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siveter et al. (2015) provisionally assigned it to the Cephalobaenida. Typical convention is that Invavita would be listed with a question mark in the taxobox (if Cephalobaenida had its own article), or Cephalobaenida would redirect to Pentastomida. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Nolan

Apparently this redirect is for a meme from 2010. There is no discussion of said meme in the subject article and there has been no adequate categorization or tagging of this redirect to justify its existence. Even the redirect creator admitted here (bolding emphasis): "I love the Bane-posting phenomenon. It is one of the most hilarious memes the internet has come up with in the last ten years. It does not merit any direct mention on Wikipedia. But the name they call the film's director should exist as a redirect." Not much merit to warrant in an encyclopedia. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... did you misinterpret my edit summary? I have no memory of writing that, but its meaning seems very clear to me even now. We don't have to write an article on the various memes (I was unaware of the one you alluded to), but a name that was commonly used to refer to Nolan on various social media sites over the course of multiple years probably does merit a redirect. I don't agree with the implied conclusion that the Christopher Nolan article should reference one or another of these memes to justify the redirect's inclusion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject of a redirect bodes no mention at the target article, then there is no need for it to exist in the first place, especially just because it was used by some social media sites to refer to the subject. It has no encyclopedic value on its own. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYXV

Not mentioned at the target 120.29.79.29 (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it is mentioned. / RemoveRedSky [talk] [gb] 14:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator did not tag the redirect for RFD. I have done so. mwwv converse∫edits 13:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since the redirect was tagged less than a week ago.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temmplate:Conservatism in Belarus

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. (non-admin closure) / RemoveRedSky [talk] [gb] 18:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A strange typo which also makes this an XNR. Maybe delete (since misspelling redirects to templatespace aren't usually kept)? Duckmather (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jewish Israeli Aramaic

Not mentioned in target and this appears to be a completely invented usage - the phrase appears nowhere else on the internet. Rusalkii (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_25
No tags for this post.