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. Retarget proposal was refuted by Elisi1000. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:15, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nonlinear electrodynamics → Nonlinear optics  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The current target does not appear to be appropriate but it is not clear that a better target exists right now. A red link would be preferable, to encourage creation of an article. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Nonlinear electrodynamics. Srleffler (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This review:

• Sorokin, D. P. (2022). Introductory Notes on Non‐linear Electrodynamics and its Applications. Fortschritte der Physik, 70(7-8), 2200092.

begins In 1933-1934 Born and Infeld constructed the first non-linear generalization of Maxwell’s electrodynamics that turned out to be a remarkable theory in many respects. So redirect to Born–Infeld model. The review is only 13 pages so I think expanding the Born-Infeld article would be the first priority. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the proposal to redirect to Born-Infeld—as noted in both Born-Infeld model and the review article you cite, Born-Infeld is *an example of* nonlinear electrodynamics, but NED in general refers to arbitrary Lagrangians that are a pure function of and . IMO, redirection to Born-Infeld would be misleading. Eiis1000 (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the two articles that link to Nonlinear electrodynamics (Nonsingular black hole models and Gauge theory) either don't refer to Bohr-Infeld (the former, which cites a paper that uses Einstein-dual NED not Bohr-Infeld) or explicitly refer to Born–Infeld model in a separate link (the latter). IMO this redirect falls to varying degrees under reasons #2, #5, and #10 of WP:RFD#DELETE and as such should be deleted; a red link or stub would be preferable. I might be willing to make a stub on this topic, but my knowledge in NED is very limited, and somebody with some NED experience could probably do a better job. Eiis1000 (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons above. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:23, 15 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).

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 Ceratioidei. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Deep sea anglerDeep sea angler → Krøyer's deep sea angler fish  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Retarget to Ceratioidei; this is a very generic common name that can be used for any one member of the suborder Anthropophoca (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:16, 15 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).

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 Eastern Orthodoxy in Italy. ✗plicit 00:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• History of the Orthodox Church in ItalyHistory of the Orthodox Church in Italy → Orthodox Archdiocese of Italy#History  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The article was first created in 2006 to contain the history of Eastern Orthodoxy in Italy.

Then, it was repurposed to tell the history of the fringe group Chiesa Ortodossa in Italia on 27 July 2007 (still with a general history of E. Orthodoxy in Italy). Two days later, the topic of the article was changed to be about the history of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Italy. And 15 minutes later, the article was turned into a redirect to Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Italy to which its content was merged into.

The current target, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Italy, is obviously wrong as this jurisdiction does not represent the whole of E. Orthodoxy in Italy; it is a WP:RSURPRISE.

Therefore, I propose the redirect be retargeted to the broader article Eastern Orthodoxy in Italy. Veverve (talk) 15:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:52, 9 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).

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. Context of usages provided in the comment (which was not a keep !vote) was largely refuted by the nom. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Félix Quincy Lengyel → xQc  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Félix Quincy → xQc  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Felix Quincy → xQc  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete. The author, Mylian from Drow Omens, altered the name in the xQc article and created these redirects without providing reliable sources to support the claim that xQc's full name is "Félix Quincy Lengyel". A quick Google search for "Félix Quincy Lengyel" only yields two results: the xQc article and a mirrored version of the article. If the author provides reliable sources for these changes, I will withdraw my request. Xoontor (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — page creator has been indef blocked. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 21:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

https://x.com/JUFE_INSIDE/status/1898751075777237329

https://www.reddit.com/r/wiredpeople/comments/1j78e5g/galatasaray%C4%B1n_carlos_cuestadan_bir_sonraki/?tl=en

People have used "Félix Quincy Lengyel" to refer to xQc, so this isn't as cut and dry as this RFD thinks it is User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 09:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I first submitted this RfD, a Google search only returned the two results listed above. The new results you mentioned are from Reddit and Twitter (X), which are generally unreliable sources. Given the recency of these results, it's possible that the people behind these posts may have used the name "Félix Quincy Lengyel", because they saw it on Wikipedia, though I could be wrong. Xoontor (talk) 19:20, 15 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).

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 as G7 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2024 United States Constitutional Crisis → Second presidency of Donald Trump#Federal funding freeze  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete as probably created in error. The second presidency started in 2025, and we do have a 2025 United States constitutional crisis redirect, although that targets DOGE. The 2025 redirect has its RfD in progress, and I did not bundle this with it because of the WP:CRYSTAL arguments there that will not be applicable for the 2024 redirect. Jay 💬 09:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When creating this article I intended it to state "2025," but I wrote 2024. The redirect was created on Jan 30 and this was already when the federal funding freeze was occurring. It could be kept as it's cheap to keep redirects and someone could write that. Because Trump didn't ascend to the presidency until January and the ensuing talk of constitutional crisis was in 2025 however the title is not correct. The "2025 United States Constitutional Crisis" (listed below) should be kept though, as numerous citations describe the funding freeze as a government crisis. Des Vallee (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May be speedy deleted as a WP:G7. Jay 💬 11:42, 9 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).

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. Participants have opposing views on deletion, and there is an ongoing draft. There is no consensus on an appropriate target as well. I am retargeting to Second presidency of Donald Trump as a compromise target that found most favour. Jay 💬 05:29, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 2025 United States constitutional crisis2025 United States constitutional crisis → Department of Government Efficiency  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

As well as DOGE's activities on federal agencies, the term 'constitutional crisis' has also been used around the same time to refer to threats to ignore court rulings as well. Xeroctic (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete popular discussion of a constitutional crisis is not limited solely to DOGE or to its actions.

This would have to be its own article, but the use of the term in a descriptive sense would have to become much more widespread in the RS than it currently is in order for it be considered a neutral point of view description. Mikewem (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the identification of this name with the target subject is not sufficiently established. Neither is expansion to an article appropriate to describe what is currently a matter of passing opinion (WP:RECENTISM). 2601:642:4F84:1590:DDA6:FEA5:D834:38CE (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Second_presidency_of_Donald_Trump#Federal_funding_freeze, the same as the 2024 United States Constitutional Crisis created earlier that I made in January 2025. Also I don't know why this specific redirect was created, as the capitalized one led to it, so delete one as you don't need two. The current usage of the term comes from the Government freeze of which (I can't believe I am saying this) DOGE is responsible for. Usage: 1. Des Vallee (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  different capitalizations are fine and dandy, so don't worry too much about that part (provided they're not implausible) consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 12:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yea that is completely fair so keep both. Des Vallee (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeroctic: I was looking to close this discussion. Is Des Vallee's suggested target fine with you? Do you wish to bundle the 2024 redirect as well to this discussion? Jay 💬 14:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeroctic: response? it's lio! | talk | work 08:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since they are inter-linked events, I guess the 2024 redirect could be bundled with this as well. Xeroctic (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not bundle it here because the WP:CRYSTAL arguments will not be applicable. I have nominated it separately though. Jay 💬 09:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would be WP:CRYSTAL to say that one will occur this year, and an outright constitutional crisis as that term is generally understood has not yet occurred (concerning developments wrt rule of law etc notwithstanding). RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete I'm not convinced this is a crystal ball violation - IMO even the current situation could reasonably be called a constitutional crisis. DOn't care what target to use, though. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:37, 6 March 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 💬 08:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete. There are plenty of sources (e.g. New York Times, Brookings, The Atlantic) describing the US as being in/having a constitutional crisis and lots more asking the question about whether the current situation is one so this is a very plausible search term that should be a blue link. That leaves the question of what the target should be, and frankly I'm not sure. Second presidency of Donald Trump isn't really specific enough but every plausible subsection of that is too specific. Possibly Department of Government Efficiency but again that's only part of the reason (albeit a large part) why sources are calling it a constitutional crisis. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Like FactOrOpinion below, I'm increasingly thinking that a retarget to Second presidency of Donald Trump is the best option we currently have. Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete. I agree with Thryduulf, both re: the existence of plenty of relevant RSs and it being unclear what article/section is the best target. I'm inclined to either keep the current target or retarget it to Second presidency of Donald Trump, with a mild preference for the latter, since the phrase is being used in response to a combination of diverse actions by the administration. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Retarget. Almost two weeks along, and I now feel more strongly that it should be retargeted to Second presidency of Donald Trump. The phrase is being used in response to a combination of diverse actions by the administration, including its attacks on freedom of speech, its choice to ignore Judge Boasberg's order re: deportation, its attempts to seek retribution against perceived opponents, its choice to ignore Congress's powers of the purse, and more. Relevant scholars (law faculty, historians, political scientists) are increasingly using this term to describe what's occurring. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The page "2024 United States Constitutional crisis' was deleted G7 per creator request because I didn't realize it stated "2024" and not 2025 when creating it, as people referring to the crisis did not start until 2025 see here. The 2024 redirect however should be kept, as sources use "2025 United States Constitutional Crisis" in reference to the funding freeze. Des Vallee (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - There is currently a draft in review at Draft:2025 United States constitutional crisis. Should the draft be accepted and the redirect deleted? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The draft should replace the redirect if it is accepted, but the existence of the redirect is not relevant to whether the draft should be accepted. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (redirect creator) I originally created this as a redirect to Department of Government Efficiency entry into US federal buildings when it was a separate article. It was then BLARed to DOGE, making the current redirect a bit of a non sequitur. There's a couple things going on right now that have been described as a constitutional crisis, so I don't think a redirect is the best approach here any longer. It should probably be a full article like the one in Draftspace or failing that some sort of disambiguation page. Pinguinn 🐧 05:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The claim that DOGE is unconstitutional is not verified. Musk is just an advisor making recommendations that may or may not be carried out by the constitutionally-mandated officers with the actual power to do so, including the President and cabinet officials.Manuductive (talk) 02:39, 23 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).

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 Spearing#Other. ✗plicit 14:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• SpearedSpeared → Spear  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

weird case. "speared" as an adjective can refer to wielding or being poked with the big disjointed hitbox the target speaks about, sure, but as a verb, it can refer to pretty much any form of stabbing, plus tackling people with your head in gridiron football, and plants going brrr (so wiktionary says, at least). admittedly not keen on retargeting to spearing, but you never know consarn _{(prison phone) (crime record)} 20:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:02, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:09, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe retarget to spear (disambiguation)? Or to spearing#Other, which has verb forms that could reasonably be used as "speared" and avoids the awkward issue of it pointing to people's names first. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I like Enby's suggestion of Spearing § Other and would like it to be a hatnote at the current target. The "Other" section is always a placeholder for anything and everything that is not something, so this is temporary, until we have a "Sports" section for example. But then what do we do for Spearfishing, which is not a sport, but which could be? Jay 💬 07:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Spearing § Other as the best option.. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:18, 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).

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. Participation was minimal despite two relists. There was no support for keeping at the current target. I am retargeting to Syncretism that came up as a suggestion. There is also an option to refine to the #Cultures and societies section. Jay 💬 08:09, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Mixed-cultureMixed-culture → Multiracial people  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The redirect is not synonymous with the target: Someone with multiple cultures is not necessarily of multiple races. Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Multi-ethnic and Mixed ethnicity also redirect to Multiracial people. That article bolds multi-ethnic people in the lede as if it will meaningfully deal with the topic, but it does not as it stands. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Syncretism ? --- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 06:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to syncretism, which also discusses cultural mixing and is wider than just religious syncretism (a separate article). The article has a #Cultures and societies section if needed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:49, 9 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).

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 💬 08:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• H:IPAS → Help:IPA/Slovene  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

There are multiple language codes starting with "s" in ISO 639-1, and there's no link to this shortcut. And since it's a shortcut, there's no need to create a disambiguation page. Kethyga (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:52, 9 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).

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) CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia home pageWikipedia home page → Main Page  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unnecessary redirect recently (December 2024) created. Only has 7 pageviews in the 30 days. Justjourney (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – unambiguous target and not too implausible of a search term. But the main page is by far the easiest page to get to on Wikipedia, so there's not much of a downside to deleting this redirect. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I would suspect someone searching this precise phrase would actually be looking for an article or section of an article about the main page. In fact, I'm a bit shocked that there is no section regarding Wikipedia's main page on Wikipedia. So ... WP:RETURNTORED. Steel1943 (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Steel1943. I also checked on English Wikipedia, surprisingly nothing there either beyond one sentence about TFA. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:54, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jlwoodwa. Someone using this search term is looking for Wikipedia's home page, which we call the Main Page. We don't have any encyclopaedic content about the Main Page, if that changes we can reconsider but until then this is unambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Thryduulf. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pppery and Thryduulf above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayCubby (talk • contribs) 00:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Someone who is looking this up clearly wants to go to the home page, so (like with almost all of these redirects, excluding those which I will RFD soon) we should serve that user. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 10:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per "useful to someone" valid keep reason. Fieari (talk) 23:54, 10 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).