Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 23

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 23, 2025.

BBC Two Something Else television series

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 2#BBC Two Something Else television series

IKIA

[edit]

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. Due to the stricken comment. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its mostly a misspelling of IKEA. StevieStandardNo1 (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep valid redirect. I dont see muuch evidence in google seacrh that it is a typo. There are infinite opportuunitioes for typos; Typpo, tipo, rypo, ttpo, gypo, yypo, tupo... are typos for typo. - I dont think it is wise to proliferate typo into multitudes redirects and dabs --Altenmann >talk 15:40, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Altenmann. This abbreviation is used in a few sources in the article and I easily found other sources that use it even though it's not one of the official airport codes. I agree we don't need redirects for every possible typo/misspelling and a redirect based on a correct spelling/abbreviation is almost always more appropriate than a misspelling. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 20:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Possible phonetic misspelling of IKEA? Steel1943 (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure would help if I read the nomination statement. In addition, I looked through the edit histories the pages for this discussion, and it doesn't seem as though the nominator made any WP:REDACTED violations in their nomination statement, so chalk this one up to me being sleepy or in a hurry, I guess. Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to Steel1943's comment. Is IKIA a plausible phonetic misspelling of IKEA?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it might be.
probably just keep and add a {{dist}} pointing to IKEA Oreocooke (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is a plausible phonetic misspelling, but the acronym sees use. A hatnote might barely be justified from the lead of WP:HATNOTE, but I find it a little awkward to disambiguate what is probably an uncommon a typo at the top of an article like:
    "IKIA" redirects here. For the furniture company, see IKEA.
    ⇌ Synpath 23:37, 24 October 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).

It Ends

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was move It Ends (film)It Ends (film) to It Ends. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An alternate name for the film not mentioned at target. "It Ends (film)" also exists. I am RedoStone (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

move per nom et erik Oreocooke (talk) 21:55, 24 October 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 mark

[edit]

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. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a polish game seemingly only known for having been published by akella in russia. where i come from, that means it's a 2/10 at best. only mentioned in the mark (capital m, no disambiguator), so this redirect only really tells the average reader about the game's genre consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 15:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or retarget to Akella and add a mention to that article. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:2A2E:3F49:20E:BBE6 (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if it's actually mentioned anywhere, i don't think it should be akella. the game is seemingly best known for being published by them in russia... but it's not a game developed by akella, nor did it publish it in any other languages consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 17:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: no comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oreocooke (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore This was improperly BLAR'd to a a target that was unhelpful. Article should be restored, draft redirected to it. It is notable even though the article is a substub, WP:NEXIST applies. Obviously if someone wants to improve it at the very least to normal stub level, it would help. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:44, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    no, we're not doing this again. the possibility of improvement doesn't warrant restoration, especially if you can't guarantee it. the article at its best (specifically this diff) was just the first sentence of a normal article with two aggregators and one reliable source as the citations. if you want an article there, the best option would be drafting something, instead of just restoring worthless content and hoping that someone else will clean it up. if you want to say nexist contradicts this... nah, it's about whether an article can exist. as is, this one can, but still doesn't
    (to be fair, though, the gamespot review is really funny, since it pretty much sees no positives with the game, but still gives it a 3 because some aspects aren't completely rancid at first glance) consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 11:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MYCETEAE and nom. I would have considered the pre-BLAR content if it was not from a blocked user. Jay 💬 18:37, 31 October 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).

crayon time babyyyy

[edit]

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 00:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weirdly specific, not very plausible without other matching redirects, and not very plausible with them. also, check the history on the second one, it's really funny consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 20:55, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree these seem implausible and anyone who would search these is clearly looking for something more specific than crayons. The history at Orange Crayon, which is funny, is not encyclopedic. It's OR, if you can even call it that, and cites no sources. It can be deleted. Red Crayon has no history other than its creation as a redirect. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 21:05, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to prevent toddlers from munching on 'em. monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
actually, that'd be more of a reason to create green crayon. sorry, those are the tastiest, i don't make the rules consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 23:24, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have archived the funni version of Orange Crayon as User:Someone-123-321/orangecrayon, and as such these redirects no longer serve even the most miniscule of purposes. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 03:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a useful redirect. LDW5432 (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Tavix. PokémonPerson 04:20, 23 October 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, Left guide (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
for what it's worth, i don't think retargeting would be a good idea. crayola is only one crayon brand, and retargeting to those would imply that it has primary topichood for the concept of crayons. both mentions are also unsourced, which is annoying consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 21:56, 23 October 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).

Software developare

[edit]

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 author request. ✗plicit 23:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely combination of errors for "Software developer". Rusalkii (talk) 21:23, 23 October 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).

XfD

[edit]

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 procedural close/speedy keep. i'm counting it as socking, lack of a coherent rationale, trolling, and withdrawn at the same time, and recommending that the next nominator develop free will (non-admin closure) consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 01:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

XfDXfD → XFD  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This was ambiguous, and not enough disambiguation nor a helpful redirect, thus delete. The redirect should be deleted as ambiguous. 74.195.77.161 (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

speedy close and procedurally close per the previous rfd. the sock's back at it again and has returned to do the do the same actions, with unexplained repetition and a lack of explanation for the repeating of statements, his own or otherwise, and independent of whether or not he actually made it consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 21:51, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ambiguous, weak close and delete as not enough disambiguation.74.195.77.161 (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that's completely incoherent and more of the exact same thing you've already been blocked for. either explain what your relation to reset9290 is or stop this consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 22:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And according to the blocking administrator, his account has been blocked from editing indefinitely for double voting to cause confusion. If you check his contributions, you will find the block notice saying his account has abused multiple accounts. 74.195.77.161 (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and for socking concerns, which you've done nothing to answer. if you don't have an answer for whatever it is you're doing, don't do it consarn (talck) (contirbuton s) 22:35, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per consarn. 74.195.77.161 (talk) 22:36, 23 October 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).

Galle Mars in 2025

[edit]

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 23:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: implausible misspelling of Galle Marvels in 2025 (up for RfD). J947 ‡ edits 21:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment: they redirect to different pages. if not delete, then retarget to Galle Marvels Oreocooke (talk) 21:42, 23 October 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).

Zebra giraffe

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 30#Zebra giraffe

Rasmussen s Encephalitis

[edit]

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 23:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Combination of two wildly implausible typos and bad capitalization The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:10, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what is the second tpyo Oreocooke (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The capital E. The "bad capitalization" part was meant to supplement, not exclude. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete apparent error. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 14:50, 24 October 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).

Discrimination against women

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 30#Discrimination against women

Log-Pearson type III distribution

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 30#Log-Pearson type III distribution

Pearson type II distribution

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 30#Pearson type II distribution

Pearson's distribution

[edit]

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) Left guide (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

uncommon naming, unused redirection Ethaniel (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep per aboveserious and also bc ethaniel cannot be trusted[Humor] Oreocooke (talk) 22:01, 24 October 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).

Pearsonian distribution

[edit]

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) Left guide (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

uncommon naming, unused redirection Ethaniel (talk) 17:01, 23 October 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).

JZS

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 30#JZS

Leaf mimicry

[edit]

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 Moot. There's an article in place of the redirect. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I rather expected this to go to a section of an article about insects that mimic leaves, like leaf-mimic katydids. I propose retargetting to Camouflage#Mimesis Cremastra (talk · contribs) 17:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose While I agree that the target is not appropriate, the alternative is not better. A mimicry example should not redirect to camouflague, a form of Crypsis. In common usage, mimicry is a situation in which an organism resembles another, while in crypsis an organism resembles its background. Endler, J. A. (1981). An overview of the relationships between mimicry and crypsis. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 16(1), 25-31. Since there are both plant and animal "leaf mimics", I think the redirect should point at Mimicry. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick look at Google Scholar indicates that leaf mimicry is used to describe the phenomenon in both plants and insects. Perhaps more for insects but I haven't attempted to assess the quality of sources. If something more specific than Mimicry is selected, we should have a hatnote to (an)other related article(s). --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the redirect should point at Mimicry since, as pointed out above, both plants and animals can mimic leaves and the term "leaf mimicry" appears in both botanical and zoological literature. MossOnALogTalk 15:11, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on retargeting this to Mimicry?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra Would you agree to repoint to Mimicry? I think the other editors would be satisfied with that outcome. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not super keen on it, because it doesn't specifically discuss "leaf mimicry" in much capacity. (There's a brief mention of leaf mimicry in katydids.) I feel like that makes it a deceiving target for readers. Lacking a good target, perhaps deletion is a good option, pending the creation of more detailled articles. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 16:00, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Mimicry is the best target that's been suggested but I think readers would be better served by search results[2][3] since the term is used in a number of articles describing plants and insects. I wonder if a set index article could be written defining (at least) the two most common uses (in plants and in insects). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 21:17, 16 October 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 💬 15:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite as a full article. I've sketched the kind of thing the article could consist of on the page itself (I wasn't sure if I could remove the redirect link directly, obviously we need to do so as soon as possible), and added sources for both animal and plant leaf mimics. There is plentiful scope for expansion with interesting examples and many available sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:07, 23 October 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).

Tingui-Botó language

[edit]

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 Tingui-Botó people. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 20:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why it was redirected to Dzubukuá language. Yacàwotçã (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

because that's where the ISO code of the language is. — kwami (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami and why is it there? lmao Yacàwotçã (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (1st option) or retarget (2nd option). Both Glottolog[1] and Campbell (2024)[2] explicitly equate Tingui-Botó with Dzubukuá. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 15:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kepler-1229b, just noting Campbell equating one language to the other is explicitly based on Glottolog (circular reference). He further clearly states Ethnologue classifies it as dormant and unclassified, so it's at least disputed. By the way, on the source it reads, "They retain some of their ancestral language for ritual purposes, but this language is Dzubukuá". "But" is an adversative conjunction, so apparently they were not supposed to speak Dzubukuá. Glottolog's source to state this is http://pib.socioambiental.org/pt/povo/tingui-boto/1050, which in turn seems to be based on a single person claiming to speak "Dzbokuá" [sic].
    I seriously question whether this is a factual claim because the Dzubukuá Lord's Prayer version they use has nothing to do with the Dzubukuá Lord's Prayer translation by Bernard de Nantes... more like a constructed language. We shouldn't desperately use any source we find (specially if they're written in a language we don't speak) to support extraordinary claims (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). I wish Dzubukuá was still spoken, but it isn't anymore unfortunately, and its revitalization project looks absolutely sloppy if anything. If at least they were supported by specialists... @Myceteae and Kwamikagami: pinging just in case. Yacàwotçã (talk) 03:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All that 'but' means is that their liturgical language is not a distinct Tingui-Botó language. Harald's source is Vera Lúcia Calheiros Mata.[4]
    There is nothing extraordinary here to require extraordinary evidence. The relevant passage in Calheiros Mata is De acordo com o cacique Eliziano de Campos e o pajé Adalberto Ferreira da Silva, sua língua é designada Dzbokuá. — kwami (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are lots of extraordinary things here, one of them being the allegation that a language documented only twice in 1702 and 1709 is actually miraculously alive, with two people claiming to still speak it in a secrete (!) ritual... Come on.
    No studies on it? Queiroz wrote two thesis on the language last decade and accidently missed out this extraordinary fact? I repeat: this is solely based on this claim by people who can't even write the name of the language correctly, and unfortunately some sources replicate it without due diligence. No need for more circular reference. Yacàwotçã (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    no one claims it's miraculously alive. if you have a better or contradictory ref, please present it.
    what do the catechisms have to do with anything?
    also, i wasn´t aware it was a written language.
    but of course two things having the same name doesn´t mean they're the same thing, though it would be OR to make such a claim.
    you can of course write harald and ask if the similarity in name is all he has to go on, which would be quite weak evidence indeed. — kwami (talk) 07:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yacàwotçã If the redirect cannot be feasibly kept, then I support a retarget to any relevant article, for example Tingui-Botó people. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 16:57, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Glottolog 5.2 - Tingui-Boto". glottolog.org. Retrieved 2025-10-24.
  2. ^ Campbell, Lyle (2024-06-25), "Unclassified and Spurious Languages", The Indigenous Languages of the Americas (1 ed.), Oxford University PressNew York, pp. 280–338, doi:10.1093/oso/9780197673461.003.0005, ISBN 978-0-19-767346-1, retrieved 2025-10-24
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).

Community Corrections Center

[edit]

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 14:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Targets a now non-existent section that was deleted for being unsourced. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 07:01, 23 October 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).

White House Liaison

[edit]

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 White House Office. Uncontested WP:SILENT consensus for the proposal. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The White House Liaison is a formal position that coordinates between the White House and respective departments and agencies on staffing. It is not under the White House Office of Public Liaison and has a different mission. Redirect to White House Office (because it's not technically under the Office of Presidential Personnel either. Longhornsg (talk) 06:26, 23 October 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).

Agnes of Bohemia (Q3505610)

[edit]

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. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 5#Wikidata redirects * Pppery * it has begun... 02:36, 23 October 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).

Menstrual product

[edit]

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 Feminine hygiene. WP:SILENT consensus as the retarget proposal has gone unchallenged for two weeks. No prejudice against article creation if an editor believes it merits one and can reference it properly. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this redirects to a more niche (and not super well defined imo) article. Personally, I think it should have its own article, but it def should not redirect to Menstrual hygiene management Shocksingularity (talk) 02:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Feminine hygiene, which is where Menstrual hygiene productsMenstrual hygiene products redirects. I confess my ignorance here but I don't think there are menstrual products that are outside the 'hygiene' category as described in the article. Even if there are, this article covers the major examples of menstrual products readers are likely looking for. There is a section Feminine hygiene#Menstrual hygiene products but I would just target to the main article. 'Menstrual hygiene products' is bolded in the lead and treated as the major category. My sense is that 'feminine hygiene products' is often used euphemistically to refer specifically to menstrual products but can also refer to the broader category of products that are covered later in the article. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 20:28, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 02:29, 23 October 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).

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh redirects

[edit]

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 03:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely unrelated, none of these redirect titles are ever mentioned in the article. As seen from their page information, they are barely used. These should be deleted. — EarthDude (Talk) 02:21, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete agree with nom. Also, they (except for the first one) do not seem to be used in reliable sources per ngram viewer.
Also, @EarthDude I see other 100+ redirects to the target page - not sure why all those redirects are needed. Asteramellus (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the other redirects not mentioned in this discussion are generally fine. The term “RSS” does not redirect to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh article, and many people familiar with the organization may not know its full name. A similar case is the BJP in India, many people recognize the party but don’t know what the acronym stands for. However, in that instance, “BJP” does redirect to the main article. For this reason, I think most other redirects to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh article are fine. — EarthDude (Talk) 15:46, 27 October 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).

Bibeporu

[edit]

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 03:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target; searching this term in quotes in google/bing yielded zero results for me. I don't see the connection here. Zzz plant (talk) 01:56, 23 October 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).

Quatre-Vingt

[edit]

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 Vigesimal#Europe. SNOW close and the nominator has struck their nomination statement, essentially withdrawing the nomination. (non-admin closure) Thepharoah17 (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED, nothing particularly French about the number 80 Duckmather (talk) 00:52, 23 October 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).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_23&oldid=1320107306"