Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 25: Difference between revisions

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 00:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article it points to (Tropical Storm Melissa (2025)) has been moved to mainspace, I don’t think this redirect should exist anymore. As invest names are rotated, the number 98 will certainly be used in the next season, if not this one, and having this point to a specific storm is not needed. Previous storms have also been designated as 98L/AL98 as well. HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 23:36, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy delete – as unnecessary and highly ambiguous. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:39, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to speedy delete (R3), but apparently it doesn’t meet the requirements as it’s a correct name (see edit history). HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 00:52, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t matter if its speedy or not. Still strongly support deletion. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:04, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong sypport: Ambiguous titles, applicable to multiple systems this season, and not useful as redirects. Drdpw (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support – AL98 is a designation that will be reused NomzEditingWikis (talk) 20:08, 28 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 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. ^Complex/_Rational 23:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Sexual laws” could be laws on rape, selling sex, the age of consent, etc. Personally I’d prefer deletion as this seems like a rather strange construction but I could see a dab as well. Sexual law redirects to Sex and the law, which contains very minimal country-specific content. Rusalkii (talk) 21:00, 25 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 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 Paper hanger. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 06:50, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m unsure about this redirect. A paperhanger refers to someone who lays wallpaper, although we do not appear to have an article on this. Someone encountering the term in that context will be confused to end up here. I think wallpaper might be a suitable target but the page doesn’t discuss those who lay wallpaper. Of the 3 mainspace uses of this redirect all are not referring to the criminal activity but instead wallpaper hanging. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget all to Paper hanger per Myceteae. Thanks, 1isall (he/him) (talk | contribs) 11:21, 28 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 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. Rusalkii (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have never been mentioned at the target. I looked. This is a quote from a novel by Robert Anton Wilson, but not mentioned in the article. I don’t think he originated the quote since it appears in some older magazines but mostly him. This pops up in like a dozen of his books with no meaning and no context. I added it to Wikiquote, because it’s funny, but there is no reason for it to redirect here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:28, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The saying isn’t explained anywhere and is not unambiguously associated with a single subject. Several sources online indicate it originates from West Point. There is a 1956 episode of TV Reader’s Digest about a West Point cadet titled No Horse, No Wife, No Mustache (same phrase just re-ordered). West Point and Wilson are the most common references I found but there’s also a seemingly non-notable album with this name. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The impression I have is Wilson read the Reader’s Digest piece or something like it and then just started inserting the phrase in all of his books like his own personal Occult Hand. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it could be something like that. I didn’t attempt a thorough source analysis but references I found were about 60–40 in favor of the original West Point meaning vs. Wilson. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:34, 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).

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. Rusalkii (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? Not mentioned at the target and I’m not sure it’s entirely synonymous nor is it common. Woke is listed under ‘See also’ but otherwise not mentioned. —MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:44, 11 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 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. ^Complex/_Rational 14:00, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Has history. Could be redirected somewhere, but no clue where. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:49, 25 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 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) 20:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not address terrorism in asia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. We have already have an article on Terrorism in Europe so it shouldn’t be too hard to make a new article. 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 21:44, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:REDLINK —Lenticel ^(talk) 00:06, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Category:Terrorism in Asia. This looks like a useful starting point to finding relevant articles, including a handy {{Asia topic}} template. — Tavix ^(talk) 14:58, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It’s an unfortunate cross namespace redirect, so I would oppose that. Also WP:RETURNTORED. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What’s unfortunate about it? Also, what’s the purpose of pointing out WP:RETURNTORED in response to me? Do you think I missed it when it was referenced above? — Tavix ^(talk) 19:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The reader, expecting an article, would be directed towards a category and no content on the topic they looked for. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The reader will instead be directed to several articles that encompass parts of the topic, which is far superior to nothing at all. — Tavix ^(talk) 20:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To send the reader to a misleading target that does not show them what they want is inferior to a redlink, which encourages the creation of an article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You’re saying that like it’s a completely different topic but the redirect is “Terrorism in Asia” to a category called “Terrorism in Asia”. That’s an exact match so there’s nothing misleading about it. The content would therefore be highly relevant to what is sought. — Tavix ^(talk) 02:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If we had a redlink on terrorism and instead of redlinking it and waiting for someone to write an article on it, we redirected to the category for per-country incidents, that would obviously be misleading. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want an article on the subject, why not write one? I’m still not following how or why it could be misleading. — Tavix ^(talk) 03:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RETURNTORED. I don’t see a compelling justification for the standard avoidance of WP:XNRs; I thus reject the suggestion to retarget to the category. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:01, 1 November 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. ^Complex/_Rational 03:20, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted per WP:REDLINK as an unhelpful redirect with potential. Its target doesn’t explain much about it and it’s a potentially viable place for an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:46, 25 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 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 Razorback (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:56, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the redirect Razorback to Feral pig as an obvious primary target. But I feel like people who type Razorbacks instead of Razorback are likely searching for the College Team. At bare minimum, this search with the s at the end likely has no primary topic. Either retarget to Razorback (disambiguation) #Sports or Arkansas Razorbacks. Servite et contribuere (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Arkansas Razorbacks. Between being a pluralization and razorback in reference to an animal itself being ambiguous between feral pigs and boar–pig hybrids. I think that Arkansas has enough of an edge on West Sydney to be WP:PTOPIC, but if not Razorback (disambiguation) § Sports works fine as well. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 01:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Casablanca Rock I would say Arkansas has a significant edge over West Sydney. West Sydney even rebranded as Sydney Spirit for their final season. And I say this an Australian myself. Servite et contribuere (talk) 04:51, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is, I don’t think the edge is enough to separate the plural from the singular. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-target to Razorback (disambiguation), where people can find whichever of the various meanings they’re looking for (apart from the standard geological meaning “sharp ridge”, which is missing from that page). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The plural is not so distinct as to make a clear change in primary topic. It’s common to refer to a type or species of animal in the plural (e.g., constructions like “Razorbacks are found in…”). Feral pig addresses the ambiguity/inconsistent terminology as applied to pigs. The hatnote first lists Fin whale as the next most likely meaning of “razorback” and then points to the dab page for other uses. As another animal species, the plural is also a common way to refer to the whale. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫‍(talk) 18:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Razorback (disambiguation) per Justlettersandnumbers. Yeah, it doesn’t seem as though the plural form has a primary target/topic. Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Razorback (disambiguation) per above —Lenticel ^(talk) 00:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to DAB page. LDW5432 (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Arkansas Razorbacks. As a plural and a search term, I think it’s far more likely to be used to refer to a sports team than to those teams’ namesake, and of those, Arkansas is by far the PTOPIC. There are a handful of links in article space to this currently, some of which are going to be wrong no matter what’s decided, so that’s sort of a wash. A hatnote can point people back to the dab page if they were really looking for something else. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Justlettersandnumbers @Lenticel @LDW5432 @Zxcvbnm @Myceteae. Just to be clear on all of you, to be more specific, is your intent just Razorback (disambiguation) or Razorback (disambiguation) #Sports? Just want to have the consensus being very very clear and specific. That’s all. Servite et contribuere (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it needs to be directed to any specific section, no. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:21, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm Sorry but I want to be as clear as possible, you are saying it should be Razorback (disambiguation) and not Razorback (disambiguation) #Sports. Just a simple Yes or No. Servite et contribuere (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just Razorback (disambiguation), not refined to #Sports. Thanks for double checking! —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:06, 28 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).