Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 28: Difference between revisions

Line 33: Line 33:

::Disambiguate per [[User:Bugghost]]. [[User:162 etc.|162 etc.]] ([[User talk:162 etc.|talk]]) 08:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

*”’Disambiguate”’ but via redirect to a new disambiguation at the title [[Nagger]], which currently redirects to [[Nag]], which is suboptimal given meanings on that page that could not imply “Nagger”. [[User:BD2412|””’BD2412””']] [[User talk:BD2412|”’T”’]] 22:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

*:Agreed [[User:BlockArranger|BlockArranger]] ([[User talk:BlockArranger|talk]]) 10:26, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

:<div class=”xfd_relist” style=”margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;”>”'{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}”' ”’Relisting comment:”’ Looks like dabification, but where? Thoughts on BD2412’s suggestion, anyone? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Cremastra|Cremastra]] ([[User talk:Cremastra|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|contribs]]) 22:16, 28 January 2026 (UTC)<!– from Template:XfD relist –></div>

*”’retarget”’ to [[Nagger]] and create dab page there per BD2412. –[[User:Lenticel|Lenticel]] ([[User talk:Lenticel|talk]]) 00:03, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 28, 2026.

Claims of hate speech or hate acts against holocaust deniers

[edit]

Retarget to The Naggers or delete per WP:XY. Could also be DABified if more potential targets are found. ~2025-42329-12 (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dabify, mentioning current target, The Naggers, and Nagging. Also, WP:XY applies to redirects in the form X and/or Y, like Mountains and volcanoes, where it’s unambiguously referring to two different topics simultaneously – it’s not really applicable here. BugGhost 🦗👻 00:00, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate per User:Bugghost. 162 etc. (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people from Deeside

[edit]

This redirect is based merely on several incorrect assumptions. First of all, it would seem like it refers to the personality of people with obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD); this is not obviously the same as what constitutes OCPD (the current target). Furthermore, this redirect seems to be the result of confusion between OCPD and OCD, and, also, it implies that OCPD is the personality that people with OCD have. I see no use for it, and I don’t think we should be keeping misconceptions alive. BlockArranger (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rather confusing. OCD and OCPD are very much not the same thing despite their similar name and this does not have much value to the reader because of the potential confusion between different similarly named disorderse and the ambiguous redirect. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 18:02, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree this is likely the result of widespread confusion and is likely to mislead further. OCD is far more widely known to the general public, although it is also subject to rampant misunderstanding. This reminds me of a similar discussion not long ago. Common errors, misnomers, etc. can sometimes make for good redirects but as I said there care should be taken to not perpetuate misconceptions. I remain a little uneasy about the decision in that RfD. I’m leaning delete here, but would consider refining to Obsessive–compulsive personality disorder#Differential diagnosis where the relationship to OCD and other disorders is discussed. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting that this redirect refers only to “personality”; in contrast, the discussion you linked to is about “bipolar personality disorder”. A difference hare is that in the latter case, there is at least something to work with, such as, I assume, the relationship between bipolar disorder and personality disorder(s). However, “Ocd personality” does not even necessarily have anything to do with PD; rather, it could refer to what is thought or imagined to be the personality associated with having OCD, such as its signs and symptoms. Of course, it could be retargeted to the OCD article (no specific section), but I cannot imagine how that would be useful. BlockArranger (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I think there is likely a real misconception at play but the article doesn’t address it and it’s not clear that it could. I would be somewhat surprised if reliable sources used this terminology to address the misconception and im not sure it would be WP:DUE for inclusion. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the issues you mentioned, I got the idea to at least use a Template:Distinguish hatnote at the top of both the OCD and OCPD article in order to point out to the readers that these two should not be confused with each other. I think this at least makes a lot of sense, and therefore I went ahead and did it. One can at least hope that this improvement would mitigate some confusion that people might have, and if they are not aware of the other condition, they will be provided an accessible wikilink to an article where the other condition and its differences are explained. Furthemore, in a situation where we do not retain “Ocd personality”, people will still see OCD when searching and wikilinking in the VisualEditor, and the target will immediately remind them to consider OCPD if that is what they are intending to refer to. BlockArranger (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toper Myceteae. The best way we can avoid perpetuating common misconceptions is to take people search for them to a page that educates them that they are misconceptions, and the suggested target seems to be the place that best does that in this instance. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf I am pinging you in order to give you a chance to utter an updated opinion based on what we have found here. Otherwise, there seems to be consensus for deletion. BlockArranger (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 4#Major University

I’m not seeing why this first and middle name combination should be a redirect, when the combination alone isn’t used to refer to the person and is also a match for Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo. Not a good candidate for a disambig page, as both articles are partial title matches that wouldn’t warrant disambiguating. Suggest deletion as the redirect’s presence is obstructing search. Paul_012 (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Giandomenico. This is not a first and middle name combination. It is a compound name, which are frequent in Italian, especially with Giovanni/Gianni. They can be expanded or joined, especially in different centuries, but at the core it is the same name, as for Gianbattista/Giovanni Battista, Giancarlo, Gianfranco, Giangiacomo, Gianluca, Gianluigi, Gianmarco, Gianmaria, Gianpaolo/Giovanni Paolo, Gianpiero, Gianpietro etc. Note that this target article could be expanded, for instance in the way Giampiero manages the various spellings.
Place Clichy (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the explanation. I’m reluctant to give full support for the suggestion without at least a draft of how the target page should read, though, since it will confuse readers should follow-up edits fail to take place. —Paul_012 (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

みとよかわて

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 4#みとよかわて

Occupied territories, Palestine

[edit]

Retarget to Israeli-occupied territories. An AfD on a similarly-named article has led these to redirect to Palestine. However, per WP:ASTONISH, redirects that are specific to the occupation should probably point to the dedicated article rather than to the generic article about the country. Specifically, the “occupied territories” under slightly different names were a subject of international law and numerous UN resolutions for many decades, and a long-standing article about this topic exists. Strangely, the article Israeli-occupied territories was not discussed in the AfD. Place Clichy (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible target could be History of Palestine#Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. Place Clichy (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

delete the ones that end with “occupied” as grammatically fucked up. no opinion on the others
consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 11:19, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I believe these were official designations used by the UN for many years, see e.g. [1] and [2]. Place Clichy (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i wanted to say i was just mistaken and stuff, which i most likely am, but those results, and some of my own research done right now, actually made things really confusing for the purposes of this rfd, as they seem to refer to…

“occupied palestinian territory(ies)” separately (since everything i could find uses the two terms separately)

two separate tags/terms taped together by coincidence or as part of a sentence (not entirely sure about percentages, so this one is either very important or completely irrelevant)

palestinian territory that is undergoing occupation jank

territory that is undergoing palestinian occupation jank (yes, that’s apparently a different thing)

territory that is undergoing occupation jank palestinianly (what)

palestine itself lol

the west bank, gaza strip, and east jerusalem specifically

a couple buildings (coincdentally, sources that seemed to use this definition all refused to load)

“hehehhhahhhehhahehahheaheahehehehhe wouldn’t it be really funny if i said ‘property’ while referring to women”

seeing as sources that (seem to) use the term deliberately seem to be either vague, about as confused as me, or certain but contradictory to others, i’ll tentatively change my vote to “ow my thinky ball” consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 23:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We only just debated this, at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_October_11#Occupied_Palestinian_territories and I don’t see that anything has significantly changed. The AFD was clear that Palestine is the correct target for this term, and the subsequent RFD found no consensus to change that. The two terms are largely synonymous these days. The proposed retarget is to a more general article on Israeli occupation, which covers other areas such as Golan Heights. — Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion was a no consensus, and article Israeli-occupied territories was not discussed, which are 2 reasons why a new discussion is welcome. Although the area is indeed the same (and the AFD reflects the name under which it is most commonly known), the notion of occupied territories is not synonymous with the area and we have articles to reflect that. Place Clichy (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Israeli-occupied territories per Place Clichy. I think this is the more likely destination readers are seeking when they include the word “occupied” in their search. If someone is simply looking for the country or state entity, they will almost certainly type “Palestine” rather than “occupied Palestinian territories”. In these terms, occupied is the key qualifier and carries more informational weight than Palestinian. While it is true that Israeli-occupied territories also covers other areas (e.g. the Golan Heights), redirecting from a narrower term to a broader but directly relevant article is normal practice on Wikipedia. The concept of occupation is the primary topic implied by these redirects, and that concept is treated explicitly and centrally in the Israeli-occupied territories article. This retarget also has better long-term stability. If the political status of Palestine changes in the future, the historical and legal concept of Israeli-occupied territories will still remain relevant and well-defined, whereas redirecting to Palestine risks becoming misleading over time. If needed, the target article can always be expanded or split into subarticles (including one specifically on the occupied Palestinian territories). —Hassan697 (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I’ll just repeat what I said last time since nothing has changed: Keep all per Amakuru and common and official usage. Occupied Palestinian Territory is the name used by the UN.[3][4][5] The US State Department uses similar terminology.[6] These redirects are all common and accurate ways to describe present day Palestine. The AfD addressed this, identifying the title as a POVFORK and noting that the content substantially duplicated content from Palestine. The terminology is used and explained in several places in the Palestine article. I see the nom’s comment above that the last one closed as ‘no consensus’ and that Israeli-occupied territories was not explicitly discussed as an option. This does not change my view.—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of completeness, I’ll directly address the WP:RASTONISH concern: The likelihood of astonishment is low here given that Occupied Palestinian Territory(ies) is often used interchangeably with “Palestine”. Additionally, as previously noted, the terminology is used and explained in the article. Palestine is currently occupied by Israel and has a long history of occupation. Thus the discussion at Palestine describes all of this with links to additional articles with more detail. The RASTONISH guidance is simply to Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place. I believe this is reasonably well accomplished for all the reasons I’ve described but a bolded Occupied Palestinian Territory could be added to the lead by any editor who is concerned about this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That usage is historical. The main name used by the UN, as seen on their member list page, is Palestine/State of Palestine, since its 2012 admission as observer. That’s not debated here. The issue is whether the notion of occupied territories should be erased completely, as arguably it is not the topic of article the Palestine article (few mentions of the term and not even a section header). This specific point was not addressed in your copied-and-pasted comment.

This notion of occupied territories is historically significant. It is not used interchangeably with “Palestine”. It is addressed both at Israeli-occupied territories and History of Palestine#Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, which are therefore better targets. Place Clichy (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

എങ്ങനെ നീ മറക്കും

[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. As noted, WP:DRV is the correct venue for this, not WP:RFD. WP:R3 is also clearly incorrect as it was a 2015 creation. From the talk page discussion, it seems Deb simply wanted a second opinion, which has been given, so I’m going to go ahead and restore this redirect accordingly. — Tavix ^(talk) 17:46, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted under R3, requesting undeletion. I don’t believe this is the correct venue, but the deleting admin specifically sent me here. As the Malayalam title of a Malayalam-language film, this is neither a misnomer nor is it implausible, and that the specific class of foreign language redirects has been affirmed in several prior discussions to be ineligible for R3. That’s two clear-as-day strikes short of a correct deletion, and speedy deletion should only apply “in the most obvious cases”. The deleting admin responded “we don’t use non-English titles as redirects” and in reference to Wikipedia:FORRED “[t]he guidelines on redirects don’t support it”.

I suggest per Wikipedia:RPURPOSE (“alternative names”), the existence and size of Category:Redirects from alternative languages, Wikipedia:FORRED‘s widespread acceptance and explicit support of redirects from original names of publications like films, Wikipedia:R#D8‘s implicit condoning of Wikipedia:FORRED and more liberal stance on the validity of such redirects, Wikipedia:RFDO#Foreign languages‘ recognition of strong and sustained precedent to the effect that redirects from “titles of creative works originally published in another language” are specifically helpful, and the fact that none of the 11 reasons for deletion apply but 3 of the 6 reasons to keep do that this interpretation is baseless on countless levels and therefore should not only not have been speedily deleted but is also a good redirect. J 947 ‡ ^edits 10:30, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support undeletion a valid use case of a WP:RLOTE as it is the Malayalam name for a Malayalam film, which has strong affinity. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 16:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. I also don’t understand why this isn’t at WP:DRV, but a redirect from 2015 shouldn’t been deleted under WP:R3. – Eureka Lott 17:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
undelete, potentially speedily, as no criteria for deletion were actually met, let alone any for speedy deletion. the admin’s rationale for the r3 was… strange, to say the least. i find it hard to believe that an admin who know about forred would assume that redirects from foreign languages are always a no-go, or why a 10 year old redirect would be deleted as a “recently created, implausible typo”. maybe also trout deb for this confusion lmao consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 17:42, 28 January 2026 (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).

Nicolette Boele is not the only Boele on Wikipedia (see Boele (name) which lists other Boeles). It may be metter to retarget the redirect to Boele (name) disambiguation page. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (Youshouldtalk) 09:16, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Move disambiguation page to here. I was initially going to vote to keep seeing as she gets something like 30x the pageviews of the other two, but then I realized that it makes no sense to have a page titled “Boele (disambiguation)” when the title “Boele” is free. Now it could be argued based on the aforementioned pageviews that the name should just be kept as a redirect, but I don’t think her notability is such that her surname alone should redirect specifically to her. However, if someone else thinks it’s best to just keep I’m not particularly opposed. Also, User:Youshouldchooseausernamethat (great username), you should make sure to put your new RFDs at the top of the day’s log. — Anonymous 12:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Creator of this redirect and target page myself. She does get significantly more coverage, I understand her notability is limited outside of Australia and those interested in Politics. But I feel like since the other most common ones barely get any page views per day, but I am not opposed to a move either. I would question whether the Dutch politician and voice actor actually meet WP:GNG. Pageview Analytics: [7].

Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of hate speech or hate acts against holocaust deniers

Notable people from Deeside

みとよ かわて

Occupied territories, Palestine

എങ്ങനെ നീ മറക്കും

Hello Stranger (upcoming film)

Surrounded (upcoming film)

The Passenger (upcoming film)

Need for Speed 2 (film)

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

みとよかわて