Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 27

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 27, 2025.

Tristiania

[edit]

Delete. The pre-BLAR version was apparently a misspelling of tristimania; there is a book by that name about bipolar disorder, not MDD, that was published after this article was written. Speedy deletion was denied in 2012 with the rationale "if someone searched for it, a redirect is preferable." Google assumes Tristiania is a misspelling of Tristania (band). This is most plausibly an {{R from misspelling}} for Tristania but is ultimately meaningless. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:18, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bipolar personality disorder

[edit]

Delete erroneous title likely to cause/further confusion. I considered refining this to Bipolar disorder#Comorbid conditions but readers would be better served by finding no article here and turning a general internet search where many articles address this confusion head on. The redirect creator's edit summary indicates that they shared this common misunderstanding. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:52, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I put the quoted phrase "Bipolar personality disorder" into my Favorite Web Search Engine and got no results. I asked Mr Google and found a page full of unreliable sources like Quora and healthcare providers' business websites. I don't therefore think that readers are well served by a general internet search. I do think this should be tagged with {{R with possibilities}}. I think that pointing it specifically to Bipolar disorder#Differential diagnosis (which talks about the difference between borderline and bipolar) would be okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted phrase only turns up Quora and similar slop because it is not a valid clinical entity. However, without quotation marks there are many hits that describe bipolar disorder specifically or the relationship/confusion between bipolar and personality disorders. These are mostly not RS's we could cite but they provide reasonable primer and dispel the common misunderstanding. I might be able to get behind the Differential diagnosis refinement but definitely oppose tagging as {{R with possibilities}} because "bipolar personality disorder" is not a valid construct and no article should exist at this title; a redirect that anticipates and corrects this misconception might be. An R to section would be an improvement here as it does not suggest that "bipolar personality disorder" is a correct synonym. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:53, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with targeting Bipolar disorder#Differential diagnosis. Without a source I would oppose any attempt to explain why people are searching for this non-thing. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find the redirect plausible despite being inappropriate (Bipolar is a mood disorder). As previous replies highlight, users might search the term based on a misconception. Judging from the poor quality of top results for this phrase on Google, I think having the redirect page listed there might help said users to become better informed. Maybe something along the lines of:
"Bipolar personality disorder" may be a misspelling of Borderline PD or bipolar, a mood disorder."
in the redirect, stating explicitly that the phrase they searched for is not valid. iris 5:49p, edited 6:08p 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 09:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think another reason we might want to have this redirect (or disambiguation) page is with the fact that BPD often gets misdiagnosed as bipolar (including me).
iris 6:05p 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 10:05, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have thoughts on whether the #Differential diagnosis section link achieves or keeping it as-is best achieves this? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 11:15, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I agree that #Differential diagnosis is a more appropriate / less confusing target.
I'm tempted to also add "[this phrase] is a misspelling" beside the link, just to make it unambiguously clear. iris 3:48p 海盐沙冰 / aka irisChronomia / Talk 07:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added {{R from incorrect name}}. It’s not reader-facing, though. I think the best we can do is point people to the article/section. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:20, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
retarget to the DDX section of bipolar as I have heard this term used irl due to confusion between the terms. IntentionallyDense (Contribs) 22:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • (nominator update): Support refining to Bipolar disorder#Differential diagnosis (the "DDx" section) as alternative to deletion. Erroneous but common terms do make for good redirects although care should be taken to not perpetuate misconceptions. What tips the scales for me here is that we have an article section that comes close to addressing the misconception head-on by at least partly addressing the actual relationship between these disorders. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative perception

[edit]

Delete as vague. Supposedly a proposed name for the disorder per the pre-BLAR article but I can find only scant reference to this online. The phrase is often used as part of a general description of schizophrenia or psychosis but not as an alternative name. Mostly, the phrase has unrelated uses. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Light cylinder

[edit]

Originally created as a redirect to light cone, and retargeted to pulsar a couple of years later with this rationale. There is no mention in pulsar (although it has been explained on the talk page), nor is it mentioned in light cone. It is mentioned in Centrifugal acceleration (astrophysics), which appears to indicate that the term is used both for pulsars and active galactic nuclei. While web searches for "pulsar light cylinder", "pulsar diagram", and "light cylinder active galactic nuclei" do indeed come up with results, just searching "light cylinder" returns light fixtures. As such, I'm not sure whether to retarget or dabify. — Hydrogenation (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Lichtzylinder" (Light cylinder) is also mentioned in the german article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar, but not in the english article. This is the only article in german Wikipedia where it is mentioned. Waldmaus (talk) 11:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable topic. A source like Horvath, J. E. High-Energy Astrophysics uses the term once, in a figure caption. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The astrophysics usage appears to apply to a couple of related contexts but is not specific to either and is not explicitly defined on en.wiki. Even when I do a Google Scholar search for light cylinder I get unrelated physics usage, including some where it's used to mean light-weight cylinder[1][2] and at least one where I think the meaning is cylindrical light fixture although I'm not sure I understand correctly.[3] --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:11, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Young, Gifted and Broke (documentary series)

[edit]

Delete: The redirect refers to a 1999–2001 documentary series; the target refers to a 1989 sitcom. The documentary series should be a redlink until an article is created. OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 22:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 23:22, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skitsafrantic

[edit]

Implausible misspelling should be deleted. Possible vandalism; history suggests it was created as a joke. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:00, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Google search reveals a non-notable individual using this spelling as a social media handle and a fanciful WWE reference but none of the Quora and Reddit posts you would expect from genuine misspelling. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to recognize what is real

[edit]

Inappropriate target. Could plausibly refer to delusion or denial but I would delete. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:54, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotic drugs

[edit]

Delete as vague. The phrasing is ambiguous for substance-induced psychosis, psychoactive drug, psychedelic drug, antipsychotic and possibly others. It is not correct terminology for any of these so not appropriate for a dab. Antipsychotic is probably the best target if there is one. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Antipsychotic makes the most sense to me Dr vulpes (Talk) 23:01, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Antipsychotic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Drugs commonly alleged to induce psychotic symptoms include [list] at target gives exactly what I was seeking via the term. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/retarget to Psychoactive drug, which is a better target than the current one. I oppose retargeting to Antipsychotic, because those are the exact opposites, despite sounding similar – that would be like redirecting "good" to "bad", or "up" to "down". (I agree with the nom that the term is an incorrect one, but since it could be a search term, at least send the reader to the closest correct match, where it might be appropriate to have a hatnote telling readers about antipsychotics.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, antipsychotics are a class of psychoactive drugs, not the "opposite". Paradoctor (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you mean, but I was trying to indicate that "psychotic drugs", whatever that means, is the opposite of medicines used to reverse psychosis. I see your point below, that it's not a good search term, but I think it could be search term used by confused readers, and I would rather send them to the right place than to leave them confused because we decided that we should not honor a flawed search strategy. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was trying to indicate that "psychotic drugs", whatever that means, is the opposite of medicines used to reverse psychosis. 🤦 Paradoctor (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm back atcha. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it could be search term used by confused readers, and I would rather send them to the right place than to leave them confused because we decided that we should not honor a flawed search strategy. The challenge is that psychotic drug(s) sounds close to multiple different targets. On what basis do we decide which real thing editors are most likely looking for with this bad search? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very good question, and the best I can offer is to send them to a relatively broad topic, where they can start reading and then decide if they want to look somewhere else, and that's what I was aiming for by retargeting to Psychoactive drug. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This makes sense, thanks for expanding on your thinking. I'm on the fence. On the one hand, Psychoactive drug is the umbrella category that includes all the other possible targets. On the other hand, it barely addresses the topics we think readers might be looking for, and we are still only making a best guess at what they might mean by psychotic drug(s). --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All results I found for this term are either partials of "anti-psychotic drug", or of "psychotic drug user(s)". This term is not in use, and not a good search term. Paradoctor (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Psychoactive drug. This seems to be the most sensible option. Article "Psychoactive drug" includes both the psychosis inducing substances as well as antipsychotics and more. Ion Soggo (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I.C.E.

[edit]

I'll let Wikinav tell the story on this one: United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement is the primary topic for the acronym I.C.E. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 21:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

google.com.tr

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:17, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone 5SE

[edit]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

The phone in question has never been referred to as 5SE, only "iPhone SE" or iPhone SE (1st generation). If this redirect exists, then why don't we have redirects like iPhone 8SE to disambiguate between 2nd and 3rd gen of SE? And if this redirect should stand, why is it not called "iPhone 5SSE" if the SE 1 is based on the 5S? thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 19:35, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

320x200

[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 Display resolutions. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 03:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at target. Color Graphics Adapter might be an alternative. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:01, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:09, 27 September 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).

Sky Is Not Blue

[edit]

Not mentioned at target; works by the name of "The Sky Is Not Blue" have unreferenced mentions at Joy Jones and Yousef Emadi. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What Will Happen Will Happen

[edit]

No mention at target. Included in List of songs about or referencing serial killers (which is at least borderline WP:INDISCRIMINATE as an aside); also used in reference to fatalism at Free will, as well as in a translation of a motto at Ffolkes baronets (which would seem to be overly specific). 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean delete as vague. The entries that might go on a dab page all seem like a stretch but if someone thinks there's a coherent set then I have no objection. This wording is also similar to some restatements of Murphy's law, which comes up when I Google this phrase. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flamingo Legs

[edit]

No mention at target. Debatable if retargeting this somewhere on the Flamingo article would be helpful, but that might be an option. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I Know Your Name

[edit]

No mention at target, but probably could be disambiguated between Laughter (Ian Dury & The Blockheads album), Live the Life, Bee and Flower, The Strange Familiar, The Sick-Leaves and Galen Crew. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • DABify per nom. Only include Lemon Demon if there is something to substantiate the connection; that decision can be made and revisited after the dab page is published. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:39, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lip biting

[edit]

I'm incredulous that the pathological behavior described at the target is what most readers think of with "lip biting" and all but certain the emoji is never used this way. I suggest retargeting 🫦 to flirting but there may be better options. Several sources describe it usage this way, or as indicating sexual arousal.[6][7][8][9][10] Keeping lip biting as-is may be the best option but I'm nominating these together for full consideration. I am not proposing deletion. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:41, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]


References

  1. ^ https://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/Unicode-17.0/U170-1FA70.pdf

Shout shout let it all out

[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) 03:48, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lyric not mentioned in target. Rusalkii (talk) 06:25, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unlikely search term, especially considering this is a several line lyric. Lyrical phrases do not need redirecting to the song. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:28, 27 September 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).

If the world was ending, I'd wanna be next to you

[edit]

Lyric that isn't mentioned at target article. Suonii180 (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unlikely search term. Lyrical phrases do not need redirecting to the song. Lavalizard101 (talk) 10:17, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shhhnotsoloud. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 19:38, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a seemingly random lyric from the song and an unlikely search term. Wikipedia is not a lyrics database. 2A0E:1D47:9085:D200:1B56:14B9:F321:AFC6 (talk) 22:56, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Space Train

[edit]

Not mentioned at target. A different usage of the term occurs at London Underground 2009 Stock, and Fabbri Group includes a roller coaster by this name. 1234qwer1234qwer4 10:26, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic cuisine

[edit]

Delete there is no such thing, Just as there is no Romance cuisine, no Slavic cuisine, no Indo-European cuisine. --Altenmann >talk 15:21, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The existence of this redirect is vaguely ridiculous, particularly as it redirects to a section that doesn’t discuss cuisine.—-Ermenrich (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the two previous comments.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Identity cards in the United Kingdom

[edit]

This seems to be an overspecific redirect. There are multiple aspects to ID cards in the UK, including the ID cards issued during WWII, the general debate about whether we should have an ID card scheme and how it should function and the new digital ID scheme that is now being talked about. — Smjg (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is an article about the history of ID cards in the UK, not just a specific instance of that. It would be reasonable to pull out an article about the Identity Cards Act 2006, its background and context, but that's not what this article is. Revert the move and restore the original title. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 13:55, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to revert to. The 2006 Act article is all there ever was. Identity cards in the United Kingdom and National identity card (United Kingdom) were both created as redirects to Identity Cards Act 2006. So what is really needed is a new broad concept article (at Identity cards in the United Kingdom?) which describes the 2006 Act in brief and adds material about the latest Cunning Plan™. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had a look at the history. The article was moved from National identity card (United Kingdom) to its current title on 4 November 2010. The edit summary said "refocusing article on 2006 act, rather than the cards in general" but, looking further back, I see that it was always primarily about the 2006 act and the stuff that led to it. On this basis, I think the best plan is indeed to start a broad concept article. This would cover all of the aspects I've mentioned. The Historical and international comparisons section can be used as a starting point for the content about the wartime scheme. And we should see how much of the content of the Objections to the scheme section is relevant to ID cards generally, or aspects common to multiple ID card schemes, actual or proposed. — Smjg (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ctop

[edit]

Now that we have contentious topics (CTOPs) and the TM:Contentious topics family of templates, I think we should replace all uses of this redirect. Then, we should either delete this redirect or retarget it to TM:Contentious topics. Toadspike [Talk] 12:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are 1085 transclusions of this shortcut. [11] Toadspike [Talk] 12:44, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nov 5 2024

[edit]

Not sure US election are important enough to have a date. Even yes, this should retarget to 2024 United States elections A1Cafel (talk) 10:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus national cricket team

[edit]

Cricket isn't mentioned in any of the target pages. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 25#Algeria national cricket team is a similar previous RFD which I didn't want to overload.-MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain's

[edit]

Unneeded redirect per similar nominations and deletions. No incoming links. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fiji's

[edit]

Unneeded redirect per similar nominations and deletions. No incoming links. ArthananWarcraft (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEG

[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 Keg (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak nom, but would keg (disambiguation) be a better target? consarn (grave) (obituary) 20:37, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:57, 18 September 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 💬 07:19, 27 September 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 Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited

[edit]

Retarget to HSBC (Hong Kong). The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited is a bank incorporated and headquartered in Hong Kong. The current target, HSBC, is about HSBC Holdings plc, a British financial services group whose principal subsidiaries include HSBC UK (legally HSBC UK Bank plc) and HSBC (Hong Kong) (legally The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited). feminist🩸 (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walküre 699-035

[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 00:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Subforms removed by me from the article at Special:Diff/1312217479 as being an indiscriminate list. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:11, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First you blank the content, and then minutes later you propose deleting the redirects? What do you think should happen to a reader who is searching for these terms?
A complete list of a company's products isn't really WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I don't know enough about the subject matter to know whether it's WP:DUE, however. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rusalkii (talk) 05:34, 27 September 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).

Russian invasion of Ukraine

[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 Withdrawn. No appetite, discussions continue on talk page. (non-admin closure) CNC (talk) 16:50, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine per previous consensus (edited) of PTOPIC. CNC (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but given your comments here and elsewhere, I will need to oppose this proposal. I cannot agree that the previous RM result applies to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article, which is brand new. That RM dealt with an article much broader in scope than the new 2022 invasion article. The article now located at Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) may well have been the primary topic, and there was indeed consensus for this. There has been no established consensus, however, that this new article, which is limited in scope to the initial 2022 invasion alone, is in fact the primary topic of 'Russian invasion of Ukraine'. In fact, I think that there is a valid argument for redirecting Russian invasion of Ukraine to Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present), given that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is still ongoing, and that people still commonly refer to what is going on as the 'Russian invasion of Ukraine' (take a look at your newspaper of choice). The status quo (where Russian invasion of Ukraine redirects to the article that formerly held that title, now titled Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present)) should remain. RGloucester — ☎ 07:39, 27 September 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_September_27&oldid=1314873463"