Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21

April 21

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 21, 2021.

Muscle fiber

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 Muscle cell. (Some are effectively a "keep", but due to the RM from Myocyte to Muscle cell, the target needs to be updated for all of them. Calling it a "retarget" allows XFDC to make the change automatically.) -- Tavix (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Target had been Myocyte for six years, recently changed w/o discussion. MB 18:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep In my medically uninformed assessment, the new target does appear to be more appropriate than the old one. MB, is there any specific issue that you have with the new target other than a procedural concern? signed, Rosguill talk 20:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, No, just a long standing redirect changed without discussion or much reason ("better target"). I am similarly uninformed and after looking at both articles wasn't sure and was trying to get a more expert opinion. Aren't muscle fibers found in all types of muscle, not just skeletal muscle? If so, why is the target an article on skeletal muscle rather than Myocyte which seems to be more broad. MB 20:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the long-standing redirect was the product of a bot-correction of a double redirect, I wouldn't implicitly put much faith in the old redirect target, even if it has been around for 5 years. signed, Rosguill talk 20:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Involved relist to add related redirects
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some related redirects that MB found, but am still not sure what the best solution here is (other than that most of thse should probably point at th same place). Simply pointing to Muscle may be appropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 01:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirects for Myocyte. We had this discussion before "muscle fiber" /" muscle fibre" is a synonym of "muscle cell", which is the definition of myocyte. The redirection to Skeletal muscle leaves out the fact that muscle fibres/fibers occur in cardiac tissue as well as in skeletal muscle. It is also a vertebrate centric change. There are invertebrate animals (without skeletons) that have muscle fibers, but they do not have skeletons and therefore have no skeletal muscle. The undiscussed change to the redirect is unwarranted. Also, it is not clear what the previous "keep" vote is for. None of these redirects are up for deletion are they? The term "muscle fiber" / "muscle fibre" is extremely common in the literature, so deletion or the redirects would not make sense. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    EncycloPetey, at RfD, "keep" means "keep current target" (the current target at the time of nomination, regardless if it's established or the result of a recent bold change). Your recommendation her is for "retargeting". – Uanfala (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is - muscle cell still redirects to myocyte; however Redirect if the proposed move from Myocyte to Muscle cell goes ahead; the redirects were made in accordance with the MeSH entry which distinguishes between myocyte and muscle fiber still referring to myocyte for cardiac muscle cell.[1] Do invertebrates have muscle cells or muscle fibers? As far as I can see a muscle fiber only refers to a skeletal muscle cell. Otherwise this could be mentioned in Other animals.--Iztwoz (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Muscle tissue consists of elongated cells also called as muscle fibers - taken from muscle tissue page.--Iztwoz (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also image used in infobox on skeletal muscle page uses diagram from Seer cancer training clearly showing use of muscle fiber describing it as a single cell and multi-nuclear.[2] --Iztwoz (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iztwoz: The the MeSH entry is specifically about human medicine. It does not cover non-human biology. Muscle fibers are found in nearly all animals (except sponges). Using the the MeSH entry over other viewpoints violates WP:NPOV.
    But even in humans, muscle cell/fibers occur in both skeletal and cardiac muscle. See pp.276-284 in Marieb & Hoehn, Human Anatomy & Physiology, 8th edition, which is a standard textbook in universities. I quote from page 276: "First, skeletal and smooth muscle cells ... are called muscle fibers." So fibres are synonymous with "cell" in muscle tissue, and are not restricted in use of the term to skeletal muscle.
    It is easy to find evidence of the term used for invertebrates, for example in this paper on the hydrodynamics of jellyfish swimming: [3] "Swimming via jet propulsion involves contraction of circular muscle fibers "Swimming via jet propulsion involves contraction of circular muscle fibers..." Or also this article [4] on contractile strength of muscle fibres in giant clams. In this article muscle fibre is even a keyword for the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The the MeSH entry is specifically about human medicine. It does not cover non-human biology. Muscle fibers are found in nearly all animals (except sponges). Using the the MeSH entry over other viewpoints violates WP:NPOV. Most of the pages covering muscle is about human muscle - vertebrate muscle is also a given 'same'. The fibers referred to in invertebrates (from what I have read - limited) are smooth muscle fibers with the term fiber used to more relate to the myofibrils of muscle - however the use of muscle fiber in human terms does solely relate to the skeletal muscle cell. More could be given to the muscle 'components' in invertebrates - the exoskeleton exists in some invertebrates which could maybe be included with related muscle.
    But even in humans, muscle cell/fibers occur in both skeletal and cardiac muscle. See pp.276-284 in Marieb & Hoehn, Human Anatomy & Physiology, 8th edition, which is a standard textbook in universities. I quote from page 276: "First, skeletal and smooth muscle cells ... are called muscle fibers." So fibres are synonymous with "cell" in muscle tissue, and are not restricted in use of the term to skeletal muscle. I can only go by what is given clearly in the refs provided. I think I have seen this use but for the purposes of non-confusion think it's better to easily separate skeletal muscle fiber - I know that I have never come across the use of cardiac muscle fiber - there is the page cardiac muscle cells.....
    Apart from the 'counter-comments' made, it seems that much could be done to improve the overall coverage of the muscle topic in a more comprehensive way. I have posted a redirect proposal for myocyte to muscle cell which may hopefully be a way out of some of the confusion.
    I also feel that the page Muscle tissue needs to be merged back to Muscle which will also help overall coverage. And the various twitch fibers could maybe then find a better homesite. Have just (rightly or wrongly) changed Muscle fibers on Skeletal muscle page to Skeletal muscle fibers so that there is a more specific target. Don't think it will make a differene in terms of the redirect proposal.? --Iztwoz (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Iztwoz, I've refactored your comment above, I hope you find it acceptable. Feel free to change the layout, but please don't interject your comments into others' posts: this makes it really difficult for the rest of us to figure out who's saying what. – Uanfala (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EncycloPetey: - I have found other references that back up your comments on cardiac muscle fibers and others - so intend to make edits to pages, and if proposed change of page name from Myocyte to Muscle cell goes ahead then it would be appropriate for Muscle fiber to redirect back there. Best --Iztwoz (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I will also point out that we already had a discussion about merging Muscle Tissue into the Muscle article, and the result of that discussion was to not merge, for many reasons. If they were merged, it would be the only one of the four basic animal tissues that did not have its own article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a poor argument really, conversely - muscle is the page that has specific content covering all aspects of muscle tissue which readily redirects with bold to muscle. There is no such comparison with nervous tissue or connective tissue; and similarly to muscle, epithelial tissue redirects to Epithelium. --Iztwoz (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The solution of this impasse appears to at least partly depend on the outcome of other recently started discussions. Relisting to allow time for these.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Iztwoz, but I don't understand your meaning. We have articles for each of the four animal tissue types that are separate from articles about organs and organ systems. Why do you feel that muscle tissue should not be treated the same way? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @EncycloPetey: There is no article on Epithelial tissue - there is an article on Epithelium. The entry term of Muscle does not refer specifically to a complete organ (as in a list of muscles) but to the general tissue.? --Iztwoz (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are incorrect. First, in that epithelium is a synonym for epithelial tissue, so there is no distinction to be make; for that tissue the choice of term is immaterial. The article at epithelium is about the tissue even though it does not have "tissue" in the name. But in the English language muscle and muscle tissue are not synonymous. We can say "There are 650 muscles in the human body." But we cannot say "There are 650 muscle tissues in the body." The terms "muscle" and "muscle tissue" are not synonymous, and we don't want to surprise the reader. The article on Muscle is already very long, and there is still a lot of information that has not yet been added to that article. Merging the large (and potential for much more) article on muscle tissue would create an article of such length that we would then split out an article on muscle tissue. So: "muscle" and "muscle tissue" are not synonyms; there are very long (and potentially longer) articles on both topics; and the other three animal tissues have their own separate articles—three reasons for keeping the articles separate. You can find the previous merge discussion at Talk:Muscle/Archive_1#Proposed merge with Muscle tissue, where the merge was opposed by community consensus. Again, why do you feel that muscle tissue does not deserve the same treatment in a separate article as the other three animal tissues? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly - there was no community consensus on the merge proposal - it was three for, and three against. I would just restate the arguments for the merge as posted on that page - they have not changed. The page Muscle is essentially about muscle tissue it cannot be about anything else since it's not about a muscle or any one muscle but describes cardiac, skeletal and smooth muscle - as tissue; and is a duplicate of material on muscle tissue. Has there ever been a proposal to move Muscle to Muscle tissue? They cover the same material.? As for your claim that the page would be made overly long cannot be valid since most of the material is already on Muscle page. But the merge proposal has not been made so perhaps leave the arguments until it has. Best--Iztwoz (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds to me as though you haven't actually looked at the material present in each article. The two articles do not have the same content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Myocyte has just been moved to Muscle cell per Talk:Muscle cell#Requested move 17 April 2021 (permalink). ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

UNIVERSAL

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 Universal. ✗plicit 02:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Universal per {{R from other capitalisation}} as this page lists any articles associated with "Universal" in their title, including NBCUniversal, Universal Animation Studios, etc. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Abolish Wales/Abolish Scotland

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 29#Abolish Wales/Abolish Scotland

Calm After The Storm(

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 02:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calm After The Storm( → Calm After the Storm  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Calm After The Storm(The Common Linnets) → Calm After the Storm  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:UNNATURAL errors from page moves; the article virtually never existed under this title. Not sure whether it is worth creating the correct {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, Calm After The Storm (The Common Linnets). 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per WP:G6. Both of these are typos from 7 year old botched moves (rogue parenthesis, missing space between disambig). They are not helpful redirects. Grk1011 (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedy or otherwise. Botched moves with a combined one page hit between the two of them in the default time period (but then the tool crashed). Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 22:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Witch (word(

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 WP:CSD#G6 - page unambiguously created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Witch (word( → Witch (word)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:UNNATURAL error from a typo in the page move, moved again two minutes later. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Silent Force Tour (

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 WP:CSD#G6 - created in error. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNNATURAL redirect resulting from an accident involving page moves and fixed a minute later. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 19:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

School Milk Act 1946

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. ✗plicit 12:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No such Act ever existed. Free school milk was introduced by the Provision of Free Milk Regulations 1946, made under Section 49 of the 1944 act. See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Purported School Milk Act 1946. Unfortunately Wikipedia's error has been reproduced elsewhere. This is an obvious hoax, and was nominated for speedy as such, but that was declined. DuncanHill (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Note for Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia: This hoax was created on 30 April 2008 and removed 14 April 2021. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article hoax was removed on 25 October 2010. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not true that "The article hoax was removed on 25 October 2010". What happened was that an article was blanked and redirected on that date. There was no hoax investigation under the terms of WP:DWHOAX. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • And material from the article was incorporated into the target of the redirect. DuncanHill (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • A redirect does not constitute a hoax. It may be a misnomer, but it was not a hoax if no article content existed. (I didn't realise that the content was merged. That brings a whole host of other problems.) — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 04:40, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is asserted that this is a hoax but there is the possibility that "School Milk Act 1946" is merely a misinterpretation of "Provision of Free Milk Regulations 1946" which is not entirely unreasonable. The fact that this redirect exists does not amount to an assertion that the Act exists. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Wikipedia should not be encouraging the ignorant equation of an Act with Regulations. We wouldn't call an American Executive Order an Act of Congress would we? Or is blatant rubbish now acceptable? DuncanHill (talk) 19:36, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree the evidence is clear that there was no actual 1946 school milk legislation, but I wouldn't go so far as to label it a hoax. It seems to have just reproduced an error from citing a pre-existing website [5]. Unfortunately, it isn't merely a rare or isolated misnomer (in contrast to the sort of case contemplated in WP:RFD#DELETE #2). Multiple sources have called it the School Milk Act, and variants such as "Free Milk Act" [6] and "Free School Milk Act" also appear. They're wrong, but they show that "School Milk Act 1946" is a useful and likely search term. It also gets a decent number of page views (over 100 per month). In my view, these reasons, as well as the age of the redirect, outweigh the very reasonable concerns about the redirect. Adumbrativus (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Adumbrativus' well-reasoned comments. Redirects do not have to be correct, they just have to be plausible search terms - indeed we even categorise them (e.g. {{R from misnomer}}, {{R from incorrect name}}). It is the job of the target article to educate people that it was regulations not an act, it is the job of redirects to enable people to find that article so they can be educated. We don't require people to know details of what they are looking up before they have looked it up. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Plausible search term, as there was a provision in 1946. Worth keeping, and can be tagged as redirect from incorrect name. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:CR

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 9#Wikipedia:CR

AcademicElitism

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 Elitism. The consensus is that this redirect dates from our CamelCase days and is worth preserving, but rationalised with academic elitism. This closure does not preclude editors who think there is sufficient content to turn academic elitism this into a standalone article from doing so. Deryck C. 09:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • AcademicElitism → Ivory tower  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Academic elitism → Elitism#Academic  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not really sure what to make of this one. It's quite literally one of the oldest things on the site – created in Feb 2001 by Jimbo himself. It seems to have had a technical purpose earlier, but I'm not well-versed enough in the coding aspects to know what it was. The issue here is that academic elitism is itself a redirect to elitism, meaning if the redirect is determined to serve a purpose as a plausible misspelling, it should probably at least be retargeted. Leaving this here for more discussion. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was an entire article at Academic elitism until 2014, when it was turned into a redirect due to having serious issues and being poorly sourced Diff 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore this version of Academic elitism per WP:BLAR. It became a trainwreck when Ssumlin got ahold of it, but it was a notable but poorly written article before then. It just needs some TLC, not redirection, especially since this was a very, very early creation (2001!). Retarget AcademicElitism there. -- Tavix (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies, what do you think about restoring this older version of the article? – Uanfala (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Uanfala, sure, who am I to disagree. Of course what we would be restoring is a nightmare: essentially that version is some ramblings that are rightfully tagged and cite three sources: a pretty controversial academic who in that book is fouling up his own news, another dude who makes an argument that applies only to economics (in English and in many other disciplines, departments don't hire their own graduates), and a dude who wrote something in a student newspaper. And then there's a list of uncited references and a video. Ha, the more I look at it the more I thing that a redirect is better than any version from the history, esp. since the tags are all valid, and if someone wants this to go somewhere they should just start from scratch. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Halo pc

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 to retarget Halo (computer game) and Halo (PC Game) to Halo (franchise)#Game series and to keep Halo PC and Halo pc at their current target. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back when these redirect were created the only halo game available on PC was combat evolved, with the rest of the series being Xbox exclusive, but that is no longer the case. Halo 2 was released on PC in 2007 ish, and the rest of the series have recently been ported to PC as part of Halo: The Master Chief Collection. At this exact moment in time I think the primary topic of these redirects is probably the master chief collection based on a google search, but that's probably recentism due to the collection only recently being released. I propose retargeting these to the article on the franchise. (Halo (franchise)) 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Halo (franchise)#Game series. Probably didn't need to be discussed here unless there was pushback on the retargetting. Also take a look at the hatnote on that page following any new redirects to it. Lithopsian (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all As stated by the nominator, they are now too vague since every Halo game is on PC. They no longer have any navigational purpose as "Halo PC" now means the same thing as "Halo".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "halo pc" variations as a halo that is politically correct or halo around personal computers are unrelated to HALO the PC version -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Help:Admonitions

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. signed, Rosguill talk 00:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was supposedly created as a temporary redirect according to the creation summary, for what purpose I don't know. At any rate a help page redirect from a term not used on wikipedia to a long archived question on the teahouse is of no use to anybody. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Teahouse discussion archival broke the redirect. Secondly, as you point out it was temporary and, after waiting a bit for any further comment, I forgot to amend it to what appeared to be the conclusion: amboxes. —James R. Haigh (talk) 2021-04-14Wed21:19:17Z
I fixed/amended it as per the outcome of the original discussion at Teahouse. —James R. Haigh (talk) 2021-04-14Wed21:41:34Z
Ok, that's fair enough, but those style of article message boxes aren't called "admonitions" on Wikipedia, and as a word that just means "A warning" I wouldn't expect to end up in that template documentation if I was searching help documentation for this term, I'd expect to end up at something relating to the user warning templates. If this is kept I think something like Wikipedia:Vandalism#Warnings or Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace would be a better target. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The target has been amended to Template:Ambox#type but there is as yet no consensus that this is a satisfactory solution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect is hardly used and confusing (it certainly isn't headed anywhere I would expect it to point). I don't think it should be used, and I don't see the point in keeping a redirect that's unlikely to serve any purpose. Tamwin (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The temporary redirect has been fixed by JamesHaigh and is now redundant. There are no other suitable targets. Jay (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Cute news

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 02:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only transcluded 5 times, with two being the list of cascade-protected items, two being in userspace (one of those being for a sock), and only one in mainspace. Redirects to Template:Cite news. Dudhhr (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Makes no sense. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Citation ain't cute, they are needed. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 18:01, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe "Needed news" will do… NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 18:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    [cuteness needed] Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been viewed a lot. U and I are next to each other on the standard QWERTY keyboard, in case anyone cares as to the merits of this as a template-space {{R from misspelling}}. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Citations are cute. jp×g 02:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - editors should get an error if they make this misspelling so that they're prompted to correct it, rather than leaving the error which then becomes a maintenance issue. As for plausible it's been used in good faith exactly once: I removed the three extant transclusions which were one article, a userspace draft copy of that article, and an unrelated user page that was obvious vandalism. There is a link to the template in a list of cascade-protected pages that is reporting as two more transclusions, but it's the list itself that's transcluded, not the template. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 10:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If someone makes a project for news that's cute, then it may become relevant ;) Joseph2302 (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Administrator note protections have all been removed, this appears to be from a typo-based redirect "cite" is one key position off from "cute" and wouldn't prompt spellcheck. — xaosflux Talk 13:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless the documentation is rewritten to specify that it only to be used to cite new articles that are darling, adorable, or twee. Herostratus (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Astitene

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. ✗plicit 02:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Astitene → Astatine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible misspelling. Has gained only 100 pageviews between July 2015 and March 2021, compared to 1680316 for the target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Implausible, per the usage statistics. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. 100 users found it useful. Polyamorph (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, excuse me? 100 page views does not necessarily equate to 100 users. One user can have more than 1 page view. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 17:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      And that's over a six-year period... ― Tartan357 Talk 17:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      You are excused. The views are small but if it helps one user then it is useful! Polyamorph (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Please give me M. J. G. Soroka then. No comment on either redirect to the element. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 21:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      What?. Polyamorph (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      "The views are small but if it helps one user then it is useful!" Creation of that redirect will help one user, namely me. Thus, it is helpful! NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 21:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      How puerile. These are likely misspellings so will help external users, which is the point of the redirect. They get views, albeit small, so are useful. So no positive to deletion. Polyamorph (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks like a misspelling that is phonetically equivalent, so useful for those who might've only heard the word, but not seen it. Gets some views as well, though not much.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly plausible and unambiguous phonetic spelling of the target that helps people find the content they are looking for. No benefit will arise from deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think the pageviews have any relevance (we can't even be sure that those 100 hits didn't come from people looking for a completely different topic with the same name). However, what we can be more certain about is that this redirect is phonetically plausible in some varieties of English. Phonetically plausible misspellings for the sort of terms that most readers probably won't know how to spell off the cuff are useful. – Uanfala (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible misspelling, though I will note that the closer Astatene does not exist. Categorize as {{R from misspelling}}. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It exists now Polyamorph (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Astateen

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. ✗plicit 02:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Astateen → Astatine  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Implausible misspelling. Has gained only 85 pageviews between July 2015 and March 2021, compared to 1680316 for the target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Implausible, per the usage statistics. ― Tartan357 Talk 17:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. Has helped 85 users. Polyamorph (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello? Page views does not necessarily indicate the amount of users. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 18:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bonjour? Regardless of the actual views to user stat, it indicates the number of users it has helped is non-zero. Polyamorph (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a perfectly plausible and unambiguous phonetic spelling of the target. No benefit will arise from deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. MIsspelling that is phonetically equivalent to the properly spelled term, so useful for those who aren't sure about the spelling. Gets some views, and no other reason for deletion (e.g. some other topic named "Astateen") has been stated.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP (oh hey, that rhymed unintentionally). As mentioned above, it's a "perfectly plausible and unambiguous phonetic spelling of the target." Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible. – Uanfala (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible misspelling, though I will note that the closer Astatene does not exist. Categorize as {{R from misspelling}}. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It exists now Polyamorph (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tyrium

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 2#Tyrium

Archibald Philip, 5th Earl of Rosebery Primrose

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. signed, Rosguill talk 00:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all in light of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 29#Redirects created by Danny: Class B (i.e. of the form: First name(s), all titles, surname). NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 16:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • No opinion, but I would note that the Russell redirect came about as part of a relatively ancient project in which we tried to make sure that we had all the same topics covered as the Encarta encyclopedia, and made redirects from titles used by Encarta to differently titled articles on Wikipedia. This one, however, is particularly odd and unintuitive. BD2412 T 19:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Frankly, these are implausible search terms. Who's going to type those strings in? Ravenswing 15:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Don't see many people searching these long names, especially the 3 Russells one. If you know enough to know that someone has this name, I'm sure you'll also know their short names Joseph2302 (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

HotH

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 Hoth (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re-target to Harrow on the Hill Hoth (disambiguation): If the locality is the primary topic for the words "Harrow on the Hill", so should it be true for the abbreviation. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 16:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Hoth (disambiguation) and add these two items there -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to DAB per above. The Led Zeppelin album listed there would also be HotH if using title case. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget to the dab. I can't find any instances of people referring to the locality as "HotH", unlike the station, so that would be an inappropriate target. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Anne Productions

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 29#Anne Productions

Anjuman Institute of Technology and Management

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 List of engineering colleges affiliated to Visvesvaraya Technological University#Private un-aided colleges. signed, Rosguill talk 00:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anjuman Institute of Technology and Management was closed as redirect to Visvesvaraya Technological University. However, List of engineering colleges affiliated to Visvesvaraya Technological University#Private un-aided colleges is likely the better redirect target here.

The proposed redirection target contains some information about the school whereas the current one does not mention the school at all. There seems to be no other plausible redirection target apart from these two articles from a Wikipedia search.

@Vincentvikram, Adamant1, Chirota, and JPxG: Notifying AfD participants. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiro725: Mistargeted ping. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 10:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Aseleste, for pointing out that link. Sure a redirect to the list page is fine. Regards VV 10:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me. I'm fine with redirecting to the list page. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aseleste, thanks for notifying me. I am agreeing with others with the new target page (List of engineering colleges affiliated to Visvesvaraya Technological University#Private un-aided colleges) of the redirect. Chirota (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Arcade tournament

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 5#Arcade tournament

Wikipedia:Clueless newbie

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 Wikipedia:Assume no clue. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any usage case for these redirects, and to be honest I think leaving someone a message with a linked "Clueless newbie" directing them to the Help desk would be seen extremely uncivil, verging on as a personal attack. Despite being around since 2005 these have about half a dozen incoming links between them, most being from AfD nominations where the link has no relevance to the Help Desk. These are basically unused, one got 20 page views last year (though 17 of them were in the same mont for some reason) the other got 8. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. ― Tartan357 Talk 01:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thought I just had, how about retargeting to WP:Assume no clue? That would be a lot more relevant to the places where these redirects are actually linked. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to WP:NOCLUE per 86.23.109.101. I have been seeing him on RFD frequently. SCP-053 (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per IP, seems like a useful target and certainly better than the current one. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per 86, as the new target would actually make sense, unlike the current target. Tamwin (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

JLin

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 28#JLin

Hmong genocide

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. {{R from non-neutral name}} (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reliable source cited in the target article for this event being called a genocide. (t · c) buidhe 20:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a recently created article at Hmong Genocide, but to be honest it looks like a POV fork that should be redirected back to the main article on the insurgencey. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hmong Genocide, then deal with that article as necessary. I'll add that it definitely seems that this term is used in some reliable sources (from a quick Google search), though this is generally in words like "claims of genocide" etc, so I'd still lean keep as a non-neutral redirect, per WP:RNEUTRAL. A7V2 (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added Hmong Genocide as it has been redirected. SCP-053 (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. This is often considered a genocide by Hmong people, activist groups, and academics. ([8][9][10][11]) ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Patar Knight. The use of this term by multiple sources means this is a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)q[reply]
  • Keep: A perfectly plausible search term. Ravenswing 15:11, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:NOTSEARCHENGINE

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. The target itself has now been deleted. Herostratus (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:NOTSEARCHENGINE → Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Google  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Contributes to the common and harmful trend of people citing essays by whatever shortcuts instead of the actual contents. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Google is an essay on notability - it's not a "don't create redirects in the form of search queries" in the slightest - but this redirect was created with that use in mind. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the long-existing WP:NSE then, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 06:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that should be deleted too? Though WP:NSEO would make sense. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the nominator says, the contents of the target have absolutely NOTHING to do with the redirect. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing? In all caps? That may be a bit of an exaggeration. -- Tavix (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikipedia is a search engine. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. Wikipedia's purpose is to be an encyclopedia, not to help you search the Web. You may be confusing the fact that Wikipedia has a search function, but it is limited to internal articles and related features. -- Tavix (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Search That's Wikipedia's search engine. [12] That's Wikipedia's second search engine. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia's search engine". Not "Wikipedia, the search engine". 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe that since Wikipedia's two search engines are very important to the site, "Not search engine" is inapplicable to Wikipedia. Therefore, I still !vote to delete. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If someone is incorrectly using a shortcut, it reflects poorly on the user of the shortcut, not necessarily the shortcut itself. Google is a search engine, so the shortcut fits, even if the essay describes a different reason why Wikipedia is not Google over the one that would be convenient for those wanting to delete "search query" redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The shortcut was created by the user who is using it incorrectly - and as far as I can tell, it has no other uses. Elli (talk | contribs) 11:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the confusion ultimately derives from the essay being poorly named. To take a hint from your earlier shortcut suggestion, maybe something like Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for search engine optimization or something along those lines? An essay about Google from 2006 is very out of date anyway... -- Tavix (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak Retarget to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory, which touches on the concept of "Wikipedia is a curated encyclopaedia, and doesn't exist to hold entries on every shop/person/thing in existence", which I think is a slightly better fit but I don't think it's a ideal. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per IP above. The concept espoused in the essay is covered by that section of NOT. Only created today and apparently misused, so no concern about misleading readers of past discussions.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created a user essay arguing how it is not our job to do the search for readers. Hence, WP:NOTSEARCHENGINE. I later realised that WP:Wikipedia is not Google exists, so I asked for U1 for my user essay to avoid overlap. No further comments, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 20:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - valid shortcut to a valid essay. I disagree with its contents - it is our job to find information for readers and to make the information we have easier to access, and Microsoft Edge (at least, maybe others) specifically suggests English Wikipedia as a search engine option for its users - but that's irrelevant to the shortcut's utility as a redirect. U1 is invalid - this page is not in user namespace. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per IP, or just Delete. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 14:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until WP:NSE is deleted per User:Elli. WP:NSE has been there from 2006 and it doesn't look like anyone raised an objection. Jay (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill. I hate these things. Most people don't read rules (or essays in this case) very thoroughly, but they do read titles. For instance "Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS we don't write about recent events" when that rule says nothing of the sort, it's a shortened way of writing WP:NOTNEWSPAPER which says we don't publish sports scores and comics etc. Not a fan of deliberately misleading links. (The real problem is the name of the essay, I'll now go do a WP:RM. Assuming the RM succeeds, this redirect will almost by definition have to be deleted.) Herostratus (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I did a WP:RM to move the page to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not the entire internet. It is here: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not Google#Requested move 25 April 2021. It should succeed since that's a more accurate name. If so, then all its redirects should be deleted/retargeted (new ones could be made), and I'd call upon to closer to do this regardless of anything above, given the new name (right now running 3-0 in favor of the change). Herostratus (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE 2: Sent the essay to MfD, and there are least a couple other editors supporting that, so there's a fair chance it'll get deleted I guess. So then this here discussion becomes even more moot. Herostratus (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for the other discussions to conclude and, if the target still exists in some form we can then have a useful discussion about whether the shortcut should exist and/or where it should point. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

,R and B

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 12:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an WP:UNNATURAL error, and the target isn't the one of ,R and B either. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 06:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Implausible typo, I can't think how anyone would end up searching for this with a leading comma. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ,Delete per nom. ,I don't know if anyone would search for the subject like this, ,and are there any more such redirects that could be bundled here? ,Regards, SONIC678 17:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sonic678 ,4'-Methylenebis(o-chloro aniline) is kind of related. Other than that, my SQL query returned no RfD-worthy results. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @1234qwer1234qwer4: Got it. I'm adding it here, thanks for pointing it out. Regards, SONIC678 20:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:UNNATURAL and the above comments. These redirects are not founded in reality and are therefore not useful and encumber searches. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

. Salkuni

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 12:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • . Salkuni → Salkuni  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The article had been under this name for one minute before being moved, so I don't see any worth in keeping this WP:UNNATURAL error. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 06:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

. December 2017 Kabul Bombing

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 12:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what makes this full stop plausible; this redirect got 4 pageviews in the last year. Probably an accidental creation. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 06:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I just created December 2017 Kabul bombing, as the correct spelling did not exist yet. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Strongbox

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 Strong box. ✗plicit 12:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongbox → Safe  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Weak retarget to the DAB at Strong box. Strongbox (disambiguation) redirects there, so on various measures this seems to fail WP:SMALLDETAILS. "Strongbox" is just an alternative spelling, it does not denote a change in meaning. Online dictionaries list both under the same heading. In the article Decorative box#Strong box, it was spelled with a hyphen, a space, and no space, thus various authors use alternate spellings and consider the terms synonymous. Hyphenated Strong-box redirects to the DAB page. The link to Decorative box is actually the first on the DAB page, before Safe, and "strongbox" is bolded in the lede (perhaps it should be linked there). 94.21.10.117 (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stats here show over 30 days "Strongbox" at 113, "Strong box" at 93 and "Strong-box" at 6. So from the redirect stats it's not clear that "Safe" is the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for "Strongbox" (since we don't know how many people wanted a meaning other than "Safe"). Strongbox (disambiguation) gets 30 hits over the same period, for example, presumably many coming from the hatnote at Safe. 94.21.10.117 (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2004 Republican Presidential Candidates

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 as permitted by WP:RFD/CI. I apologise for this misaccusation, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 19:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this pointy response to User:Steel1943, who said in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 30#Other 2004 Republican Presidential Candidates:

"Also, to add more confusion: 2004 Republican Presidential Candidates and 2004 Republican presidential candidates do not exist (the nominated redirect without the word "Other" in its title.)"

NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 05:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the redirects are useful, whether they were created for a pointy purpose six years ago or not isn't relevant. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nominating redirects for deletion with the sole rationale being a suspicion of WP:POINT in their creation, is itself a violation of WP:POINT. "2004 Republican Presidential candidates" is clearly a valid and plausible search term, and the redirects are pointing to a sensible target for that term.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous reasonings listed above. Jack Reynolds (talk to me!) (email me!!) 12:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone above - if there is anything inappropriate here it is the nomination. The nomination was a direct result of the previous discussion pointing out the lack of a clearly useful redirect, there was nothing pointy about it. I'm not sure what NotReallySoroka's issue is, but it's worth noting that every single one of the redirects they've nominated today was my creation. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you create Why does English have silent letters, sir? Or the ones with Russell, Disraeli, or Rosebery? NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 19:23, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Reasonable search terms. ― Tartan357 Talk 19:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Solidarite Fanm Ayisyèn

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 deleted per G7. -- Tavix (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there is an appropriate local target for this page. Sending readers to non-English content is not helpful. Additionally, the plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (along the lines of the sentiment expressed at WP:SOFTSP). See here for precedents. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage the creation of an English article. Most of our readers will not read French, so a French language article will be of limited use to them and they will have to read it through a machine translator. If it is desirable to add a link to a page on another language project Template:Interlanguage link should be used, rather than a redirect. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I tried to delete this entry with "db-a2|interwiki link" template within the text of the page. I followed the instructions for an interlanguage link to direct readers to the French-language pages so they have something to reference until an English-language page is created. The English-language page should probably be "Haitian Women's Solidarity" rather than the official name of the organization in Haitian Creole.Kokobe1 (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Kokobe1[reply]

  • Delete: Delete to encourage article creation, linking to fr.wiki in this way is not useful. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ministère à la Condition féminine et aux Droits des femmes

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 deleted per G7. -- Tavix (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ministère à la Condition féminine et aux Droits des femmes → fr:Ministère à la Condition féminine et aux Droits des femmes  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, unless there is an appropriate local target for this page. Sending readers to non-English content is not helpful. Additionally, the plain {{soft redirect}} template is not used in the mainspace (along the lines of the sentiment expressed at WP:SOFTSP). See here for precedents. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage the creation of an English article. Most of our readers will not read French, so a French language article will be of limited use to them and they will have to read it through a machine translator. If it is desirable to add a link to a page on another language project Template:Interlanguage link should be used, rather than a redirect. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I tried to delete this entry with "db-a2|interwiki link" template within the text of the page. I followed the instructions for an interlanguage link to direct readers to the French-language pages so they have something to reference until an English-language page is created. The English-language page should probably be "Ministry on the Status and Rights of Women in Haiti" rather than the official French name of the ministry.Kokobe1 (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Kokobe1[reply]

  • Delete: Delete to encourage article creation, linking to fr.wiki in this way is not useful. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

British King who got his head cut off

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. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • British King who got his head cut off → Charles I of England  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, but rather because it is a pointy response to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 15#King who died with a hot poker up the ass. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 04:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an obviously WP:POINTy response to the result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 15#King who died with a hot poker up the ass. It's an inappropriate redirect for the reasons laid out regarding the similar redirect in that discussion. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Meets none of the purposes at Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects. DrKay (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful and unambiguous search term. Just because some people dislike redirects of this nature is not a reason to delete those that help people find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the previous RfD. Thryduulf, it's not a good look to create a redirect from a term someone mentioned as a redirect we shouldn't have as soon as the RfD in question is closed not in your favor. -- Tavix (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thyrduulf, as an administrator, you should know better than to violate WP:POINT like you did in creating this redirect. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There was nothing pointy about this creation, it was created as a result of multiple people in the previous discussion suggesting it would be a better search term - I agreed and so created it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Newyorkbrad said there, "For example, we don't redirect King who had six wives to Henry VIII or British King who got his head cut off to Charles I." (exact capitalisation) Your King who had six wives redirect was gone per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 2#King who had six wives, though such deletion did not arise from pointless. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 20:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And you will note in the King who had six wives discussion that I explained extensively why such redirects are a good thing and how, in the absence of the redirect, the search engine does not find the content that people are looking for when using the search term meaning deletion harms the encyclopaedia. I still stand by those arguments and will continue arguing against actions that harm the encyclopaedia while providing no (or less) benefit to the project. This is another example where deletion will bring harm and no benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very willing to own it up if I have said it as well as to apologise for and retract this comment if so, but I did not acknowledge your extensive explanations, if you have indeed made any. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 23:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh? I'm sorry, but that comment reads mostly as a jumble of words. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry, but I did not recall myself myself noting "in the King who had six wives discussion that [you have] explained extensively why such redirects are a good thing and how". I am very willing to retract this statement if I am proven wrong. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 23:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh? I mean, will note is present tense not past tense. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Whilst he was the only one (for now at least), seems implausible search term. Also technically he wasn't British King, as the Kingdom of Great Britain didn't exist until 1707 (he was King of England, Scotland and Ireland) Joseph2302 (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete exclusively per Joseph2302, it's an incorrect redirect. For the record, Newyorkbrad's arguments in the past discussion come from a user who, despite being a highly knowledgeable and highly respected user, clearly does not understand "the way the redirect system usually works", which is that it exists only "to help people arrive more quickly at the page they want to read" (from the lede of the relevant policy), which means it "usually works" by providing information to readers via whatever method they choose to look for it. These "we're not a search engine" arguments are malicious to readers for no good reason. Besides Joseph2302, nobody else here has actually put forward an argument for deletion (as in, one of the bullets listed under WP:RFD#DELETE): the page's origin is not an argument for deletion unless WP:G5 applies, which it clearly does not. We can have a constructive discussion about the utility of the redirect absent the personal attacks against the page's creator, and if you're just here to raise drama about that, please go do something else. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 14:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • An appeal to precedent for a very similar redirect in a discussion that resulted in deletion is in fact an argument for deletion. That you disagree with the precedent does not negate that. Every !vote need not always reference Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion reasons in order to be a valid !vote. For what it's worth, "incorrect redirect" is not a bullet listed under WP:RFD#DELETE (c.f. {{R from incorrect term}}). -- Tavix (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Any of 2, 5, or 8 could apply to harmfully incorrect redirect titles, in this case that, as Joseph2302 pointed out, there are no British kings known to have been beheaded; Charles was Scottish by birth (I think) and was king of England and Ireland, not any of the crowns known as British. It could be said that the title is valid anyway since British and English are easily confused, but I don't see that anyone's made that argument.
      The rest of this side discussion is of course about a different redirect from this one, for anyone else reading and confused by two editors who both !voted delete arguing with each other about it. You're correct about precedent but this precedent in particular is an example of both false authority and confirmation bias: Newyorkbrad's comments are being taken as an authoritative and infallible interpretation of policy by those who already agreed with that position, but his comments are one editor's opinion, and one which is provably wrong by a simple reading of the actual written policy. If there's a relevant precedent, it's that redirects that help readers find information should be kept, per WP:RPURPOSE and WP:RFD#KEEP numbers 3 and 5 which, rather than being one opinion, represent the consensus of years of community discussion and debate. Consensus can change, but Newyorkbrad's four-year-old opinion is not the test. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 10:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ultimately most of that is irrelevant because redirects do not have to be technically correct - if editors are searching for this content using this search term (or a search term that is more similar to this one than the page title), and they are, and it is not otherwise harmful (and despite many assertions nobody has actually provided any reason why it is beyond not liking this style of redirect) then it is a net positive to the encyclopaedia. Without the redirect it becomes harder for readers to find this content, using internal or external search engines, so the project would be harmed by deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Implausible MB 22:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you consider this redirect, that directly relates to a section of the target article, to be implausible? Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I mean, obvious keep, right? First of all, we're here to serve the reader, it surely does serve some non-zero number of readers, and it doesn't hurt anyone, and redirects are cheap. What is the upside to deleting it. Don't tell me this rule or that rule. Don't tell me this precedent or that person should know better or the other essay says this. Tell me "Deleting this redirect will enhance the experience of readers searching on this term because _________". Give me something good to go in the blank or go home.
Second of all, we have lots of redirects like this. It is established common practice. "Largest city in the world" is redirect (devolves to List of largest cities). "Fourth President of the United States" is a redirect (devolves to James Madison). "Tallest mountain in the world" is a redirect (devolves to List of mountain peaks by prominence). "Coldest place on earth" is a redirect (devolves to Pole of Cold). "Highest grossing movie" is a redirect (devolves to List of highest-grossing films). "First emperor of china" is a redirect (devolves to Qin Shi Huang). "Book about law" is a redirect (devolves to Law book). And so forth. Isn't this redirect we're talking about pretty similar?
I get that apparently there is some political squabbling here, and some people don't want other people to sit with them at lunch, but I can't keep up with that and don't care. I gather that King who died with a hot poker up the ass was deleted but so? Why double down on one-off mistakes? We're here to serve the reader, and I'm concerned that we are ginning up for a general purge of these types of redirects, and I think that'd be a big problem.
So I'd line to advise the closer to maybe not pay so much attention to politics and factions and counting sides so much but perhaps maybe advising OP and supporters to initate a well-advertised general RfC, before a huge purge of these kinds of redirects goes down. I'd like to see a lot of community input on the general question rather than one-by-one guerrila actions. Herostratus (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to English king who got his head cut off which would be both technically correct and uniquely identifying since Causantín mac Cináeda might have been beheaded, and he's also a British king in the sense that he's a king who ruled in the British isles. If it wasn't non-uniquely identifying, I don't think having the current title would be an issue, since British is used so often to just refer to anything related to the British isles or interchangeably with English, even if from a legal, political standpoint it should only be applied for post-1707, Kingdom of Great Britain things. Charles I even minted coins that styled himself as "King of Great Britain" (see photo: here). I disagree with the delete !votes on plausibility, helpfulness for the reader, WP:POINT, etc. for the same reasons I gave in the RFD below, only in this case the beheading is not disputed and much more famous.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Why does English have silent letters

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. This has received sufficient discussion that I don't think relisting will help. signed, Rosguill talk 00:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since we are not a Q and A site. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 03:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, seems like a useful redirect to a page with a jargonish title from a potential search term with broader understandability. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:32, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTSEARCHENGINE, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 03:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a very useful search term that takes people to the very-differently titled page that contains the content they are looking for. Not ambiguous with anything else or otherwise harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 03:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am afraid that these questions should be taken to Google or Reddit, not Wikipedia. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 03:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why? After all, Wikipedia often provides the much more sourced and comprehensive answer. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSEARCHENGINE. Questions are not suitable redirects. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful, cheap, unambiguous, and the essay WP:NOTSEARCHENGINE links to says nothing about this type of redirect. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The target of WP:NOTSEARCHENGINE has been changed; it used to refer to a now-deleted essay in User:NotReallySoroka's userspace that was about this type of redirect. It was changed by them though, so not sure what's going on. CapitalSasha ~ talk 13:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a genuinely useful redirect. That Wikipedia is not Google is a different point entirely. --bonadea contributions talk 08:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an abstract topic, so it may be hard for someone to try to find this content without using question-like phrasing. The target explains this well, and this is in no way ambiguous, so I don't see anything wrong here. -- Tavix (talk) 11:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTFAQ, Wikipedia is not a faq. This is a line in a faw. The proper search term would be Silent letters in the English language and not this title. -- 67.70.27.246 (talk) 17:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTFAQ is about article content not redirects. Silent letters in the English language is also a useful search term and should be created, it is not relevant to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pointiness in action, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 20:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC) OK, sorry. Although this comment was made before it was created, my accusation of pointiness is to the fact that T deliberately arguing something is useful immediately after another argued that it is not. I do think that the redirect itself is good! NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 23:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Thryduulf didn't even create that (very very useful) redirect. And besides, it points to a different target – because it is a whole different search term from this redirect. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But the IP was arguing that that redirect was useful rather than this one? And sorry, even if that was the case, how is refuting an argument constructively considered disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What are "proper search terms"? Redirects are meant to aid in navigation, and the vast majority of readers won't care about ill-founded principles like that. Especially given such a principle is absolutely useless. Aside from the utter harmlessness of such redirects, the delete rationales are inherently flawed. As a matter of fact, questions are suitable redirects because Wikipedia is a Q&A site. Readers go to Wikipedia more often than not to answer questions of various kinds. As such, Wikipedia serves as an encyclopedic Q&A site. This redirect is a very normal and common search term. Redirects like this one are plausible, correct, helpful, and harmless. So why delete them? — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 22:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947. Not a convoluted search term and takes readers to relevant information. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This redirect is only 0.01¢. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:14, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "why" is ambiguous. Phonological history of English consonant clusters only addresses "why?" in the sense of "how did silent letters arise historically?" rather than "what function do they serve?" (that is, cause vs. purpose). The latter is at least as likely to be what readers are looking for. The redirect addresses the topic only indirectly and incompletely in other ways as well: The target is only about consonant clusters, but many silent letters are vowels (such as silent e) or are consonants not in clusters. And it is focused on phonology, but "Why does English have silent letters" is focused on orthography. So the redirect has a high likelihood of causing confusion/surprise. (Also, I'll just comment that too much of the discussion has been on high-level generalities rather than the actual case at hand.) Adumbrativus (talk) 05:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominator has not made a rational argument for deletion - specifically, if readers have a question, and we have an answer, then Wikipedia is a Q&A site. Besides that, while Google may be better suited to produce content for this sort of query, the presence of redirects like this help Google produce more relevant information, which directly benefits Wikipedia readers. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

King killed by a red hot poker

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Editors are rather evenly split between keep and delete and a consensus seems unlikely to form at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 01:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. We are not a search engine. Even if we are, the {{R from search term}} was not present as of now.
  2. King Edward II's articles states, at Edward II of England#Controversy, that it is not confirmed whether he indeed died from a poker; in relation to this rumour the section states, "Most historians now dismiss this account of Edward's death, querying the logic in his captors murdering him in such an easily detectable fashion."
  3. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 15#King who died with a hot poker up the ass closed as delete

NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 03:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if someone is searching for this term (which I evidently was) they will learn that it's (probably) not true so {{R from misnomer}} directly applies there. More generally it's a useful search term that takes readers to exactly the content they are looking for without having to navigate unpredictable search results that are sometimes several clicks away. It's unambiguous, harmless and useful so there is no justification for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Convenience to you does not necessarily equal convenience to the Community; just because you find this redirect helpful, doesn't mean that everyone will agree with you. For me it would be most convenient if Soroka is redirected to Mike, but, oh well... NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 03:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This matter has clearly been settled already. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion was significantly about the specific phrasing used and is not applicable to this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But User:Newyorkbrad's point that "we don't usually create redirects by describing the article subject, especially where the description could be worded in dozens of ways" still stands. While he did give exceptions:
  1. His argument did not focus on how you word King Edward's rumour; rather, he was arguing against creating redirects from description. I believe that one description reworded does not make it no longer a description.
  2. Quoting NYB: "If we were to create redirects based on such descriptions, their number would be virtually unlimited."
NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 19:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Meets none of the purposes at Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects, also clearly in contravention and deliberate circumvention of the prior deletion discussion. DrKay (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the previous RfD; clearly WP:POINTY creation. -- Tavix (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thyrduulf, as an administrator, you should know better than to violate WP:POINT like you did in creating this redirect. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DrKay: I created the redirect as a useful search term that was not present. There was nothing pointy happening at all, and I would appreciate a bit more AGF to be honest. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The British King who got his head cut off would like to say hi. As for WP:AGF, I was called a "waste of time" over Talk:Michael John Graydon Soroka, thus I understand your sentiments. However, there is a huge difference between a lurker not knowing stuff (me) and an admin, CU, OS, and former arbitrator not knowing stuff. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 19:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: You have participated in the discussion that resulted in King who died with a hot poker up the ass being deleted, and you replied to the points that NYB made there. I believe that you must have seen his argument that there would be infinite redirects if we make descriptions into redirects, no? If I were you, I would have recused in not creating its redirect (or do it after consensus). Again, we don't redirect Atlanta Braves Opening Day Starter, 2021 to Max Fried for a reason. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 19:21, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I saw NYB's comments and I, and others, disagreed with them. The rationale for creation was explained there and has been explained since. If you think Atlanta Braves Opening Day Starter, 2021 is a useful search term that people are going to be looking up in an encyclopaedia (I have no opinion, I don't know enough about the topic) and which the search engine will not adequately deal with (for those that manage to get results) then absolutely it should be created as a redirect. There is no benefit to the encyclopaedia in making it harder for people to find the content they are looking for because some people happen to dislike the way they looked for it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not a realistic search term, especially when it's disputed whether it actually happened. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging the participants of that related discussion who have not commented here (excluding one editor who has indicated they have redired) @Neveselbert, Ruslik0, Ivanvector, Plantdrew, Patar knight, Ravenswing, Newyorkbrad, and Mike Christie:. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Oh for crying out loud. Aside from that it's still an implausible redirect, Newyorkbrad's cogent rationale four years ago remains. The scope for infinite similar redirects is insane. President who was scared by a killer bunny? Guy who blew his political career up driving off a bridge? Olympic ski jumper who was a worldwide joke? Wikipedia is not Quora, Google or Reddit, thanks. Ravenswing 20:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly this is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but if those are search terms that are going to help readers find the content they are looking for (I don't know) then they should be created: we should have every redirect where the utility outweighs the harm and should not have any where the harm outweighs the utility, how many redirects that is could not be more irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thanks for the ping. "The scope for infinite similar redirects is insane"; I agree. As it says at WP:Wikipedia is not Google: "whatever you want to find can be found with a web search engine". That's not what our redirects are for, as far as I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Wikipedia is not Google is an essay about article content, it is irrelevant to redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (responding to ping) Delete per nom and others. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. As pointed out above, there's a lot of other redirects like this one that haven't been created but should be. So we've got a long way to go yet in making the encyclopedia navigationally helpful. Readers who searched this up had heard this theory but forgot the name of a king and evidently wanted it. This redirect helped in that regard. So I've proven that this redirect is helpful. Does anyone disagree? No? Okay. So currently it looks like this redirect is helpful. To overturn that balance, it has to be proven that this redirect is harmful. Does anyone have any ideas on how this redirect is harmful in a way that outweighs the helpfulness described above? Because I don't have any. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It might perpetuate the myth that KEII died from the spade. Also, keeping it in fosters pointiness (it in itself isn't bad, but manifestation in this way is). NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 23:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If the myth thing is a problem, then just target the redirect to the section where it is discussed as untrue (Edward II of England#Controversies). And a creation isn't pointy in a bad way unless it is detrimental to the encyclopedia. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2) I mean it's in the tile of WP:POINT: do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Nothing about do not help Wikipedia to illustrate a point – which isn't what Thryduulf did anyway, but that's another point and as such is besides the point. :) WP:NOTPOINTy is what applies, at the very most. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain how keeping a redirect that educates people about the myth perpetuates it? I have no idea what your second sentence is trying to say. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that you did not have the Community in mind when you have created this redirect, a sentiment shared by several people in accusing that you are pointy. If we keep that, it would just send out the signal that disruptive pointiness is condoned. NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 23:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I created the redirect for the benefit of the readers of the encyclopaedia by making it easier for them to find the content they are looking for when using a search term that many of them are likely to use. Even if the creation was pointy (which it wasn't) that is completely irrelevant - if the redirect is helpful (which it is) it should be kept regardless of why it was created, if the redirect is unhelpful (for which there is no evidence) then it should be deleted regardless of why it was created. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I think they're saying that this should be deleted because they view its creation as WP:POINTY, which paradoxically is probably in itself pointy behaviour. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ...which is probably an incorrect viewpoint anyhow considering WP:NOTPOINTy. So... advocating for minor disruption of Wikipedia to illustrate an incorrect point around pointiness? Cool. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf, per WP:RFD#K5 (it's clearly useful) and per WP:HOAX (obviously a notable hoax). The title is appropriate: this is an historic legend, the target explains its origin and historicity, and explains that it's likely false. The arguments in favor of deletion have failed to demonstrate why it's beneficial to the reader to make this information more difficult to locate, nor why their personal distaste outweighs function. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 09:43, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm generally not a fan of factoid redirects, as it's trivial to come up with dozens of them and let their creation get out of control, but this is a well known myth that is discussed in the target article. Speculations about why the redirect were created are not a reason to delete it, we evaluate redirects on their merits and utility. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf, it is actually a useful search term. Getting a bit tired of seeing not Google arguments, redirects help users get to the content they are looking for. Why would intentionally make it more difficult. I don't see that this particular instance opens the door for more meaningless trivia style redirects. Polyamorph (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a purpose can be justified per WP:RPURPOSE. 0, 1 and 2 (sometimes 3) views every few months from the time it was created four years back, does not justify use as a search term. Jay (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are fundamentally only two purposes for redirects, one is to maintain attribution, the other is to help readers find content they are looking for. Everything at WP:RPURPOSE is just an example (and note the list is explicitly not comprehensive) of one of those purposes. As repeatedly explained this redirect helps readers find content they are looking for and causes absolutely no harm whatsoever, so deletion would be harmful for no benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not used as a search term, as shown by the page views: 0 last month. And even if it were, editors would still be directed to this article: [13][14][15]. DrKay (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The existence of this redirect enables those who use the internal search engine with this or similar terms to find the article (experience shows that without it the results will extremely unlikely be at all useful) and is also at least part of the reason why the external search engines know to connect the search term with our article. Only people who use the exact search term and click via the redirect get recorded in the statistics for the redirect. Even if it is just 3 people a month on average who find this helpful, why is that problematic? That's three people a month who have found the content they are looking for that otherwise would not have done. We don't delete articles that are only read a handful of times a month because they don't help enough people, and there are no downsides to keeping the redirect (other than a few people disliking it). Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 20 cases listed at WP:RPURPOSE and aiding our basic search engine is not one of them. Since you feel very strongly about this and see this coming under the broad generalization of what a redirect is, I would suggest you bring this up at the Redirect guideline page and get the support there. Rfd would not be the appropriate forum to decide on exceptions. Jay (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead of Wikipedia:Redirect says "Redirects are used to help people arrive more quickly at the page they want to read" I'm not sure how a redirect that helps people arrive more quickly at the page they want to read can be contrary to that? How is assisting the search engine anything other than "help[ing] people arrive more quickly at the page they want to read"?
    Further, the introduction to WP:RPURPOSE says "Reasons for creating and maintaining redirects include:" (emphasis mine) i.e. the list does not contain every situation in which a redirect is appropriate, therefore there is no need for an exception. You are correct that I feel strongly about this - why would I not when I am seeing experienced Wikipedians arguing to harm the project by making it harder for readers to find the content they are looking for? Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RPURPOSE is an inclusive list and not an exclusive list. In fact, I think that 17 of those 20 reasons fall under aiding our basic search engine. After all, if it was perfect (and by that I mean impossibly perfect), we by and large wouldn't need redirects. Anyhow, I think that the redirect falls under an alternative name for the target, and describing a subtopic of the target article. And given that we're talking about guidelines here, RHARMFUL (Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones) and K4 apply to this redirect as reasons to keep it. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    By search engine capabilities, what I had in mind was using tag words or understanding search text in the form of questions. Those are what a search engine should do, and not be dependent on editors creating pages with different combinations of questioning text. Not one of the 20 points suggested that redirects can also be of this kind that will help a reader to his target. Again, Rfd is not the place for debate, the Wikipedia talk:Redirect is. Jay (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, RPURPOSE is explanatory. It says nothing about RfD or deleting redirects. You're selectively ignoring other parts of the guideline, for example, the nutshell:

    Redirects aid navigation and searching by allowing a page to be reached under alternative titles

    What about the lead?

    Redirects are used to help people arrive more quickly at the page they want to read

    Maybe a guideline around the deletion of redirects is more appropriate than a explanatory section? RHARMFUL:

    Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones

    This redirect isn't harmful or recent. But it most definitely is helpful. K5:

    Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.

    Hey, why not throw K3 in there?

    They aid searches on certain terms

    But that isn't the most important consideration around evaluating the merits of redirects. This is: Would deleting this redirect be beneficial to the encyclopedia? I'm yet to see an answer of no yes. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful redirect for people whose recall is not perfect. I'm not an expert in English medieval history, but I've certainly heard the story, and if I was pushed I'd probably remember that it was about the Edward who was friendly with Piers Gaveston, but I'd only be able to guess about which number Edward he was. This redirect leads me to the correct content. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ravenswing and others. MB 22:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We're here to serve the reader. Remember her? All the other stuff about this POINTy and that rule and the other opinion or whatever is secondary to that. I've heard literally nothing in all the above about the reader. The person searching on the string. That's maybe kind of an indication that we're asking the wrong questions here. Herostratus (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or possibly Refine to Edward_II_of_England#Controversies. I stand by my comment in the prior RfD. Edward II's death is one of the more famous deaths of a British monarch (e.g. Times Higher Education calling it "arguably the most famous in English Royal History" [16]). We can't expect people to recall perfectly who this applied to. As Ivanvector showed in the previous RFD, redirects like this help Wikipedia's internal search function and therefore help readers reach the pages they want, which besides legal attribution requirements, is the primary purpose of redirects (see WP:RFD#K3). The usage and the historical context is also enough to pass WP:RFD#K5. If we want to point to a specific entry at the non-exhaustive WP:POFR, I would argue that this is the less historically-knowledgeable person's version of something like Historicity of Edward II's alleged death by red-hot poker iron or Historiography on method of execution for Edward II of England, which would both be valid redirects from subtopics. I also want to briefly address some of the deletion arguments:
  1. Search engine/opening the floodgates: It's possible to allow some redirects that look like search engine queries referencing reasonably well-known facts such as Edward II's death and while disallowing search engine queries that are so obscure that they would have no utility (e.g. King who denied responsibility for his troops hanging a French sergeant near Agenais, referencing Edward II of England#War with France). Neither the current target of WP:NOTSEARCHENGINE (an essay targeted at linkspammers), nor the proposed target at that shortcut's RFD apply here. This is not some unsourced claim of no encyclopedic value, but something to which the Edward II article, an FA, devotes an [[[Edward_II_of_England#Controversies|entire paragraph and a long explanatory note]] as part of its in-depth coverage of his death. Having this redirect, which is helpful both directly to those readers who use it, or indirectly by helping Wikipedia's internal search engine, doesn't mean that people will go out of their way to create "infinite" unhelpful redirects.
  2. It probably didn't happen: Whether something is factually true or not doesn't matter in terms of having a redirect if there is reliable, sourced encyclopedic content about it, which which there in this case. We have tons of articles on probably apocryphal stories and crazy conspiracy theories all over Wikipedia (e.g. King Canute and the tide, Possible monorchism of Adolf Hitler, 9/11 conspiracy theories) and they all get appropriate redirects. We're not here to litigate the truth of the claim made by the redirect, but the merits of having the redirect.
  3. WP:POINT: This redirect seems to be a good-faith attempt to address the concerns raised at the prior RfD, so it wouldn't fall under POINT, which only applies when a user applies existing consensus, policy, or guidelines that they disagree with in bad-faith manner to prove their "point". The RFD was a close 6-5 split and one of the delete !votes explicitly cited the use of "ass" as reason for why they preferred deletion. This redirect removes that word – a distinction recognized when a G4 speedy deletion was declined – and shortens the search phrase. Both of these changes make it a more plausible search term. Based on my experience with Thryduulf, they truly do have a broader and more liberal viewpoint of what can be a good redirect. Even if this was a POINTy creation, a POINT violation in and of itself is not a valid reason for deletion, and the redirect should be judged on its own merits. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urf. I hate these slippery-slope opening-the-floodgates arguments. "If you allow execution for murder, next we'll be executing jaywalkers." "If you allow abortion, next we'll be killing three-year-olds". No, because we have the sense that God gave sheep and are able to figure out proper boundaries and cutoffs for things. There are times when slippery-slope arguments are appropriate, but it's rare. And this isn't one of those times. Herostratus (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mu I guess we should have a disambiguation page for poker in the rear to help readers who might be searching for either King Edward's alleged death, a particular double entendre ("liquor up front, poker in the rear"), or the subtitle of a musical album based on the double entendre. Readers might enter "poker in the rear" in Wikipedia's search, so we should help them find the article they want (and Edward's death doesn't show up in that search currently). Plantdrew (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

State Leader of Myanmar

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 29#State Leader of Myanmar

Tanten

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 29#Tanten

Hamza Division

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 keep. Wrong venue. Please try WP:RM. (non-admin closure) ― Tartan357 Talk 04:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hamza Division (Aleppo) should be moved to Hamza Division, which is currently a redirect to the disambiguation, making the move impossible. Lightspecs (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:RM, NotReallySoroka (talk) (formerly DePlume) 04:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_21&oldid=1138583008"