Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 10, 2018.

Element I[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chemists reserve Roman numerals for positive oxidation states; they are never used for atomic numbers. Although hydrogen has a +1 oxidation state, so do many other elements (for example, sodium). Also, I is the chemical symbol of a different element, iodine. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This is horribly confusing, there's no such element. No chemist would ever call iodine "Element I", any more than they would call hydrogen "Element H" or oxygen "Element O". This smacks of pulp science fiction and "Element X" or "Element Z" or whatever. In chemistry, the Roman numeral "I" is reserved for oxidation states (see e.g. Bromine(I) chloride); and, for the more old-fashioned of us, as the designator for the leftmost column of the periodic table. Narky Blert (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should this be a dab for Hydrogen, Iodine, Element One (which doesn't really use "i" in their name, but "one"), Period 1 element, Alkali metal (described as group 1 element)? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AngusWOOF: IMO certainly not. That would be scientifically illiterate. I know that redirects are designed to help readers find things. But, in this case, I can confidently say that in 50+ years as a chemist, I have never heard of Element I. Narky Blert (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dab pages do occasionally get created to navigate solely between misspellings and incorrect names, but I think this would go too far: "Element I" is simply a phrase that combines two words in a a generic way, which furthermore isn't particularly plausible for any of the intended referents. – Uanfala (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Narky Blert. Double sharp (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. – Uanfala (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This seems particularly useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Network provider[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was disambiguate. Much obliged, 59 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vague term given the ambiguity of network, we do have Network service provider as well as service provider. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of the ambiguity can be seen in its current use. Currently it is linked only in two articles: Shadowserver (where it seems to mean Internet service provider) and in Base station identity code (where it seems to mean Wireless service provider (a redirect to Mobile network operator)). TJRC (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sarah Royden[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 19#Sarah Royden

Redirects to List of YouTubers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Note: Some vague history at MissHannahMinx pre-2013 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of these YouTubers are listed at the target, a consequence of the target article having a notability criterion to it (no article, no listing). It's misleading for these redirects to redirect somewhere there is no information on the subject, and it may also encourage someone who arrives at the target via one of these redirects to add an entry to the list, which is something we do not want. -- Tavix (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. If they aren't notable enough for the list, then they should not have redirects. —Xezbeth (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Tavix. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 07:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Non-notable BLP's shouldn't have redirects to lists unless there is an exceptional case where they should be included on that list. A list of YouTuber's should only have entries where articles exist. Ajf773 (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mega Man VIIII[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is implausible because the Roman numeral is incorrectly written and because neither the incorrect nor the correct form ("Mega Man IX") is officially used as a title for any version of Mega Man 9. SoledadKabocha (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Title is not known by "VIIII" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the roman numeral is not even written correctly. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it’s true that the first seven games used Roman Numerals in the in-game title screen that stopped with 8 and even if it didn’t it’s highy unlikely that someone would use VIIII to look up 9.--67.68.210.105 (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Lists of white people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. feminist (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of black people is pretty offensive to me. Should Saint Augustine be in one of those lists? He was a Berber, and therefore black. How about Shirley Bassey and Colin Jackson? they're Welsh; or Cleo Laine, Jason Robinson, Sadiq Khan, Ainsley Harriott and Lenny Henry? they're English; or Ruud Gullit? he's Dutch; or François Trinh-Duc? he's French.
Tony Cozier, highly-respected Barbadian cricket commentator, was often thought to be black because of his accent. He wasn't, and thought the assumption rather amusing. Narky Blert (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:LISTCRITERIA and for general offensiveness not to say outrageousness. As one example out of many, the guy who owns the shop where I buy most of my beer has brown skin, is bilingual in Hindi and English, and has a broad local accent. He was born and raised in England, and is in consequence European no matter where his family came from. I've known people whose whole ancestry is European who had darker skin; but they, unlike him, are classified as "white" by racists. Narky Blert (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - It all boils down to how neither of these seem like they'd ever be useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mark Nypoaj[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 19#Mark Nypoaj

1947 British winter[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous and an unlikely search term. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 21#1979 British winter. --Neve~selbert 22:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1946–47 was a famously tough winter in the UK; it is unlikely 1947-48 (for which we have no article) would searched for. The next one we have is in fact Winter of 1962–63 in the United Kingdom, also very tough. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 February 21#1979 British winter is a poor precedent, because although it (78-79) was a very hard winter, we have no article for it, so the redirect was deleted for lack of a plausible target. Not the case here. In any case, it is surely normal, at least in the UK, for a single-year winter to refer to the New Year part, when t5he worst weather almost invariably comes. Johnbod (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Speaking as a Brit, it is not ambiguous and it is a likely search term. It means early 1947. Narky Blert (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nile State[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Nile State nor Nile Republican seems to be used as an alternative name for South Sudan. There are several states in both Sudans that have names similar to Nile State, but these are all partial title matches. Nile Republic is a proposed movement to create an independent country from northern Uganda. Either way, seems like a delete to me. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as descriptors these could refer to South Sudan, Sudan or Egypt. Useless. Legacypac (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Faithfully-flat descent[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Descent (mathematics). -- Tavix (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Faithfully flat descent (2nd nomination)#Draft:Faithfully flat descent we were advised this is an inappropriate redirect. If that is true we should redlink it to encourage article creation. The redirect dates from 2007. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Descent (mathematics) if the flat topology topic isn't treating the work properly. That one has something called "Fully faithful descent", so maybe a section can be added about faithfully flat? [1] [2] However, the flat topology article does use the "faithfully-flat descent" term a lot so that needs to be clarified. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

K=jtb[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though I assume that "k" stands for "knowledge" and "jtb" stands for "justified true belief", the redirect is not mentioned in the target article, and I'm not finding any results for it on third party search engines. Suspecting WP:NOTNEO issue with this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep able to find some results [6] too + ones by Patar knight Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's gonna be kept, shouldn't it at least be moved to K=JTB? The lowercase doesn't seem useful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We've found a couple of sources, but I do still think we're in neologism territory per nom. That, combined with the fact that the redirect is not mentioned at the target puts me in the delete camp. -- Tavix (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. Still quite likely to confuse. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Life and water[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per WP:XY. It is also not clear if readers are attempting to look up the target of these redirects if searching for the titles of these redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To see the section targeting requires a couple clicks and I missed that. I still say delete as XY and because there are ofher equally good targets. Let the search engine provide results amd let the reader pick amd choose from those results. Legacypac (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the section targets to the nomination. (I usually do that after a Twinkle-based nomination, so me missing this one is quite out of the ordinary.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are not actually XY redirects, as it is clear that they are describing the relationship between the two topics, water and life. In that case, the target is exactly what it should be. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Unless someone is looking for the opposite: life's effect on water. Steel1943 (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tried to figure out a way to justify keeping these, but I couldn't do it. They're just too vague and meaningless. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

A form of life[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing this redirect as helpful or necessary, given that Form of life exists as a redirect to the same target. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Implausible redirect.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need for this sort of construct; it's not how people speak or write. A little more reasonable when pointed to lifeform but even then, just not helpful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Murder for profit[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking this should be redirected to Contract killing, but then again, I'm not sure the two terms are complete synonymous, given there are cases where murder may be performed by a beneficiary of something like a life insurance policy: In that case, they didn't hire themselves. Steel1943 (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Judging by its creation it seems like WP:NEO. It's usually called "murder for hire", not "murder for profit".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Murder for profit" sounds immediately off given that, as stated above, the terminology usually used in fictional and non-fictional media is "murder for fire" (or generally just "contract killing"). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hate deleting old redirects, so I went and googled this. There are actually quite a few uses in major publications (e.g., The Economist, Psychology Today, Time, Fox News) so I think it's worth holding on to. That being said, murder isn't particularly helpful since, well, they've already searched for "murder" as part of "murder for hire." Contract killing, as the target of murder for hire, is, as pointed out, not right either. In the end, I sadly don't think we have a good target for this, so perhaps someone could write an article on it! Delete per WP:REDLINK. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. "Murder for profit" just seems like a colloquial phrase that doesn't correspond cleanly to any one defined crime. (Homicidio por lucro is an actual legal term in Spanish-speaking countries, but no one seems to use "murder for profit" as a translation of that.) 59.149.124.29 (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kush Republic[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was the Kingdom of Kush, but I'm pretty sure that was never a republic. Today's South Sudan is sorta the same geographic region, but clearly not the same thing. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete X1 as wrong Legacypac (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same as Kushan Empire, it doesn't fit and I don't think people are going to confuse the two/three. Besides, this appears to be a brand name (obviously). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Libyan Cabinet[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Cabinet of Libya. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After Libya's civil war, this is no longer the Libyan Cabinet, but I'm unclear on what is or where this should target. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jubian Republic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 19#Jubian Republic

Istiwaiyyah[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 19#Istiwaiyyah

Bleh bleh bleh[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted criterion WP:G2. Page moved to this title either as a test or in error; the creator reverted one minute later. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Bleh bleh bleh" is a bizarre name that has nothing to do with the target. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Redirects from moves[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Wikipedia:Redirect#Redirects from moves. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a useless redirect from the Wikipedia namespace to the category namespace. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Xiph.Org libVorbis I 20090709[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

implausible search terms. -- Tavix (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also, I'm very unclear on why these redirects were created to target Nick Jonas (album), but even more unclear is why they were then retargeted the following year to their current target by the same editor who created the redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible search term, per nom.Dialectric (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note there is also the similarly obscure Xiph.Org libVorbis I 20120203 (Omnipresent) redirect that should be deleted for the same reason.Dialectric (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I relisted these because the history of the additional item above (Xiph.Org libVorbis I 20120203 (Omnipresent)) gives a potential reason for the creation of these and could impact how folks (Tavix, Steel1943, Dialectric) view the redirect. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If that item were to be added, Xiph.Org libtheora 1.1 20090822 (Thusnelda) could potentially as well. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant edit summary from Xiph.Org libVorbis I 20120203 (Omnipresent) is "Recreated redirect: this is used in the Metadata section of pages for audio files using this encoder (e.g. )". What is the argument for having such detailed encoder information? Even if such data is useful to someone, the redirect to the more general format seems unnecessary.Dialectric (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: As the editor who recreated that last-mentioned redirect, I was asked to "contribute any additional... history / thought behind" it. There really isn't much more to add that my edit summary didn't say! Evidently something on Commons is auto-generating en-wiki links with the full text of the encoder metadata, and therefore I (re)created the redirect to go to the codec. My !vote would be to keep them iff Commons continues to create such links, but to direct all of them to Vorbis, not Audacity (audio editor), much less Nick Jonas (album)! -- Perey (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was staying out of this, but I do actually think these should be kept and pointed to Vorbis per WP:RKEEP #5; easy to imagine these helping someone looking at boring/confusing metadata. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Vorbis per above. As long as Commons is autogenerating links to these, then it's {{R from file metadata link}}, just like all the others in that category (which also tend to have no incoming links). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Inexorable[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 19#Inexorable

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_10&oldid=1036305565"