Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 2, 2019.

Est, Maria[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 delete. Speedy deleted by BD2412. (non-admin closure) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion as confusing. The target, Maria Est, is not a personal name. This is not the sort name for the target article. —Ketil Trout (<><!) 21:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedily deleted. Not a sort name, just a very unusual case. bd2412 T 22:32, 2 August 2019 (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 Legend of Zelda: The Hero of Time[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. (I didn't see any merged content. If someone finds that attribution is needed for the deleted content, let me know.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is about a fan made film not mentioned in the targeted article. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2019 (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.

Aston Martin Twenty Twenty[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 15#Aston Martin Twenty Twenty

The Sims 3 Unleashed[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does not exist (seems like a hoax) and not mentioned in it's targeted article (The Sims Unleashed is, which is an expansion pack for The Sims 1 and unrelated to the subject of this redirect). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2019 (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.

Aide de Chambre[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. --BDD (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually a synonym, not mentioned in the target or the linked frWiki article. An online search returns in-home mobility devices for those with disabilities (classified as aides de chambre a coucher). I would suggest either redirecting to Valet de chambre (a target semantically closer to the search term than aide-de-camp) or deleting the redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 20:03, 2 August 2019 (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.

Catherine great[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. --BDD (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing article, either mistake or lazy typing. Not a box we should leave open. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unlikely typo. Delete. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a well used redirect (134 hits last year) with a single unambiguous target. Our job is to enable readers to find the content they are looking for, not to impose arbitrary rules and standards that make it unnecessarily harder. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Thryduulf's stats. Also, redirect was intentional. pbp 11:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, since typing in "Catherine great" will show the article as the first hit in Wikipedia search even if the redirect didn't exist. Therefore, it is not necessary to lead people to the article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It is always preferable to take people directly to the article than to force them to navigate via the search engine (which is sometimes several clicks away depending on how they navigated), requires unnecessary page loads (more data = more cost for many), and is not guaranteed to produce the correct result - the presence of this redirect is why the target is presently number 1 in the results. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not exactly agree with this philosophy. If that were the general Wikipedia guideline, then there would be no WP:FORRED. I think that structure and continuity (though not rigidity and unchangeability) make Wikipedia more effective. Wikipedia, like anything, is something you learn how to use well. If you type in "alexander great", the first option in the search results is of course Alexander the Great. If you type in "alexander the grat", Alexander the Great will not show up in the search results at all. People will see they've made a typo and fix it. Simple as that. The same goes for catherine great or anything else like that. Just because someone might type something in, that doesn't mean it should be a redirect, even if it's clear what they meant (again, compare WP:FORRED). — the Man in Question (in question) 08:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    FORRED has almost nothing to do with "what people might type in" it's a combination of homographs - the same sequence of characters meaning completely different things in different languages (e.g. "tant" has meanings including, "tact, so much, doctrine, so, tooth, old lady, power, aunt and string (music)".) and even when they are unique we don't want to give the impression that we have information about a thing in a language when we do not. Wikipedia is not something you should have to learn how to use - we are a general purpose encyclopaedia whose aim is to make knowledge freely accessible to the world. Erecting unnecessary barriers to that knowledge is directly contrary to the entire purpose of the project. We can't cater to most typos, because they are often ambiguous and would unnecessarily hinder other searches, but we do have redirects for the most common because that fulfils our goal of increasing access to knowledge. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: as mentioned by ZXCVBNM, the intended article already shows up in the dropdown box, so the main difference this redirect makes is that you can type "Catherine great" then press Enter. Without the redirect, you would have to press "Down+Enter" or click on it with the mouse button to avoid going into Special:Search. However, this does seem like a likely term that someone would type in out of convenience. –Sonicwave talk 00:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly plausible. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2019 (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.

His Steveness[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 12#His Steveness

John f k[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 12#John f k

King who had six wives[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. Decision rests particularly strongly on the ambiguity issue raised by BDD. Nyttend (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not Google. Wikipedia is not Jeopardy. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. See also King who died with a hot poker up the ass and Tallest Native American. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created this because it is a useful search term for the target article. Before I created this redirect the search engine did not find the correct target when using this term, and that will likely be the case again if it is deleted. Redirects like this exist to help readers find the content they are looking for - either directly using the internal search or direct linking, or indirectly by providing results for external search engines. Even if we ignore all the harm that deletion will cause, it will bring absolutely no benefits. I still stand by my arguments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 15#King who died with a hot poker up the ass that that redirect was also appropriate - especially as now the search engine does not find the correct target in the first two pages of results so we are doing readers a disservice. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me this is a clear issue of Wikipedia not being a search engine. There is no expectation that inputting a description into Wikipedia's search engine should yield the target in its results. I would not expect "man who died on a cross" to turn up Jesus, or "woman who said let them eat cake" to turn up Marie Antoinette. Thank you, though, for giving your reasons. — the Man in Question (in question) 18:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not Google is an article content essay about notability and linkspam, it has nothing to say about redirects. There is no policy or guideline I'm aware of that precludes redirects from key descriptive phrases to article content, especially ones that the internal search engine completely fails with. We don't need every form, but the existence of this redirect means that searches for similar phrases produce meaningful results (and it will also help external search engines too). Maybe it's a US/UK thing, but from a British perspective this is absolutely a plausible search term and exactly the sort of search term that we need to have. Thryduulf (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems plausible pbp 12:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 15#King who died with a hot poker up the ass. -- Tavix (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Where it was broadly agreed that this redirect is plausible. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's clearly a popular search term, and for readers without any specialist/academic (etc/) interest, trhis could literally be the single factoid that they remember from their schooldays. And I'm sure we all know how hard an internet search is—when you don't know what it is you're looking for. FWIW, I think something like "King with six wives" is proabbly tighter; I'm not sure how the aforementioned reader will care about their past-participles! But, yes, a redirect of this nature is clearly useful and plausible. ——SerialNumber54129 11:51, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though Henry VIII is undoubtedly the best known king with six wives in the Anglophone world, he's not the only one. I found Tairrdelbach Ua Conchobair of Connacht and Ireland, and Dewa Agung of Bali (wives mentioned at Dutch intervention in Bali (1908)). Ibrahim IV of Kelantan, Sao Kawng Kiao Intaleng, Koinange Wa Mbiyu, and Mananui Te Heuheu Tukino II were also rulers with six wives. I didn't go through all the search results, so there may be others. While I would not go so far as to say the creation of this redirect was disruptive, it certainly seems to have been created to make a point, not organically to meet a real demand, and I believe represented poor judgment. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY: long descriptive phrase that could refer to several monarchs. – Uanfala (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another search-text redirect that, like the others, should be avoided. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:36, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY and WP:NOTGOOGLE. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plausible and obviously potentially helpful. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Novel/arbitrary phrasing, makes it more difficult to find other relevant articles in favor of a Western figure that's very well known and easy to access. --BDD (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it's already pointed out, Henry VIII is not the only monarch who meets the description, making this redirect imprecise. 85.76.10.148 (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. We should not have redirects from snippets of article content, no matter if they are somewhat descriptive of a main or in anyway notorious feature of the article subject. Both because that is a huge Pandora's box... or jar... And because actually the search engine handles it quite well, e.g. I searched for "king six wife" and got "Wives of King Henry VIII" as the 2nd hit. - Nabla (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2019 (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.

Who is an Arab[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 14#Who is an Arab

Body measurements[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 12#Body measurements

The Free Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit[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. --BDD (talk) 03:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What a strange phrase to make a redirect of. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are the same one who keeps complaining about every my redirect, when my redirects are correct. Either you don't pay attention to the logos and the Wikipedia slogan "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", or your IQ is 25. Barracuda41 (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Explain why. Because Wikipedia's main page slogan IS "The Free Encyclopedia that Anyone Can Edit", just go click on the Wikipedia logo at the top left and read it. Barracuda41 (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase in the logo is just "The Free Encyclopedia", without any mention of editing, and I don't think slogans are good redirects unless they are themselves notable.– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the MAIN PAGE, it calls it the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Click on the Wikipedia logo on the top left, then read the top of the main page. Or go to here: Main Page and read it. Barracuda41 (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Barracuda41 is right, this is an upper-casing of the slogan of the encyclopedia. Since I can see no reason to delete the upper casing of the sites slogan, all that's left is to toss a "keep" its way, and hope that common sense is enough to carry this one (and is there a reason to delete it?). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, you're already on Wikipedia so I'm not sure what more is gained from typing in Wikipedia's motto.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an extremely plausible search term for Wikipedia. Remember that using the internal search engine is far from the only method to navigate to Wikipedia content. Some people may also be looking for content specifically about the openess to edit, we don't have a specific section on that as it is spread through the article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is the classic Wikipedia line. I'm not sure it's so well known anymore, but I would think any brief slogan meaningfully associated with a company or organization of note is probably a worthy redirect; I would normally raise an eyebrow at capitalization, but since the first half of the phrase appears capitalized in the upper left, I demur. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2019 (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, The Free Encyclopedia[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. --BDD (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but how is this a useful redirect, with its capital A, and subsequent appositive? Drmies (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For god's sake, the Wikipedia logo has the first and last letters big! Do you even pay attention to Wikipedia logo at the top left? Barracuda41 (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not enough. Wikipedia's logo is "WikipediA" as it is in the top left of every Wikipedia page you are on. Barracuda41 (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You know what the problem might be? The skin. I use monobook (and can't understand why everyone doesn't), which still has the traditional Wikipedia logo ball and slogan at the top left. But I don't think or actually know if some or the other skins have the ball or the slogan. I'm not going to look right now, and like monobook just fine. If they've lost them in other skins then the day that happened was a sad day for Wikipedia (or, as some purists may call it, WikipediA). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Barracuda41, and lal (laughing a little) at they're frustration at having to point out the obvious through another deletion nomination. Yes, this is how WikipediA is written on the logo. So I'd think it would have common sense standing as a redirect as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Randy Kryn. I, too, find it amusing to see Barracuda41 helplessly trying to explain the rather obvious rationale for this one. lmao –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it's all in the skin (as nudists would point out). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]
    What do you mean by nudist? Barracuda41 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]
    @Barracuda41 and Randy Kryn: I use vector ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Barracuda, it's a pun I believe, but this is getting off-topic. Therefore, I am making this text a wee bit smaller. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The entire logo is capitalized, and this is an implausible search term. I've added a second redirect of the same character. — the Man in Question (in question) 03:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The logo is in smallcaps. For it to actually make sense, it would have to be like WɪᴋɪᴘᴇᴅɪA, which it isn't. Unnecessary.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: Some fonts are written in smallcaps though, and translate would likely translate to WikipediA; so I don't agree. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; if we're relying on the logo, why is there a comma? This precise combination of characters is not plausible. Nyttend (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Barracude41. This is how Wikipedia is styled in the Logo, and WikipediA is also how the article was rendered in CamelCase. I'm rather surprised to be honest that something this obviously useful is getting delete votes. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thryduulf, I'm surprised that no one saw fit to explain some basic rules of engagement to Barracuda41. Drmies (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Drmies: Barracuda41's reply to the nomination could be a little better phrased, but other than that I don't see any problems with their engagement here and I see no reason at all to revise my opinion here or to reduce the weight attributed to their opinion. I've seen significantly worse behaviour at RfD from editors who very much should know better without being told. Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whatever, Thryduulf. And "your IQ is 25" is fine also, I'm sure. You're bullshitting, but hey. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Drmies: you will not that statement was part of the comment I explicitly did not approve of, but regardless I have just removed a whole host of personal attacks in a comment they made after mine (and yours) - that is very much not acceptable. This does not change my opinion about the redirect though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thryduulf, thanks--but let me just point out that I wasn't trying to sway your opinion. You're a sensible person, and it is entirely possible you're entirely right since, I think, you know more about this place than me. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Without prejudice to the rest of your comment, the camelcase form from 2001 was actually WikiPedia. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[Personal attack removed] Why did you write a cuss word on Wikipedia? What was your point of that? [Personal attack removed] How could you report two innocent redirects, then cuss at a valid point I made about [personal attack removed] you? [Personal attack removed]. [Personal attack removed]. Barracuda41 (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks by Barracuda41 against Drmies removed by Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2019 (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.

SAMSUNG PL20,PL21 / VLUU PL20,PL21[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 12#SAMSUNG PL20,PL21 / VLUU PL20,PL21

Church of Milan[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 Milan#Religion. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milan has many churches, this is way too vague. Given the amount of work required to create a good disambiguation for this, and the total lack of use for this redirect, I think it's best of deleted. signed, Rosguill talk 15:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2019 (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.

Articlespace[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. --BDD (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not mentioned in the target, as a synonym or otherwise. Appears to have been created in error. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2019 (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.

Mr. Donald John Trump[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 12#Mr. Donald John Trump

Forms of Digivolution[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 12#Forms of Digivolution

DNA digivolution[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. --BDD (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft term not mentioned in the article. Also possibly confusing to people searching for DNA articles? ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:23, 2 August 2019 (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.

Digimans[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. --BDD (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Created by a banned vandal, clearly a meme redirect and not plausible. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:21, 2 August 2019 (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 digimon[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 12#The digimon

Wikipedia:RE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 12#Wikipedia:RE

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_2&oldid=911449971"