Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 28, 2019.

Mike Murchison[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) 18:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No mention at the target, appears to be promotional. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 21:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Redirects to lists liked this really must have a mention. Shhhnotsoloud (talk)
  • Delete per nom, as unhelpful without a mention at the target list, which is restricted to notable entrepreneurs. Even if Murchison is notable, a red link is preferable to encourage article creation. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:15, 30 November 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.

List of nonhuman mutilations[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) 18:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An extremely odd and unlikely search term and a poor fit for the target. The discretionary invasive procedures described at the target are denounced as "mutilation" by advocacy groups, but this is not common usage. I would suggest deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 21:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a plausible search term. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cwmhiraeth. Even if the procedures described at the target are mutilations, it would be far from a comprehensive overview of all the times non-humans have been (notably) mutilated by humans let alone by other non-humans. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Rosguill & Cwmhiraeth. DferDaisy (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Cavalryman (talk) 09:25, 5 December 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.

Large Dead Bird Day[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) 18:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy thanksgiving to my fellow Americans! This is not a plausible synonym for Thanksgiving and may have been created as a joke. -- Tavix (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This redirect is clearly unencyclopedic and unnecessary. Happy thanksgiving! CycloneYoris talk! 17:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Created fifteen years ago by an anonymous editor who only edited Wikipedia for a couple of hours. No incoming links. JIP | Talk 08:38, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a plausible search term. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The only use of this exact phrase outside Wikipedia I can find is in a Facebook comment, otherwise written in Brazilian Portuguese, about an event in a town in India held on 2 June. Whatever that is or was it isn't the subject of the target article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above discussion. There does not appear to be any coverage on this phrase being connected with Thanksgiving. I completely agree with Thryduulf. Aoba47 (talk) 00:40, 30 November 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.

Marti Ahtisaari[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. --BDD (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article originally created by User:PaxEquilibrium as a thinly veiled personal attack towards Martti Ahtisaari on 2 September 2006, changed into a redirect by me five days later. The redirect originally had three incoming links from articles, I've fixed the spelling on all of them, so currently there are none. Delete as an implausible search term without incoming links, and to hide the personal attack. JIP | Talk 16:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the redirect has existed for 13 years (hence WP:R#K4) and as the misspelling itself occurs extremely frequently in the real world (316 Google News hits, dozens of Google books hits; WP:R#K2). You can try asking for WP:REVDEL of the problematic revision if you want. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per anon. The fact that the nom needed to orphan the redirect lends credence to the argument that it's a plausible redirect. Note: I tagged this as a {{r from misspelling}}. - Eureka Lott 16:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per anon and EurekaLott. The redirect can also be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}} if appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't call the title non-neutral, only the former content. Geolodus (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Plausible misspelling. I don't think the attack is severe enough to need hiding; even if it does, revision deletion is the proper way to do that. Geolodus (talk) 13:43, 30 November 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.

Alkine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 December 11#Alkine

We apologize for the inconvenience[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) 18:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not a HGTTG-only term, more like a generic term. Should either be deleted per WP:SURPRISE or directed somewhere else. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; certainly a phrase associated with HHGG, but in no way exclusive to it - I doubt the joke in fiction would work in the first place were it not a familiar phrase. An odd thing to search for, but it would be highly questionable to assume anyone searching for it is expecting to end up at this target. ~ mazca talk 00:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. The association of thgis phrase with HHGG is funny, but hasn't really passed the test of time. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mazca. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mazca and Thryduulf above. This should be without prejudice, of course, to the creation of a potential dab page. If someone wants to identify two or more dab listings, I'd support that over "delete." --Doug Mehus T·C 17:04, 5 December 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.

I forbid[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) 13:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing. The act of forbidding implies a prohibition, not necessarily a veto. Currently, Forbid redirects to Forbidden, a disambiguation page with links to Wiktionary. However, the declarative (or exclamatory) statement "I forbid" is an unlikely search term (less than 10 page views this year) and has little relevance to the items listed at the disambiguation page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete- the first sentence of Veto says that it's literally the latin word for "I forbid", but your point about the low page views and inconsistency with the other similar redirects is pretty convincing. Reyk YO! 15:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. My first instinct was an obvious keep, because this is the literal translation of "veto", and students of Roman history might look there if they've seen it in translation. But the minuscule number of pageviews suggests that it's not a likely search term; I suspect most, if not all of them arise from readers who came across the redirect without any clear expectation of where it would lead. P Aculeius (talk) 11:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While it's clearly not a very likely search term, it's a direct translation that wouldn't refer to anything else. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD. PrussianOwl (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I'm agreeing with the nom, and subsequent contributors: Veto, Forbidden, Prohibition. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Surprised this has any keeps. I don't think anyone is going to search for the English translation of the Latin word for the equivalent of Veto.Doug Mehus T·C 02:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{R from other language|la}}. "Forbid" itself is rather old English, but for example modern German "Verboten", forbidden, you can see the Germanic etymology. It is first person singular etc etc. but I think is a useful keepsake, and to suggest deletion is a little de trop, 92.249.211.78 (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Veto is to be created] at Latin Wikipedia, so I think this is the best we can do rather than an XNR. 92.249.211.78 (talk) 00:27, 1 December 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.

Primitive Korean peninsula language[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. After so many relists, this is the only other reasonable outcome. I could've fairly called "no consensus", but no one supports the status quo. There seems to be significant disagreement on what this language was, and thus no consensus to point it anywhere. This close is without prejudice to speedy restoration of the content to move it (back) to draft space. If you're interested in working on it there, I'd be happy to help. Just leave me a message. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this redirection is incorrect. Kim Bang-han proposed that primitive Korean peninsula language looks like paleoasian language. However, many linguists now believe that peninsular Japonic were formerly spoken in central and southern parts of the Korean peninsula. Furthermore, It was hypothesized that Proto-Koreanic language is a kind of paleosiberian languages(=paleoasian language). Sugyoin (talk) 05:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Typically, redirects for titles that don't have their own articles should go to whichever article covers those topics in the most detail. "Primitive Korean peninsula language" looks more like it refers to the ancestor of modern Korean rather than a hypothetical ancestor (cousin?) of modern Japanese that was once spoken on the Korean Peninsula. If you want to create a properly sourced article discussing the topic of early languages speculated to have once been spoken on the Korean Peninsula at the title, you are theoretically free to do so, but RFD is unlikely to help with that process. More likely, people will look at the wording of your proposal and oppose any change to the status quo because of the fact that Paleosiberian languages#Other languages currently appears to be the most appropriate redirect target. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. See a Korean articles in some encyclopedia. "Primitive Korean peninsula language"(원시한반도어) means non-Koreanic languages that was once spoken on the Korean Peninsula. --Sugyoin (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we should not restore it to an article, I think that the best target is Peninsular Japonic. --Sugyoin (talk) 05:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sugyoin: Ah, okay. I see now (now that you used the wording "restore it to an article") that you are not arguing for the redirect to be deleted/retargeted (as most RFDs are) but actually had created an article at that page and now want it restored. That was not at all clear to me up to this point. I suggest you withdraw this suggestion, rework it in your user space to be more clear as to what exactly you are proposing, and then repost it when it is ready. I'd be happy to assist you in doing so, if you'd like? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Elmidae who merged the content of this former article into the target. If Peninsular Japonic is a better target then any content should be re-merged there. PC78 (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern was that the article is too short and weakly sourced to stand on its own, and the content would be more usefully integrated into a larger overview. No objections to merging to Peninsular Japonic instead. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Koreanic languages. Useful search term and this target has information on the common ancestor of contemporary Koreanic languages. Wug·a·po·des​ 20:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Given that there is no scholarly consensus about what language family this belongs to, it doesn't seem like a good idea to point this search term either to Koreanic or Japonic. Paleosiberian languages is a slightly better target since that's just an areal grouping, but not even the most extensive definitions of "Siberia" include the Korean peninsula.59.149.124.29 (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify per 59.149 above. Thryduulf (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose that "Retarget to a paragraph of History of Korean". Primitive Korean peninsula language is not Korean language. However it was used in Korea and left some influence to Korean language. --Sugyoin (talk) 04:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sugyoin, what do you think of the proposal to take the article you had written and move it into draft space for further work? Retargeting to History of Korean strikes me as a bad idea, since it's not discussed there. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since I'm not certain if the "draftify" commenters noticed that this redirect is a {{R from merge}}.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The redirect is an awkward-sounding title that a non-native English speaker would not use. Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:07, 28 November 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.

Applied Cryptography[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 Books on cryptography#Significant books. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only mainspace backlinks are references to the book by Schneier, whereas this unlikely-to-be-used redirect simply targets the broader topic. LFaraone 13:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Useful search term and obvious subtopic of cryptography. Little used doesn't mean useless. Wug·a·po·des​ 16:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm also fine with BDD's suggestion below, especially since it maintains the parallelism. @Thryduulf: do you have an opinion on that suggestion? Wug·a·po·des​ 06:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one and Practical Cryptography could go to Cryptography, Books on cryptography or Bruce Schneier. So which one? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say cryptography but I also don't know the topic well. If I typed in "Applied cryptography" and got Bruce Schneier or Books on cryptography then I would be confused. If I got cryptography I would think applied crypto is a subtopic. Wug·a·po·des​ 03:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I also don't know this topic area, but like Wugapodes I think the current target would be the least surprising. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine target to Books on cryptography#Significant books, where it's listed. Since this one has a single author, it's a bit of a toss-up between this and retargeting to his article. I favor keeping to maintain the parallelism with Practical Cryptography below, but wouldn't oppose retargeting to Bruce Schneier. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow further discussion since a retargeting option has been presented.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:07, 28 November 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.

Chokolade[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) 14:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

A WP:FORRED redirect that is not mentioned in the target article, nor does the target have affinity with the language which the redirect is in. Steel1943 (talk) 06:58, 28 November 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.

Wine merchant[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 to delete. There seems to be agreement that there should be more content on the subject of the sale of wine, but not much agreement as to what to do with this redirect in the meantime. Some good suggestions have been proposed, but there's enough appetite for keeping as-is that I'll leave the status quo in place. Of course, feel free to resolve this issue once and for all with an article and you will have at least one grateful editor. -- Tavix (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this redirection to be deleted, and a new article created (or just redlinked, for now) for wine merchant. Winemakers make wine, wine merchants sell wine; the distinction is similar to shoe maker vs. shoe seller, etc. Case in point: I was editing an article on a Swedish wine merchant, and wanted to link to an article on wine merchants, but this redirect would have resulted in the one on winemaking, which would be confusing as not much wine is made in Sweden. There is a section in the winemaker article on négociants which blurs the distinction somewhat, but IMO that could be moved to the new wine merchant article, or at least replicated in salient parts. DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleGrazing, please do go ahead and create a new stub article (or more) for Wine merchant as far as I am concerned. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Vintner → Winemaker § Vintner, which starts "A vintner is a wine merchant" (two separate links). In the absence of a new article, perhaps this redirect should be refined to that section likewise. 94.21.219.224 (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea, but Winemaker#Négociant starts similarly, "A négociant is ... a wine merchant who ...". -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bit of a note to myself to follow up on, but leaving it here in case someone else wants to take action: Wine store redirects to Enoteca, which says it's actually about "a special type of... wine shop". Wine shop redirects to Liquor store, a broader topic (and thus more appropriate IMO). I leave this here because I would expect "Wine merchant" to go to an article about the sale of wine. I would be surprised if we could say enough about the profession of wine merchant to warrant a separate article, though I agree that the redirect as it stands is misleading. --BDD (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A separate article may not be warranted for profession itself (although, see Category:Sales occupations) but one could definitely be written about wine sales (or the wine industry more broadly). For now, I'll add Wine#Professions as another potential target, though if anyone can demonstrate that the profession itself merits an article, I would support deleting per WP:REDLINK. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (1st choice) or Soft keep with explanatory hatnote as an interim solution [see below] (2nd choice) As targeted currently, this is misleading. A "wine merchant" is typically a wine retailer or, sometimes, a wine wholesaler. A winemaker can also sell his or her own wines, but then they have two roles. Could be a good reason to delete to encourage article creation (i.e., redlinks), as well. --Doug Mehus T·C 20:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This appears misleading at first, but as I've looked into it and considered comments here, I don't think there's anything wrong with the status quo per se. We have vintners and négociants covered at the target article, so I think we have enough to satisfy readers to a certain extent. It does seem a bit like the Winemaker article really wants to be the Wine professions article, though. A standalone article on wine merchants would be great, and maybe splitting content out from Winemaker is the way to start that. All of that can be accomplished via regular editorial work, so my "keep" vote here doesn't mean "change nothing". --BDD (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BDD, I would also support a soft keep with a hatnote (not necessarily to another article, but for clarity) as an interim solution until an obvious dab page presents itself or we split out Winemaker. Good argument. Doug Mehus T·C 20:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wug·a·po·des​ 06:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'. I have a feeling this is very British, in its meaning as off licence, which itself redirects to liquor store. I think various chains of UK off licences (and even that varies, between Scotland and England and Wales) would advertise as "Wine Merchants" so it is a bit colloquial, but would be hard to source secondary. Taylor's Independent wine merchants, for example (https://www.facebook.com/TaylorsFineWine/ here on Facebbook} but the problem there is they actually sell wine and nothing else, whereas usually it just means anywhere you can buy booze, and so Wikipedia is at odds with reality. WP:ENGVAR is no help to us here, I feel. fWino]] is a DAB at which Alcoholism is just a "eee also", where I would think that is WP:RPRIMARY. Wikpedia I do feel has a bias against the last moral sin, drink.I'm a licenced victualler so of course I am biased,. 92.249.211.78 (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Enoteca. A "wine merchant", as the phrase is used in England, often offers tasting and seating (if they have a physical shop), which makes them functionally the same as an enoteca. Deryck C. 18:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can refer to any of the above, or even things like a winery or a liquor store. Given the many possible meanings, and no real consensus as to which is most appropriate, it's too vague to be useful. Smartyllama (talk) 01:10, 3 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_28&oldid=930437059"