Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 21, 2020.

Waggery[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) CycloneYoris talk! 00:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer needed. Wikipedia says the page is an article while it is actually a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Sysages (talk | contribs) 22:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Soft redirects to wiktionary are perfectly legitimate. There's no better target, and no policy reason to delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a perfectly standard soft redirect to Wiktionary that explicitly states "Wikipedia does not currently have an article on Waggery". If there is an issue with the presentation of soft redirects then that should be discussed at a central location as it will affect all such soft redirects. If there is some other place where this specific redirect is called an article, then it needs to be changed there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2020 (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.

Blaine City Center, Washington[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 most. There appears to be a consensus to delete Blaine, with the rest ranging from full keep to no consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 03:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per criteria 8, as an obscure synonym only linked in deprecated uses of {{jct}} in route junction lists, these should be deleted for housekeeping. All uses have already been replaced with appropriate piped links. SounderBruce 00:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't think that these can be said to be obscure synonyms at all. Given that they've been around well over a decade and link to articles that contain information on the exact search term it all adds up to them being rather useful. Thryduulf (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In Australia (probably other places including potentially Washington state for all I know) it's common to refer to what Americans might call downtown as "city centre/center", however I'll note that no redirects like Seattle city center, Seattle city centre, Tacoma city center, Tacoma city centre exist (the other cities probably need the state disambiguation anyway). Weak keep Seattle, and Weak retarget Tacoma City Center, Washington to Downtown, Tacoma, Washington for this reason. Probably delete the rest unless someone has a reason to keep them. A7V2 (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Downtown is far more common. "City Center" is almost exclusively used in road signage, hence why these were created in the first place (to conform with WP:RJL). SounderBruce 16:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • But if "City Center" is used (even if not commonly, we are talking about redirects not article titles!) what good is deleting the redirects? Especially if they actually appear on signs then they are definitely plausible search terms. A7V2 (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • The signs themselves just say "City Center", without the placenames. It's highly unlikely that people concerned with smaller cities in Washington would use "city center" instead of "downtown" in their searches. SounderBruce 07:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there evidence that any of these cities' downtowns are officially or colloquially known as "FOO city center"? The phrase "city center" is only used in Downtown Seattle, and even then it's only as a comparison to other cities on the west coast. Most of the targets more or less describe the downtown (although Blaine, Washington does not, so I'm a solid delete for that one), which seems to be fine if someone is simply trying to find information on the center of the city a/k/a downtown. -- Tavix (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most as plausible search term/synonym, retarget to downtown articles if that's a separate article. Delete Ferndale and Blaine as these are too small to have much of a downtown/center. (t · c) buidhe 08:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "City center" is a valid synonym for downtown, but we need some discussion of a city's downtown for these to make sense.
    Delete Blaine
    Keep Everett, refining to Everett, Washington#Downtown
    Keep Ferndale and Olympia (semi-weak, but they're pictured in the infoboxes and mentioned again in the article)
    Keep Seattle, a straightforward synonym given the dedicated downtown article
    Retarget Tacoma to Downtown, Tacoma, Washington
That amounts to "keep most". --BDD (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2020 (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.

Kachipaka / MaildeQuest[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) 19:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both redirects were removed in this edit: Special:Diff/375186610, and it looks like they were not suitable to either the current list, or being moved into List of Enix home computer games. They were only valid for 2 years before the content was removed. Recommend deletion, otherwise remove section link and tag {{R without mention}}. -- 2pou (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2020 (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.

Espa'ol[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. This is clearly a redirect that has a rational reason for creation, but also has a significant likelihood of crowding search results. Combining that with its low but non-zero pageview statistic seems to lead to a level of disagreement on where the balance between "useful" and "harmful" lies, but the clear majority of users conclude it's doing more harm than good. ~ mazca talk 21:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article. I suggest deletion. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 12:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Very implausible indeed; the apostrophe may be a bad attempt at 'ñ'. Narky Blert (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Soumya-8974: @Narky Blert: The misspelling came from http://web.archive.org/web/20080308220307/http://www.jsmortonhs.com/schools/default.asp?c=4881 an American school district. Indeed seems to be a failure to use the ñ. I had noted the URL so people would know where it came from. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep WhisperToMe (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • We should keep a spelling mistake because it's in a blog? Narky Blert (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • We should keep a the redirect because it demonstrably helps readers find the article they are looking for. Why they are looking for it using this search term is not really relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Narky Blert: This is not a blog. It's an official webpage of a school district (local government), J. Sterling Morton High School District 201. In the US school districts collect taxation, are governed by elected boards, and build and operate schools (they also directly hire teachers). I created "Espa'ol" because a local government webpage made the misspelling (while attempting to provide information to Spanish-speaking parents), therefore making it plausible. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WhisperToMe and the ongoing page views, this is clearly a useful redirect. Breaking the incoming link will not benefit us or them. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Devokewater (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a harmless redirect – and as said above, it's harmful to delete being an existent keyboard misnomer. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 06:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This very likely arose through the original document application using a character encoding that your browser doesn't understand. it's not a spelling error, it's not an abbreviation, it's just a marker for a missing character that in other contexts a question mark might be used. On that basis we could create similar redirects for every title that uses any kind of diacritic with multiple versions for different placeholders that might be used (', ?, space etc). The webpage on which it appeared is no longer live (edit: and the current page renders it correctly so it is not an ongoing problem), and I have no idea what these "ongoing page views" are all about; there are, in fact no page views on most days, a remarkable achievement for any page since bot activity will usually cause half a dozen or so per day on even the most obscure page. The highest views of all time occured at the beginning of this XFD when it achieved the enourmous total of six. SpinningSpark 16:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The page view statistics show only human views by default, you have to explicitly choose to look at bot and spider activity. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's still mostly zero, whatever the settings. SpinningSpark 21:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Spinningspark: regardless of any views (there's just one every ten days or so), this redirect isn't helpful (it's apparently an artefact of displaying non-ASCII text on old devices, and it's not even among the most common type of such artefacts), and it's potentially harmful (starts with a common string of letters and so probably crowds out more relevant search results). – Uanfala (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SpinningSpark, minimal pageviews. --BDD (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2020 (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.

Age-structured homosexuality[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 29#Age-structured homosexuality

Wikipedia:LOCK[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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Often times I have seen new users call protected pages locked pages due to the padlocks being a symbol of locks. New users who look up this might find the wrong information 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2020 (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.

Music designer[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) 19:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a synonym. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A search for uses of the phrase on enwiki shows that it is ambiguous, so in this case the redirect may cause confusion, and Search is better. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2020 (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.

UTS Leichhardt Wanderers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 29#UTS Leichhardt Wanderers

23:59[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 24-hour clock#Midnight 00:00 and 24:00. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a user more likely to want 24-hour clock#Midnight 00:00 and 24:00 than the 2006 Christian progressive doom metal album? See also 00:01 below. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom, but hatnote at the section for the album. Hog Farm Bacon 19:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 24-hour clock#Midnight 00:00 and 24:00 per nom and add a hatnote there to other stuff with that title per Hog Farm above me. This album doesn't have an article (nor do most of Veni Domine's albums, which have redlinks at the band's page), not even at 23:59 (album). Regards, SONIC678 19:37, 21 July 2020 (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.

00.01[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 28#00.01

Coronavirus disease 2015, etc.[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 as WP:R3 and as a clear consensus here. Primefac (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading and implausible. Spicy (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Misleading and implausible. Hog Farm Bacon 17:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the links is relevant and no reason why they were needed to begin with. MartinezMD (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all (especially the 2016 and 2017 ones), I couldn't find any notable coronavirus diseases on Coronavirus that first came to public knowledge within those years. Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreaks did happen in 2015 and 2018, but I'm not 100% sure we should retarget the 2015 and 2018 ones there, because I don't really think the disease was really known by those names. Regards, SONIC678 19:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't understand the reason for them at all. If these were real things, they wouldn't redirect to this article. Since there's no plausible target, they should be deleted. Guettarda (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, possibly qualify for CSD G3 (Blatant hoax). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:56, 22 July 2020 (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.

Twilight Hack[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) 19:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 22#Twilight hack * Pppery * it has begun... 16:22, 21 July 2020 (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.

Platycorynus marginalis luluensi[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) 19:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both Delete. Both are typos of the latter titles, which are now redirects to Platycorynus marginalis and Pseudocolaspis cupreofemorata respectively (as of today). These redirects were created as a result of past page move requests of mine in WP:RM/TR. Normally I would have fixed these double redirects, but because of what I just said I don't think they are needed in the first place. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:33, 21 July 2020 (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.

WikiVisually[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) 19:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a Wikipedia mirror. Since it's completely separate from Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, it's misleading to redirect it to the Wikipedia article. Hog Farm Bacon 04:57, 21 July 2020 (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.

Microshaft[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 Microshaft Winblows 98. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, and doesn't seem to be used to commonly refer to Microsoft itself. A Google search mostly brings up Microshaft Winblows 98, but I'm not sure if it's a significant partial term mention to be worth redirecting there. Hog Farm Bacon 02:50, 21 July 2020 (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 Great Twitter hack[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) 19:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-specific title, this term doesn't seem to have gotten very wide use in the media and this redirect has only gotten one hit since its creation. Nathan2055talk - contribs 02:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Additionally, that one pageview occurred on the day the redirect was created, so it's likely that pageview was the creation of the redirect. OcelotCreeper (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created the redirect after seeing one of the sources which I can't remember had coined the phrase "The Great Twitter hack" which triggered me to create. Apparently that one page view should have been from my side. Apologise for that and I vow to agree for its deletion. Abishe (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons noted above. --ZimZalaBim talk 17:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The Financial Times and India Today both referred to it as such. 150.203.2.217 (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a phrase any RS use. There's one result for it, the FT article the IP linked above, which is an opinion piece. It's hyperbolic. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The name "The Great Twitter Hack" is sensational and sounds like something a tabloid would use. If RS don't use the phrase, then we shouldn't either. SuperGoose007 (Honk!) 02:55, 25 July 2020 (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.

Boolywood actor Raj Kiran[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. signed, Rosguill talk 01:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible misspelling of "Bollywood". CycloneYoris talk! 00:35, 21 July 2020 (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.

Cherry Pie Productions[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. signed, Rosguill talk 01:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find no evidence of any relationship between Alex Gansa and any entity called Cherry Pie Productions. R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Homeland (TV series), of which Gansa is a creator/producer. It is not clear that Cherry is his production studio. WorldCat AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC) updated 00:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Homeland is only one thing they've done (eg Wolf Lake), and if there's no article then Search is a better option. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shhhnotsoloud, but i think he meant to say Homeland is not the only thing they've done. -2pou (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. Lean delete then. It's not likely to make for a stub article considering there seems to be no news articles about the company. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:22, 21 July 2020 (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.

Deep vein thrombosis in lower limb (NOS)[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) 19:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessarily specific redirect that is unlikely by itself to be a search target Tom (LT) (talk) 06:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this seems to be a specific diagnosis (NOS means not otherwise specified) and with over 200 page views last year it clearly is a useful search term. Someone searching for information on this is going to be helped far more by reaching the current target than by a red link. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. It's a disease classification in WHO's ICD-10. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too specific, the article does not cover this exact diagnosis with the NOS. -- Tavix (talk) 01:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think this is overly specific, NOS just means "not otherwise specified" so redirecting to an article about the general topic seems appropriate. Spicy (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, as I understand it speicifying "(NOS)" is equivalent to a Wikipedian linking to Mars (planet) rather than Mars - a way to unambiguously indicate you intend the unqualified primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not at all equivalent. The Mars article clearly defines that Mars is a planet, and the disambiguator is used likewise. For this term to be "equivalent", NOS would have to be what "Deep vein thrombosis in lower limb" is, which is not the case. In fact, NOS/not otherwise specified isn't even defined or used in the target article! -- Tavix (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Think of it then like "Mars (primary topic)" because that's what "NOS" means. If a medical professional is looking up "Deep vein thrombosis in lower limb (NOS)" they'll get exactly what they were looking for. If someone doesn't know what "(NOS)" means they can look up "NOS" just as they could if they didn't know what any other disambiguator means. There is no possibility of a separate article about this specific search term being created because it would be a duplicate of the current target. The likelihood of "(NOS)" being mentioned at the target is very low because it would just mean unnecessarily duplicating much of the Not otherwise specified article on every disease/illness page that is or could plausibly be diagnosed as "(NOS)". The choice we have is whether we accept this and take people to the article about the condition the are looking for directly or stick rigidly and pedantically to arbitrary rules and force readers to jump through several unnecessary hoops? I know which option improves the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • How is "(NOS)" a primary topic? What other uses does it disambiguate against? Where are these other topics discussed? It is misleading to redirect someone somewhere that does not define the term being asked. Therefore, deletion is the option that improves the Wikipedia because it removes the problematic redirect from being misleading moving forward. -- Tavix (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2020 (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.

Neopronoun[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 28#Neopronoun

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_21&oldid=970366328"