Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 19, 2017.

Netanyahu (disambiguation)[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 per nom. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Bkonrad (talk · contribs), Netanyahu (disambiguation) should not exist as a redirect to the surname page, whether it is titled Netanyahu or Netanyahu (surname). --Nevé–selbert 23:45, 19 January 2017 (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.

LÖVE[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 Löve. -- Tavix (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausibble redirect. It's redirecting to the game Mario - has no connection to the game, and further, English keyboards do not have omlat's (the diacritic mark over the "O" ) available. May work on the German language wikipedia - but not here. Delete KoshVorlon} 13:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig. LÖVE is a game engine, used by several games not just the one at the current target, so regardless of anything else it would need retargetting. It does have an entry at List of game engines, but it is not linked there perhaps suggesting it is not notable enough for an article (I have no idea, but I'll ping the video games project). However it is also the surname of husband and wife botanists Áskell Löve and Doris Löve. None of these have a current entry at Love (disambiguation) or Love (surname) but I think they possibly should. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've actually tried to remove it from List of game engines in the past but was reverted on basis of some sourcing existing. However it seems to remain non-notable. -- ferret (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People often search for things using copy/paste (ünd the ümlaut is, in fact, quite easily accessible on UK keyboards (spelling errors deliberate there)). LÖVE is mentioned at the target, in the lede, as the framework on which the game was developed - so there clearly is a connection. Unless there's a better target, I see no problem with this redirect. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Or Disambig as per Sminthopsis84, below - I don't know enough about most notable target, but I suspect there isn't an obvious primary one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only reliable sources that appears to mention the "Löve" engine is [1] czar 17:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but that's not needed for a redirect - if it's mentioned in an article then we have some coverage of it, and it can have a redirect/disambig. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it is not worth mentioning in the article and is a minor point to the game altogether. The reference currently in the article is not reliable, and the content would usually be removed with it. Moot point, as it looks like the decision to disambig is the right one here czar 00:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig - the two botanists are major phenomena and they are often referred to in publications by the brief form "Löve". (Although their official abbreviations are "A.Löve" and "D.Löve" respectively, official abbreviations are a new phenomenon that has not been followed in the past.) Since the game was apparently build using the software, it could serve as a third entry in the disambig, a place-holder to be altered if and when the software becomes notable enough to have its own page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as primary topic and a "redirects here", but add hatnote to Love (disambiguation). Add this entry to the dab, as well as the botanists to the Love (surname) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate A web search (RS or not) shows it is searchable term, but whether it is presented in all caps or not is inconsistent. As there is the surname of Löve, a non-notable but reasonable search term should not take priority over real notable persons names. Whether this is a Löve disambiguration page or added to Love's disamb page, I'm not sure (or if both should apply). Either way, this redirect should not be kept as is. --MASEM (t) 22:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the to-be-made disambiguation page. All-caps, especially for shorter phrases, is a reasonable redirect for a normal-caps page, and I don't see how anyone could question that there should be a disambiguation page covering "Löve", either an entire page or a section of another disambiguation page. Just redirect this title to whatever that page is. Nyttend (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2017 (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.

Rock anthem[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 3#Rock anthem

80's Hits[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) 18:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The term "hits" in music is not exclusive to rock music. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete too vague. there are multiple articles that chart music in the 1980s from different countries. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:57, 20 January 2017 (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.

Rock standard[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 Standard (music). Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what this redirect refers to. Unclear and ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Standard (music) which discusses what a standard is and has a further reading to some article about rock standards. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:53, 20 January 2017 (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.

1980 in rock[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) 18:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the redirect is not described/defined in the target article. Also, 1980s in music#Rock would probably be misleading since the year 1980 is not the decade 1980s. Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2017 (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.

Rock, metal and punk[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) 17:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY. Steel1943 (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No notable media title for its own article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely search item and cannot be reliable redirected to any article. Ajf773 (talk) 07:46, 20 January 2017 (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.

The Zap Gun![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 all. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This is another film that's still "in development". The Zap Gun, a novel, exists, but it doesn't appear to be marketed with an exclamation mark. -- Tavix (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. It was a title that was floated around, but there's no information about it, especially at Pink's article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:05, 20 January 2017 (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.

Rockmusic[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 27#Rockmusic

List of US actions since 1945 that have been considered imperialistic[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) 17:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects don't need to be neutral, but they do need to be helpful. Nothing at the target article distinguishes which events are "considered imperialistic", or would qualify as a "Cold War power play" (actually, I was surprised to see no explicit mention of the Cold War there). Additionally, there are plenty of non-military US actions since 1945 that have been considered imperialistic, so we're really not serving readers looking for that topic anyway. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment American imperialism is a possible target for the first redirect. It doesn't contain such a list, and covers a broader time period, but it and the linked articles are broadly helpful. Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both non-neutral and non-specific terms. No such list of actions and whether the full list of U.S. military operations are considered imperialistic or whatever is POV / OR. A military power play term is also not defined. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per AngusWOOF. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - It's one thing to be merely non-neutral. The fundamental problem here is that both redirects use awkward wording. Someone interested in debates about 'American imperialism' will search just that, not typing in the peculiar "that have been considered imperialistic". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2017 (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.

American War[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 5#American War

From-rum merger[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, unopposed. No prejudice against recreation if the term is added and sourced. -- Tavix (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this redirect should be deleted. I have no objection to putting instating this information on any page. However, it seems that this is an original name for a phenomenon. Therefore, we shouldn't recognize as a name used by linguists.LakeKayak (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2017 (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.

Robo-R&B[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 per WP:CSD#G5. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page redirects to Alternative R&B. There is no mention of Robo-R&B on that page. Also, a web search of Robo-R&B does not seem to prove its existence. Kellymoat (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2017 (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.

Queen Elizabeth of England[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous and could refer to Elizabeth II. I'd say retarget the first to Queen Elizabeth#Queens regnant, not sure about others. --Nevé–selbert 23:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is. Elizabeth I is the clear primary topic for this title, although I wouldn't object to adding a hatnote direct to QEII. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget so that 'Queen Elizabeth of England' and 'Queene Elisabeth of England' go to 'Queen Elizabeth#Queens regnant'. I'm not sure on the other ones. 'Elizabeth of England' seems like something that I'd rather we just delete. It doesn't specify anything royal and could refer to any number of people by that name. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems like hair splitting, but I can't imagine something using an archaic spelling like "Queene Elisabeth" would be referring to the current monarch. --BDD (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm fairly sure that there was only the first redirect listed when I made my comment, but my "keep" rationale extends to all except "Queene Elisabeth of England" which is a strong keep per BDD. Thryduulf (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There have been at least three queens of England called Elizabeth, including the late Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother (queen consort 1936-52). Composer Eric Coates wrote the suite The Three Elizabeths about them. Narky Blert (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Elizabeth of England over Elizabeth of England (disambiguation) and redirect the other three there, if these are not used exclusively or primarily for Elizabeth I of England, otherwise keep.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 14:51, 28 January 2017 (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:Moradabad[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 per WP:CSD#G6, cleanup from a page move accidentally made to the wrong namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inadvertantly created redirect due to unintended move from mainspace to projectspace and back to mainspace. Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2017 (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.

Bush Quayle[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 5#Bush Quayle

Wilmo[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. I'll also remove the unsourced nickname from the list. Please readd if a source can be found. -- Tavix (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure whether this should stay redirected to the stub article, or made back into a disambiguation page. A retarget to List of nicknames of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom#Earl of Wilmington would be a third option, but the entry there for "Wilmo" is currently unsourced. --Nevé–selbert 03:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep as is. On Wikipedia the current target is clearly the best, as it is the most referenced Wilmo article. Google search results are all over the place and there is no one notable use that is prominent. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list of prime ministers is tagged for {{original research}} and we are lacking a citation supporting the nickname. The Italian article it:Wilmo Francioni has additional content that could be copied and translated. wbm1058 (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' and remove the hatnote as the nickname does look a bit suspicious and a brief google books search doesn't come up with anything. If this gets sourced at some point, then the dab page could be restored. – Uanfala (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2017 (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.

Holiday tree[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 restore set index article. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget While the target article does discuss the idea of "holiday tree" as a euphemism or alternate name for a Christmas tree, ultimately, a holiday tree is a Christmas tree. The term is used in that article too, and there's a link to the controversy page, so users will still be able to find that information if desired. The correct answer to "What's a holiday tree?" is "It's a Christmas tree." Not "Well, you see, some people say 'holiday tree', and it's part of this controversy..." --BDD (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Christmas_tree#Religious_issues as that is where the term holiday tree, and other tree name alternatives are discussed, including some secularization in the 1930s. A hatnote "see also" to the controversies section may also be useful. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as vague. Deryck C. 11:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Concerned about WP:OR. That seems to assert that there's a category of things called "holiday trees". New Year trees and "Hanukkah bushes" are indeed trees associated with a holiday, but does anyone else talk about an overarching concept of "holiday trees"? The phrase is actually used at Hanukkah bush, but definitely in that same context as a euphemism for a Christmas tree.
    Rather, I still maintain the reality is as follows: there's a thing we call "Christmas tree", notwithstanding its pagan origins. For various reasons, the trees are called different things when there's a desire to deemphasize Christmas, whether in the spirit of inclusion (holiday tree), syncretism (Hanukkah bush), or government pressure (New Year tree). All of those alternate forms, or alternate names, are still discussed at the Christmas tree article, so it's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to this version, and tag as a SIA. I would've guessed the same thing as BDD until I looked into it further. -- Tavix (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - This ought to be a proper article that discusses the concept of various non-Christmas trees used during the holiday season. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2017 (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.

The Billionaires' Tea Party[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'm closing this despite being involved, as I'm the only one not recommending deletion and I feel the three other delete recommendations + the nomination outweigh my weak keep. I don't think a second relisting will result in more arguments in favour of keeping, but if I'm wrong I'll happily restore this and trout myself (just leave a note on my talk page). Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a common phrase, not used in the target article. BDD (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep this gets a large number of hits, up to 8 a day recently, and is the name of a 2011 documentary [2] that a cursory search suggests is probably not notable, so a redlink may encourage the creation of an article we don't want. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise though. 21:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)
  • Weak Delete - Even if this gets some hits, the wording isn't used in the target article at all, and it also doesn't seem to quite make sense. I'd rather we just get rid of it. After all, anyone interested in the 'Tea party protests' will immediately find that from searching. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone searching this specific phrase is more likely than not wanting the 2011 documentary or more information about that phrase. I don't think an overview article on the Tea Party movement would be satisfactory. -- Tavix (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. Deryck C. 11:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2017 (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.

Rock(music)[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) 17:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COSTLY redirect due the lack of a space between the subject name and the disambiguator. Also, Rock (music) exists. Steel1943 (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: there's no need for a redirect merely to correct uncommon punctuation mistakes. DrStrauss talk 09:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete punctuation, and not useful. If someone's going to skip the space on their device they wouldn't bother typing in the parenthesis which is a lot more effort, especially if it's going to redirect to "Rock music" anyway. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely search item due to type of punctuation used. Ajf773 (talk) 07:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteKellymoat (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I created this redirect many years ago as a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery, where any red links that were used in a few articles, I generally fixed the links, and any with more than that I created a redirect. There were still three articles using this redirect, but I just fixed the links and am unopposed to this redirect being deleted. Aspects (talk) 09:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aspects: Thanks for that. I was surprised that this redirect had any incoming links, but then again, surprise do happen here from time to time. Steel1943 (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was curious, the three articles were José José, The Rocket Summer discography, and Popular 1 Magazine. -- Tavix (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2017 (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.

Ben Richardson[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 wrong forum - this is a move request and so should be at Wikipedia:Requested moves per the instructions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A new, clearer disambiguation page now exists. Deleting this redirect page will allow reassignment to the living human Ben Richardson, the filmmaker currently found at Ben Richardson (cinematographer).

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_19&oldid=1146665004"