Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 23, 2018.

Franke Abignale[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. It's Mr. Abagnale, not Abagnail, not Abignali, but Abagnale! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible combination of typos. 47 pageviews last year, 3 GHits. Note that Frank Abignale does exist as a redirect to this target.  — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete implausible typo. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 11 years old. We are advised to consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones. and in this case the redirect is exceeding old. Moreover it has been useful to many people, as cited by OP. It is by no means an implausible typo, since pronunciation of vowels varies widely, and names beginning with "Abig" are widespread. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks, I missed that. I agree then that it is implausible, but my opposition to deleting an 11 year old harmless redirect still stands. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom multiple typos making it implausible. Reconsider only if he used Franke Abagnale as an alias for one of his fraud schemes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Punjabi wedding songs[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 Punjabi wedding traditions#Important wedding songs. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:My Lord proposed this page for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punjabi wedding songs stating "Punjab is shared Between India and Pakistan. While GeoffreyT2000 made a biased redirect to Pakistani Wedding songs. It's recommended to delete this redirect." I'm bringing the discussion here where it belongs. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Car TC[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. There's no indication that any suggested target is known as "Car TC", and the majority is in favor of deletion anyway. -- Tavix (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this redirect is vague, and apparently, not used in practice to refer to its target. In addition, most results on third-party search engines for this term return results for Scion tC. Steel1943 (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I couldn't even figure out what TC referred to without knowing the target page. Natureium (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's kinda the point with a lot of redirects from abbreviations. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned in article and vague. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - add targets Transport Canada#Aviation (CARs) and Traction control system. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Dab per Rich, seems reasonable. Although I don't think traffic collision is a useful target, but content of the dab is for a different day. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not convinced that either of the topics suggested for disambiguation would be referred to as "Car TC", and I think we're all in agreement that we don't want the redirect as is. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Any other person[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The connection between the redirect and the target is unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Other Red[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what this redirect is meant to identify as the phrase "other red" is not located in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • History is your friend. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    • Instead of responding in such a smug way, maybe consider the part in the former article stub where it says "Despite the similar name, it is in no way related to Product Red.". Therefore I vote Delete as a non-notable organization.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete used mainly to group any other red wines. No particular brands called Other Red or the Other Red. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Other planets[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:35, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is vague since it is unclear what "other" is meant to exclude. The target is about planets outside our solar system, but that is not clarified in the title of the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steel1943 and other interested parties. Rather than talk of the vagueness of the term I would like to look at the usage of the term "other planets" on WP. A search for "other planets" yields 100+ candidates for the redirect to be applied (on google there are "About 4,580,000 results") These 100+ could be divided into 3 categories, in order of frequency:

  • most are to Solar System planets
  • some to Exoplanets
  • some to music, Sci-fi and titles of docos etc, often capitalised.

The first 2 would merit usage of the redirect. The second seems to me to be the better redirect destination as Exoplanets are a growing field, and the article mentions Solar System planets in the header. I suggest a hatnote to Exoplanets referring to the redirect.

"Other planets in the Solar System" could also be redirected, more securely in that case to say Outline of the Solar System#Regions and celestial objects of the Solar System. DadaNeem (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I like DadaNeem's analysis. I think a reader searching for "other planets" might well mean "planets other than in the solar system" and if that's not what the reader wants s/he'll find "solar system" in the first sentence. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per DadaNeem All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Overly vague, someone could be searching for planets inside or outside the solar system. If not deleted, it needs to be a disambiguation page.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

McCaul Street[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 McCaul Loop. History is there if someone wants to prove notability and restore old content ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned at target, but not identified. Also, per the article, the road identified in this redirect probably runs "north-south". Steel1943 (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is north to south, but List of north–south roads in Toronto doesn't seem to list it. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't seem to be that important of a street, really. Probably the most notable thing about the street is the McCaul Loop, a streetcar turnaround on it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget or Restore Either retarget to McCaul Loop or restore this version of the page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of other notable roads in Toronto[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 below, between "other" and "notable" seems unlikely. Not a lot of interest in retaining. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "other" is vague and unclear, as well as a potential circular reference to this redirect's target. Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • FYI, this redirect is the result of a somewhat-recent move/merger. No opinion on it's continuing existence. @SkyWarrior: as the person who did the redirect. - Floydian τ ¢ 19:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no opinion on this redirect's continued existence either. SkyWarrior 17:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not new, and harmless. A result of a rats nest of moves, including this page (which we need to keep for attribution reasons). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Delete - "Other" than what? And what's the criterion for them being "notable"? I agree that it's not really doing harm, I suppose, but I also don't see this as worth keeping either. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were 4 Toronto road articles - List of notable roads in Toronto, a set index article; two articles for north–south/east–west roads; and, one for "other" roads that contained roads that did not follow the city grid. Unfortunately my months of work to do these four articles and redirect countless articles that listed transit routes and places along the roads has been steadily reverted so that we have articles like Brimley Road and Runnymede Road that look as good now as they did a decade ago... which is why I don't give a crap about local streets now. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Phantom trading[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 per X1. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can figure, a phantom trade normally refers to an apparent trade on a stock market that doesn't actually exist. Quote stuffing appears to describe something similar, but it doesn't seem quite the same. What is the best target? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term was used on a 1994 scandal for someone who pretended to have made a trade in order to boost their profits figures. [1]. The "phantom order" term is connected to quote stuffing in which a bunch of bogus orders spam up the network and are then cancelled. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I think it's too vague to be useful. I got some hits similar to nom's (eg: [2] [3]). However, [4] calls a phantom trade a derivative of a carry trade (called "phantom" due to a lack of information, not necessarily that it doesn't exist). Even if "a trade that doesn't exist" is the only definition, I don't think quote stuffing is a good enough target for this (I've seen usage in regards to trading in sports, so it'd have to be broader), and I can't find a better target. -- Tavix (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cameron Cuffe[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. Odd discussion — mostly talked past each other. Don't see a consensus to keep or even discussion about this redirect. There's no history worth preserving here, so Gongshow and AngusWOOF if you want to move the draft to mainspace, now's the time. This will need to be deleted to make room for the draft anyway, so let's just be rid of it and get the draft in there. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actor articles should not redirect to a singular piece of their work when they have multiple works. -- AlexTW 10:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and DraftCreate article Krypton is his most notable show. Until he meets WP:ENT, his article should be developed in Draft. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC) updated 17:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't have an article, this is a redirect. Anyone can draft it, but as this is not his only work, it shouldn't redirect to a singular piece of his work, regardless of what his most notable show is. I don't believe actor redirects should exist. -- AlexTW 04:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gongshow has created a draft and there are enough RS on him, mainly from Kyrpton, to meet GNG. The RS's also support some of his other work like with the City of Angels theater work. Let's create the article from there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone searching for this wants information on the actor; they do not want to be directed to a random TV series that they feature in. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unless that series is his most notable work, which it is. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. There is a link to this actor at City of Angels (musical). Do you really think someone clicking on his name would want to visit an article about Krypton? Redirects like this are actively harmful and are routinely deleted. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there are RS to support his other non-Krypton credits, then he's got enough for an article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:27, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The existing coverage strongly suggests that anyone searching for this person is doing so because of his starring role on Krypton, and I thought that a redirect to that series would at least be more helpful to our readers than a redlink. Indeed, it's not an uncommon AfD outcome to redirect actors in this manner when coverage is similarly one-sided. In any event, there does appear to be just enough coverage that touches on Cuffe's overall career to support a standalone article, so I think it's reasonable to allow expansion with information from my sandbox.  gongshow  talk  19:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:1E unless notable enough to have an article, in which case stubify. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
A television series does not qualify as an "event". —Xezbeth (talk) 08:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Runescape Power Leveling[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 31#Runescape Power Leveling

Abyssal Whip[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overly generic, not mentioned in article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rune scimitar[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overly generic, not mentioned in article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Godsword[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 31#Godsword

Corporeal Beast[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:32, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This can refer to almost every fantasy monster ever... little too vague for a redirect. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not mentioned in article, and corporeal could refer to any fantasy (or even science fiction) beast that isn’t a spirit (or energy being). Not to mention real-life animals that could be described as "beasts". LaundryPizza03 (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Runescape/[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. Implausible typo, can muck up search results ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo for a redirect. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per guidance at the top of this page Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:06, 24 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/ per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dwarven Mine[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 Xezbeth, there are plenty of targets; dwarfs in fiction and games mine, and there's no reason this should exist take primary focus. I think it's possible a dab could be created, with such topics as Moria (Middle-earth); after all, they did call it a mine. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very common fictional element, too vague to redirect anywhere. Better to delete. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, far too vague to redirect to a specific game. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I know of no other locations either in fiction or in mainstream gaming called the Dwarven Mine. There is a build spot/build type in a Facebook game called Castle Age. There are no other high ranked hits on Google for this as anything approaching proper noun. If there were it should be a dab page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Please show me in the article where it mentions a "dwarven mine", and why it's considered so notable that it trumps every other fictional iteration of a dwarven mine. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Special Attacks (RuneScape)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A little too game-guidey to keep around as a redirect. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep' it's a redirect, not content. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 14:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this isn't necessary. Special Attacks are available on all sorts of video games, and there's no disambiguating this across different titles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Juggle combo[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. Convinced by the utility of these; the second one may be no consensus-y, but I can see it being useful on a dab or search for "juggle video game" ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article. Gameguidey minutia. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Keep: Redirects to section specifically for this term, so it is mentioned in the article. I'd argue that this is a common term and WP:GAMEGUIDE applicability is a stretch. The second one may be ambiguous and might be reasonably unneeded in light of the more specific title. —Ost (talk) 14:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was recently added by Rich Farmbrough in response to these RFDs. [5] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Juggle combo, delete Juggle (video gaming) The latter is not used in this context of news articles [6] [7] [8] which talk about playing video games with other activities such as juggling. Or just juggling different roles in a video game [9] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Combo (fighting)[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 Striking combination. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that there exist "combos" of moves in real life fighting, making this unsuitable to redirect to a video game. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Super combo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 31#Super combo

Single voltages[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. Erring on the side of delete here, given the Neelix aspect, errors involved, and lack of obvious dab options. Not opposed to someone recreating Single voltage, however, should good dab options exist. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not the only electrical device that can be single voltage, and not all power supplies are single voltage. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sidewheel[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 March 30#Sidewheel

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_March_23&oldid=1036305856"