Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 1, 2018.

IPhone 9[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 is no apparent consensus, but there is general agreement that the current target is bad and each of the proposed targets is also deemed bad by a majority of participants. Those arguing for deletion point to the inherent ambiguity as the main reason for deletion. Weighing up these arguments, deletion is the most plausible outcome. Deryck C. 17:04, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should now be deleted because it is ambiguous, per the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_5#IPhone_9, it could target iPhone XS, iPhone XR, or iPhone X depending on how you look at it. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to iPhone X for the reason it was retargetted there after the last discussion - that is the model released after the iPhone 8. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the iPhone X was released alongside the 8, not after it, so it is not a successor to the 8, targeting there would've made sense before the announcement of the iPhone XS and iPhone XR, but now it is possible they are looking for any of the 3. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not everybody knows that, and assuming that following the model 8 is the model 9 is entirely logical. I'll add a not to be confused with hatnote to the target to resolve any problems about people not finding the correct model they are looking for (whether they get here via this redirect or otherwisE). Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm also happy with targetting the dab page, but it is my second choice. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to iPhone X. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. There is no iPhone 9, but Apple might release one in the future. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 04:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they do then this redirect can be retargetted or overwritten, but at RfD we are concerned with what is best for readers now not in some hypothetical future. Readers are currently best served by a redirect to the product they are most likely looking for - the iPhone X as explained above. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to List of iOS devices#iPhone. There is no such thing as the "iPhone 9", so it's a guessing game to figure out what someone might be wanting. Both the iPhone 8 and iPhone X are eleventh generation iPhones—the X is not the successor to the 8 as Thyduulf incorrectly claims. Maybe they want the ninth generation? iPhone 6S. Maybe they want the model released after 8? iPhone XS or iPhone XR. We can either give someone all the options or none of them. -- Tavix (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If there is uncertainty about which model the visitor is referring to, the redirect could be tetargeted to iPhone#Models or List of iOS devices#iPhone. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 23:39, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of iOS devices#iPhone. The iPhone XR was commonly referred to as "iPhone 9" before it was released, but a case can be made for pointing this to iPhone X as well. So it would be best to let readers choose what they are looking for. feminist (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Incorrect name for several different topics. I'm not crazy about redirecting to the list section without further context; that seems to imply it's a valid name for at least one list item. --BDD (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix and BDD. I don't think there's any possible target that wouldn't be confusing. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to iPhone#Models. It's certainly wrong for XR or XS or X, but it's a reasonable search term given the unconventional naming scheme (the iPhone X is technically the iPhone Ten, after all, and iPhone 2 was the 3G). It'd be easy for someone who isn't a close follower to presume there's an iPhone 9. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:32, 10 October 2018 (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.

Electronegativity-violating redirects[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. None of these pages were tagged, so typically I'd relist procedurally as this is technically an incomplete RfD. However, there has been a fair bit of discussion and the consensus outcome is keep, so there's no harm in closing this as Keep in spite of the process issue. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The names oxygen dihydride implies that the nitrogen/fluorine/…/oxygen is oxidized and the hydrogen is reduced. In reality, nitrogen, fluorine, …, and oxygen are more electronegative than hydrogen, so the hydrogen would be oxidized, and the nitrogen/fluorine/…/oxygen would be reduced, so the nitrogen/fluorine/…/oxygen, not the hydrogen, would get the -ide suffix because that always goes to the element that is reduced. Such a blatant violation of electronegativity would never occur, so I doubt that any of these names would be used in scientific literature besides an explanation of why electronegativity and ionic and polar bonds do not work like that. Also, even if things did work like that, the sulfur hydride page would still be wrong because the proper name would be sulfur dihydride. Also, if anyone finds any similar redirects, and not just with hydrogen (for example chlorine sodide or chlorine natride redirecting to sodium chloride), please add them to the list. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 20:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a question since I last looked at a chemistry textbook 20 years ago: would these be simple or obvious mistakes to make for someone less informed? i.e. NH3 ~= "nitrogen trihydride"? Redirects don't necessarily have to be correct, but would these be useful for finding information? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:39, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: If you mean that people searching might think that nitrogen trihydride and trihydrogen mononitride are the same thing, I doubt that that's likely. If it is, we could make a new section in hydride that explains that hydrogen can only form hydrides with elements that are more electropositive than it because otherwise, the hydrogen would be oxidized, not reduced, and have all of the pages listed redirect to that section. A potential problem is that a different section would have to be made for compounds with a different "reduced" element, like chlorine natride. However, I doubt that reversed-oxidation names are significant enough to merit a page just for them. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 04:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, not quite what I meant. I meant more like a reader seeing NH3, counting "nitrogen and three hydrogens", and coming up with "nitrogen trihydride". It's wrong, but if I'm understanding you correctly nitrogen trihydride is a compound that can't exist, so a reader entering that as a search term is probably just mistaken and actually looking for ammonia. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The solution that I proposed would clarify things to the reader. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 06:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because a name violates the electronegativity order does not mean it is not used; it's certainly not uncommon to hear of fluorine oxide. We should instead be asking whether these names are used, not whether they are correct. These compounds are simple enough (they are likely to be encountered in the first years of school chemistry) that I would favour keeping these redirects. Double sharp (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Double Sharp and the page view statistics that show all of these are terms that are used (very well used in some cases). We should not make it harder for people to find the information they are looking for - the article will correct any misconceptions, misunderstandings or similar the searcher has. Our job is to educate readers, not require them to be educated before they arrive here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The lead, which is typically the first and sometimes the only part of an article that visitors read, of Properties of water does not state which part of a water molecule is partially positive or negative (and readers might not even know that this is what is meant by water being polar), and Properties of water#Polarity and hydrogen bonding does not explain that the partial charges are due to the electrons being closer to the oxygen atom, explain that this is what is meant by the oxygen atom being partially reduced, or explain that the -ide suffix is only given to atoms that are reduced. The lead of Ammonia does not contain any mention to polarity, and Ammonia#Structure states that ammonia is polar but does not do anything to elaborate or state what that means. The article for hydrogen fluoride does not even have the word polar anywhere on the entire page. My point is that the target articles probably won't correct readers' misconceptions about things like what the -ide suffix means and whether or not there's a difference between hydrogen monofluoride and fluorine monohydride. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 06:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Carbon is more electronegative than hydrogen, and even if the difference is relatively small, so small that the bond is practically covalent for some purposes, it would definitely be improper to state or imply that hydrogen is more electronegative than or oxidizes carbon. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 06:09, 8 October 2018 (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.

Data diddling[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 procedural close. This is no longer a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at target.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This makes me think first and foremost of misleading statistics in the sense that is described in 'Misuse of statistics' more than outright fraud, which implies either the deletion of valid data or the creation of false data. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:34, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Cybercrime#Financial fraud crimes. This Government of Canada publication on computer crime (from 1984!) defines data diddling as the act of changing data before entry into a computer system for the (fraudulent, usually financial) benefit of the operator, such as falsifying the amount of a cheque. There are many other websites (law blogs, cybersecurity bulletins, UrbanDB) which define it the same way. We have a more specific article on computer fraud but it doesn't describe this particular criminal activity, and neither does our article on bank fraud. Also, cheque fraud and cheque kiting are not the only forms of this activity. Could be a {{R with possibilities}}. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the definition Ivanvector refers to seems to be well-documented, but the term isn't mentioned at the current target, or at Cybercrime#Financial fraud crimes, or in any other article, so we don't have anything useful to which we can direct the reader who searches for this. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC) Keep the stub now at this location. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:11, 19 September 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) 19:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following up on my comment above, I've drafted a stub for an article below the redirect. The sources describe some real-world occurrences, at least one of which is probably noteworthy for its own section, but I haven't got time at the moment. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge the content that Ivanvector drafted. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:33, 2 October 2018 (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.

Public outcry[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. No prejudice against hatnotes or other changes. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is the same thing, and I can't find a good place to redirect this to.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, the second definition at Wiktionary is "a strong protest" so the target is not wrong, but we might be able to do better. Related to this, I've just created a disambiguation page at Outcry (after being surprised there wasn't one when I saw the search results) that could likely do with some cleanup. I've not listed this redirect on the page, but if it is not deleted it probably belongs. Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree that it isn't quite the same thing, but I can't find any better target (controversy, scandal, brouhaha, dissent etc. are similar but aren't much better, and are all less substantial articles) and this is probably a plausible enough search term that it's worth having it point somewhere. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Add controversy, scandal etc to outcry and redirect there. 83.216.92.96 (talk) 04:38, 24 September 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) 19:19, 1 October 2018 (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 Final Fantasy VII terms[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 15#List of Final Fantasy VII terms

Supergirl (season 2)[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 keep. No need for the redirect to be deleted; a swap by an admin or page mover (such as yours truly) would more than suffice. But, before that, please acquire consensus at the talk page of list of Supergirl episodes. (non-admin closure) Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 11:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once this redirect is deleted, I can move Draft:Supergirl (season 2) to this name. At Talk:List of Supergirl episodes, I have justified my reasons for bringing the draft to the mainspace (even though it has yet to be responded to). Kailash29792 (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural keep - please continue discussing the matter on that talk page. Once you have consensus for promoting the draft to main space, any admin or page mover can perform this move for you. In the meantime, the redirect is doing what it should: directing readers to relevant content. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep per Ivanvector. You're putting the cart before the horse here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 2 October 2018 (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.

Powah[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 Pow wow. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Is this a joke?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  22:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No joke, what is the problem? Mathiastck (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Powah has multiple search results in wikipedia but has no page or redirect: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Powah&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%22namespaces%22%3A%5B0%2C9%2C11%2C12%5D%7D&ns0=1&ns9=1&ns11=1&ns12=1&searchToken=1gom1uruppls1c37sp0c062y0 Mathiastck (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to Hobbamock Pow wow where the term is explained as a term for "Shaman". I'm not sure if it is the best target though hence the weak vote --Lenticel (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we're going to go by that meaning, then the proper target is Pow wow, of which the redirect term is a native name or an obscure alternative spelling. – Uanfala (talk) 07:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - silly. Mis-spelling isn't mentioned at target and doesn't have enough prevalence for inclusion. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 01:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Originally Powah redirected to Power a proper disambiguation page, bots moved it, and that resulted in it being nominated for deletion. Mathiastck (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's listed at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/powah as an Eye dialect spelling of power. Mathiastck (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Power (the dab page) - I've seen this eye dialect spelling used for at least two different uses of that word (electricity and applying a car's engine power). Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak disambiguate given the Native American uses of it showing up in search results for Wikipedia Squanto, Hobbamock AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Power – Google results, taken together with the Wiktionary entry and Thryduulf's anecdotal evidence, are enough to convince me that some sense of "power" (and not necessarily the specific sense of the current target) is the most likely intended meaning. We could add Pow wow to the disambiguation page's see also section, as that article has a definition of the word. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There have been suggestions to retarget to Power, Pow wow, disambiguate, and delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Power (disambiguation) – per User:Mathiastck. There are proper redirect categorizations for eye dialect spellings, such as {{R from alternate spelling}}, {{R to article without mention}}, possibly {{R for convenience}} (and others?). 84.250.17.211 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pow wow. Retargeting to Power is a no-no: a proper, albeit by now obscure, spelling always takes precedence over dialectal (mis)spellings; this is especially so for an everyday word like "power": it is extremely unlikely that any reader of wikipedia could either encounter it in a variant spelling and not recognise it, or knowingly use the dialectal spelling in preference to the proper one when searching. – Uanfala (talk) 15:05, 1 October 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) 18:51, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pow wow per Uanfala. -- Tavix (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retahget per Uanfala: a proper term should be preferred over an eye dialect or uncommon error when there isn't evidence of significant prominence of the erroneous term. Maybe a hatnote from the section to the disambiguation page would be helpful, but I also think that people looking for power can probably figure out how to type it, it's not one of those difficult English words like rhythim or rythme or rhytm. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:43, 2 October 2018 (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.

n-ary redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 October 9#n-ary redirects

9-ary[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 N-ary. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:40, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

n-ary arity is as likely a target (and the re-redirect from base 9 to ternary numeral system would lead to a misleading target.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • See OEIS: A319726. --- Xayahrainie43 (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to point to disambiguation. There are multiple possible targets (even if at present some of them redirect to other articles). Therefore, I think, we should start to prepare the infrastructure in form of disambiguation pages up to at least Denary.
On each of these disambiguation pages there should be a "See also" section with links to the next lower and next higher disambiguation page, so that users can incrementally jump through the whole series (similar to what we did at the lower end, see Binary (disambiguation)).
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2018 (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.

3-ary[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 Ternary. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ternary operation or ternary relation are more likely targets. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2018 (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.

2-ary[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 Binary#Mathematics. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, binary relation and binary function are more likely targets. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2018 (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.

1-ary[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 Unary. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unary function and Unary relation are much more likely targets. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2018 (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.

Hyper6[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 Hyperoperation. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retarget to hyperoperation to avoid the double redirect. In contrast to Arthur above I think hyperoperation would be a good target for them, the terms are even mentioned there and discussed in a broader context.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The double redirect would have to be fixed, of course. But we could tag these with {{R avoided double redirect}} to make their connection to "hexation" clear. How does that sound, Arthur Rubin? --BDD (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. And thanks, BDD, I hereby learnt about a new rcat {{R avoided double redirect}} - so far I tried to achieve the same with HTML comments containing additional #redirect tokens for possible future use, but this rcat is obviously a better solution. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to hyperoperation. I don't understand anything in that article past "In mathematics," but "hyper6", "hyper-n" and "-ation" are all mentioned, so it seems as though the reader who searches for these will be taken to the most relevant information, and no other better target seems to exist. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2018 (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/2018_October_1&oldid=1036305570"