Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 22, 2019.

Village/Union Council jourah[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what the intended purpose of this redirect is. signed, Rosguill talk 21:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Union Council is a low-level administrative division in some South Asian countries. We don't have an article about any union council or village named "Jourah", and the redirect uses a rather unhelpful disambiguator anyway, so wouldn't be needed even if we had such an article. – Uanfala (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Crown 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 disambiguate. MBisanz talk 20:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Potential retarget to The Crown or Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom. The current target isn't particularly closely related to the crown; it's just a list of individuals who wore or embodied the crown. The Crown discusses the history of the concept, including its origins in England before the union with Scotland, so I think it would be a better target. However, Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom could be a good target too, since it covers the literal crown, including the headgear worn by English monarchs before the union with Scotland. So what's the best place? Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bumblejumper[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 Cliffjumper#Toys. MBisanz talk 20:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 3#Bumper (Transformers), "Bumper" and "Bumblejumper" refer to the same character. I'm not convinced that deletion was the right call, but there's no reason why these should be handled any differently. PC78 (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Cliffjumper#Toys which is the only place we have any useful coverage. Deletion is preferable to keeping though.Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Flying reptiles[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 Flying and gliding animals. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pterosaurs are not the only flying reptiles, there are various extant types of flying and gliding reptiles as well as flying dinosaurs and of course dragons. PC78 (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retargeting seems like the better solution. FunkMonk (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
’’’Keep’’’ - Dinosaurs are not reptiles. No extant reptiles can fly, only glide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NessieVL (talk • contribs) 19:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Phylogenetically dinosaurs are reptiles, as are birds. If one considers crocodiles and pterosaurs reptiles, then one must also consider dinosaurs reptiles. I don't know what taxonomic system would label dinosaurs non-reptiles except maybe that of David Peters.
Not that I have a say but I would support a retarget. 140.122.57.53 (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, gliding flight is a form of flight. PC78 (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Founder's seat[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 30#Founder's seat

Makru language[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. MBisanz talk 20:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I missed it, but can't find this mentioned in the target article. Onel5969 TT me 17:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Papuan languages are often referred to by village and other locality names. Makru is one of the names listed in Ethnologue. Foley (2018) lists Makru as one of the areas where Mehek is spoken. Sagotreespirit (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Socialist Party (Italy, July 2007)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 30#Socialist Party (Italy, July 2007)

Pseudoegyptology[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 30#Pseudoegyptology

When waiting is filled[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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be an appropriate redirect – not mentioned at the target; even after a quick search, I couldn't find a quote containing this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It is a line from the book—"“You will sleep, when waiting is filled"—but we don't make every sentence in a book into a redirect on the off-chance someone enters it into the search box. ‑ Iridescent 15:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A phrase from the book not significant enough to mention in the article, as compared to the redirect Water brother. Schazjmd (Talk) 15:33, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipidya[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. MBisanz talk 20:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo Abote2 (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, people who write or type in the face of spell-correct, and with the level of the education system (cursive isn't being taught in most schools), might be lucky to get the name this right. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very implausible. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible. Edgeweyes (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Only plausible on Colemak, and just barely. The "y" key is above and to the right of the "e" key. While it gives the redirect a reason to exist, it won't hurt to let it go. InvalidOS (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per implausibility. @Randy Kryn: I apologize in advance if this comes across as hostile, but that's one of the dumbest rationales I've heard. Trying to link the lack of cursive taught in schools with the plausibility of this spelling error is just asinine. See this very short blog post about the Golden Age fallacy. Even if you had some concrete evidence about the spelling ability of the general public declining, and even if you evidence linking that to the education system, this would still be implausible, because it doesn't follow any sort of typical phonetic pattern that someone might be trying to follow. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (and per stable long-term use, surprise answer below). My dumbness exceeds my asininess, but just by a little. A family curse. By the way, here is the edit count for the last ninety days. Anyone looking for this title since June 11 can be ignored, that's when this delete request went up. But yes, I may be wrong, and the people that stumbled into this spelling before that may have been a little bit tipsy or are just into new ways of spelling words. In any case, this spelling has views, it is being searched for, and the people who spell it this way have been directed towards 'Wikipedia' ever since this page was created in (back in a minute with the surprise answer) March of 2006. I have socks younger than that. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Of no use to native English speakers, but phonetically plausible for many of those for whom English is a second language. This also happens to be the correct name for wikipedia in Quechua and Aymara, but we don't have any relevant articles to redirect to. – Uanfala (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per "phonetic spelling" argument above. I remember handwritten signs at Wikimania 2016 that said "Welcome Wikipidians". Deryck C. 12:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as this is a plausible phonetic spelling per above. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gilling (textiles)[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 Heckling (flax). MBisanz talk 20:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this redirect should ever have been created. I should have been left as a redlink. [[Gilling (textiles)]] is used in only one article, the article on Worsted, where it explicitly says: ''"Pasture wool was not [[Carding|card]]ed; instead it was washed, [[gilling (textiles)|gilled]] and [[combing|comb]]ed"'''

so it renders two wikilinks to combing, when the context strongly implies "gilling" is a process distinct from "combing".

If gilling is a distinct notable topic then [[Gilling (textiles)]] should point to a distinct article on that topic. If gilling is not a notable topic, there should be no [[Gilling (textiles)]] wikilink, including no redirect. And, until that article is created, this should be a redlink. The redirect was clearly created in error. Geo Swan (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the redirect is justified- though I am out of my comfort zone when it come to animal fibres- Lancashire did cotton. https://www.woolwise.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/.../Wool-482-582-08-T-10.pdf gives a complete description of drafting with a pin giller. With in the textile field the topic is notable and has multiple potential references. It is just that a separate article has not yet been written. It is wl-ed from sliver (textiles) too. I had hoped that a hobby weaver would have picked up the link and written an article. The redirect is correctly placed- as it most mentioned in the Combing lead. There is a problem with two wls in one sentence with the same target but redlinking is not the answer. Any further proposals? ClemRutter (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Full translation of the Behistun Inscription[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. Taking the AfD, the relevant discussion about importing the page history to the English Wikisource (which resulted in a successful import), and this discussion into account, I see that the largest common denominator is to delete the soft redirect that was left behind after the AfD. Deryck C. 13:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to {{wikisource redirect}} per WP:SOFTTEMP or delete. Plain {{soft redirect}} is not used in the article namespace. Doesn't really meet the criteria for soft redirecting to a sister project outlined at WP:SOFTSISP. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikisource redirect. pretty much works for me. I would advise against deletion since this is a matter currently being discussed on WP:AN. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:16, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as soft redirect. What the nom forget to mention was that this page was removed by an AFD discussion on WP:NOT grounds. A template that invites recreation is therefore not appropriate. It is also not helpful that it suggests searching Wikipedia for an article that is not going to be found. SpinningSpark 18:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SOFTSISP does not proscribe using soft redirect, it explicitly offers it as a possibility. I note that most of the pages in the Wikisource redirect category actually started out as soft redirects. The only reason the soft redirect category is empty is that they have been systematically converted to the Wikisource template – very likely including some equally inappropriate ones. SpinningSpark 18:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Behistun Inscription#External links. It's unusual to point to an External links section, but "hard" links are preferred to soft ones when practical. I've added a Wikisource link there, and there are a couple of other links to various English translations. This will do the most good for readers. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's circular. It's a nonsense to redirect to an article that links to the redirect – in three separate places! SpinningSpark 15:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not recommend adding such a link. This should remain unlinked in mainspace. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a good idea. It doesn't violate WP:CIRCRED since it aids navigation by linking to the bottom of the article. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Furius, Agricolae, Eastmain, पाटलिपुत्र, Smmurphy, RobDuch, and Peterkingiron: pinging AFD participants. SpinningSpark 15:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Xaosflux, MJL, Billinghurst, Xover, Fram, Anthony Appleyard, and Nyttend: pinging ANB discussion participants. SpinningSpark 15:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is someone really going to come to Wikipedia and search for "Full translation of Foo" rather than just searching for Foo? This seems to be the only page in all of Wikipedia that begins with "Full translation of . . . ." so I have to conclude it is a highly unlikely search phrase. Much more likely is that someone will just search for Behistun Inscription, so once the situation with the article at Wikisource stabilizes, mention of that Wikisourse page on the Behistun Inscription page would be quite helpful, but I don't see why we need to do gymnastics to figure out a redirect target for a never-likely-to-be-used search phrase that doesn't really need a redirect at all. So, Delete (once AN, Wikisource and possible DRV issues have been resolved). Agricolae (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The links to Full translation of the Behistun Inscription are mostly placed below quotations from said translation. Would it be permissable for those links to send the interested reader to the page on Wikisource directly? Then it doesn't matter what happens to this redirect... Furius (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Furius: I imagine that wouldn't be too great for the outside links as Thryduulf sometimes likes to mention. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The links I saw were: 1) in See Also sections - these should be removed or replaced with a Wikisource pointer - you don't use See Also for a redirect, particularly one that points off Wikipedia; 2) references to the Behistun Inscription that were inexplicably piped instead to the Full Translation page; 3) awkward/unnatural piping of common phrases so that the same sentence could be linked to both the Full Translation and the Behistun Inscription pages and (as with the previous set) are entirely unnecessary given that the Behistun Inscription page has a Wikisource pointer and External Links to other translations, so just like pointing to the soft redirect, pointing to Behistun Inscription brings the reader one click away from the source, but has the advantage of being a full page of information; 4) similarly awkward/unnatural linking of common phrases in lieu of using a citation for the sentence, not the way we are supposed to provide verifiability; 5) one example in which a footnote consisted entirely of the link without further information, in violation of WP:CIRCULAR and 6) used under quotes or within more detailed footnotes. Only the last of these really have any value at all, and I don't see why we should treat these any different than quotes from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle or the Codice de Roda or the Epic of Gilgamesh, none of which we cite by linking to a soft redirect page. Had this page never been, there would be no question of creating such a redirect page just to cite the source, and that should guide how we deal with a page that the AfD basically concluded should never have existed. Agricolae (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I have begun retargeting some of these to Behistun Inscription, starting with those that should be pointing there independent of the outcome of this discussion, so you won't find all of the types I talked about any more. Agricolae (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, I would be fine with a delete and retarget of the incoming links. It is the inappropriate template that I object to. SpinningSpark 23:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Agree with Agricolae that it's not something we would ever create. But since it did exist it might be reasonable to do something more than just deleting it (I originally tagged it for speedy after it was transwikied). A template similar to {{wikisource redirect}} (modulo the concerns raised about its contents and phrasing above) would be quite reasonable IMO. But the incoming links should then be changed to point at Behistun Inscription (top level) and a normal link to Wikisource placed in its last section (sisterlinks go in the last non-empty section iirc, not extlinks as such): there is little value in mainspace links to a soft interwiki redirect (it's a potential search target, or target of links from offsite, more than internally useful on enwp). I would also not object to just deleting it outright (with the same result for incoming links etc.). --Xover (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should have been A5d instead of leaving this implausible (per Agricolae above) redirect behind. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not oppose deletion. --BDD (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still not seeing consensus, and it doesn't seem like keeping the redirect as is is the preferred option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 14:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bernando LaPallo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 30#Bernando LaPallo

Reno, Arizona[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 List of ghost towns in Arizona. MBisanz talk 20:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Reno, Utah redirecting to Reno, Nevada, since Nevada split off from the Utah territory. But Reno, Arizona? Never was Reno in the Arizona Territory, or the State of Arizona. Onel5969 TT me 08:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] apparently there was a Reno, AZ at one time, so yeah, this seems inappropriate. Dave (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. My only point was to imply that having Reno, Arizona redirect to Reno, Nevada is quite inappropriate. In addition to the reason stated in the nomination, if someone did search for Reno, Arizona they probably meant this ghost town, even though not named identically. It appears either the list article or Fort McDowell would be appropriate redirect targets, as well as creating new redirects for Camp Reno, Arizona. Dave (talk) 22:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of ghost towns in Arizona per Nihonjoe. I understand Tavix's argument, but it is very plausible that someone will have misremebered or misheard the ghost town as just "Reno" given the prominence of Reno, Nevada, so overall I see it as a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that it would be more plausible that someone would misremember the name of an obscure encampment that has received next-to-no coverage over misremembering the state that Reno, Nevada is in? -- Tavix (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. From the source given, Camp Reno was a temporary military encampment. The stores mentioned lightly suggest some some degree of permanence, but really, I'm not even sure this meets WP:GEOLAND. Redirects for hypothetical alternate names are really a bridge too far. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Above I commented, but did not!vote. In trying to find more information to get me off the fence and on one side of this debate, I did find these: [2] [3]. These would meet Wikipedia's criteria as reliable sources, and the first link, while acknowledging the proper name is "Camp Reno", truncates the name to Reno in a few places in the article. That's enough to convince me that referring to this area as Reno is at least occasionally done by those interested in Arizona history. Dave (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Relativity drive[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. MBisanz talk 20:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Used by inventor briefly during a 2006 PR spree to refer to his failed invention. An uncommon term for a fringe concept, which does not involve relativity at all. – SJ + 21:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the term is used in sources and it is used exclusively to refer to this concept so it is correct and unambiguous. Being uncommon is not a reason on its own to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's just a single source that uses it in the article, though (it's from 2006), and it's just in that reference title rather than the body. Being uncommon really is reason enough—it sounds a lot like WP:RFD#DELETE #8 to me. If "relativity drive" isn't actually novel or obscure, we should be able to demonstrate that. --BDD (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. If this is used in sources exclusively to refer to this concept, that should be reflected in the article. It is not. -- Tavix (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New Scientist is hardly unreliable or obscure, and there are many discussions that stem from or reference this article, including Hansard, a essays (notably including this one (PDF)) and literally hundreds of others. Wired also uses the term but I'm uncertain if that is related to the New Scientist article or not. That the main source is from 2006 is not at all relevant - people finding the articles, essays, debates, etc. from that period will use this term to find our article today. This is nowhere close to R#DELETE #8. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ass Mode[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 30#Ass Mode

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_22&oldid=904333726"