Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 25, 2019.

The Eight Precepts[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 Eight Precepts. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not required, Eight Precepts is already an article. Goes against WP:MOS principles for naming articles (inclusion of article). Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:43, 25 March 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.

In Architecture) Porch (or Vestibule[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) 01:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Odd use of brackets and of unclear purpose. Unlikely search terms. PC78 (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless there is a good explanation. These do seem really odd redirects (the second was autocreated by a bot based on the first), but there must have been some reason for creation - the creator seems to be still around so I've left them a note. They get a surprising amount of hits - 24 last year and the year before, 23 the year before that, which is about 20 more than I'd expect for something like this, but Google is drawing a blank on what the source might be. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 26 March 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.

Agp[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 AGP. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to AGP. Seems to be a logical target, unlike the current one. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. This is where google's lack of case sensitivity is really frustrating, but I'm not seeing any obvious indication that Agp or agp has a primary topic (AGP in capitals clearly has none). Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to AGP per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:52, 28 March 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.

The Professionals (2011 film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 2#The Professionals (2011 film)

Conduction block[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 2#Conduction block

Mayor Pete[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) 14:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from massively ambiguous title to one name: Pete Buttigieg. Wikipedia has articles on 7 mayors named "Pete" (including Pete Buttigieg), and to 138 other mayors who first names begin with "Peter", any or all of whom may be known by the common abbreviation "Pete". (Full list on the talk page: WT:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 17#Mayor_Pete).

We could in theory convert this to a disambiguation page, but is really a good use of editorial time to create and maintain several thousand "JobTitle Firstname" disambiguation pages? It would require huge ongoing effort to keep them up to-date, and I think that readers would be better served by searching.

Note that I RFDed this at WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_17#Mayor_Pete, but the creator asked for it to be G7ed. It has been re-created by a different editor,@Volunteer Marek. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the primary topic. "Mayor Pete" is a common nickname for Buttigieg that he himself encourages. I see "Mayor Pete" without a last name qualifier used for Pete Buttigieg but not for any of the other notable mayors named Pete(r). Examples include: "'Mayor Pete', as he's known" (WaPo) "'Mayor Pete,' as he encourages everyone to call him" (Rolling Stone) "Mayor Pete shines in town hall" (MSN). I don't think it should be disambiguated unless it can be shown any of the other notable mayors are known as such. I only found Pete Fosselman here, but he isn't notable. -- Tavix (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The term "Mayor Pete" isn't really used for any other mayor whose name happens to be Pete. See Google Trends; the only notable peaks are around February 2017 (when Buttigieg ran for DNC chair) and since January 2019. Conifer (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a publicly known nickname for Buttigieg and redirects are cheap.- MrX 🖋 16:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - :WP:COMMONNAME. If there is one guy who's known as "Mayor Pete" then it's this one. I'm not entirely opposed to a disambig page, but I think a lot of people will be typing "Mayor Pete" into the search bar looking for him.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Very common nickname. Who cares how many mayors there are named Pete(r) if only one of them is called "Mayor Pete"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. (Original G7 editor) - I'm on Wikibreak, but another matter brought me online. Figured I'd just request that if this is kept, then the rcats I tagged it with previously be restored. That's all I got. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:16, 30 March 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.

Tails (producer)[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) 01:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article and no other suitable target; removed from article early this year. Apparently, this artist only contributed one song to the record label in 2018. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There has been a rash of brief articles and redirects for people loosely associated with the Monstercat record label, possibly created for promotional purposes. For this particular redirect, I agree with the nominator's reasoning. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:48, 26 March 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.

Template:Tempalte display[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. Leftover from a typo, it seems; only existed at this title for 22 minutes.

Sidenote: I make this typo all the damn time but in the namespace portion (e.g. Tempalte:Typo) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlikely typo. How unlikely? It's unused. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:38, 25 March 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.

ერაყი[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) 14:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why the Georgian name (or transliteration) for Iraq would be a good redirect on the English language Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: Why I do it? Because in Georgian Iraq (erak(y)i-ერაყი), every languages has redirects in enwiki, that's why---ჯეო (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)--ჯეო (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only non-Latin script redirects to Iraq on enwiki are in Arabic script, we don't have redirects in Cyrillic, Thai, Chinese (Mandarin), Japanese, ... scripts. In general, we don't use redirect in languages and scripts which have no clear, major link to either English (as the language of this wiki) or the main language(s) of the subject of the target article. Georgia and Iraq don't even share a border. Fram (talk) 13:53, 25 March 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.

Tater salad[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) 14:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "tater salad" isn't used anywhere in the Potato salad article, and I doubt many people are searching for information on potato salad using this colloquial term, so I suggest retargeting to Ron White. Nor should anyone be WP:ASTONISHED to end up at the comedian's bio, based on a Google image search for "tater salad". For the few who might be, we just include a hatnote linking to Potato salad. No incoming mainspace links, so link breaking is not an issue. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC) (edited 01:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Changing request to delete given that the nickname is capitalized as Tater Salad. So there seems to be no need for this redirect. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not something worth mentioning at potato salad and I'd be astonished to land on a comedian's page. Legacypac (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Legacypac. Thryduulf (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Commonly used nickname for the comedian, to the point he even has tatersalad.com as his homepage. --BDD (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 10:52, 25 March 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.

2019 Venezuelan power grid sabotage[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. As noted below, redirects need not be neutral, only useful and plausible. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Venezuelan power grid sabotage. wumbolo ^^^ 12:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Citing article text with sources:
    • "The administration of Nicolás Maduro blamed foreign US sabotage for the outage"
    • "Prosecutor General Tarek William Saab announced an investigation of Guaidó for sabotage"
    • "China had received reports that the power grid had gone down due to a hacking attack"
    • "Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that Russia agrees with Maduro that Western sabotage caused the power outage in Venezuela."
    • More reactions with sabotage/attack mentions: President of Bolivia Evo Morales [1], President of Cuba Miguel Díaz-Canel [2]
    • Hardly a violation of NPOV. It should be the title of the original article, the event has been named sabotage/attack by several authorities, so a redirect is appropriate. emijrp (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At most "allegations" should be added to the redirect. --Jamez42 (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that I should provide examples on how these are allegations and there aren't proofs of it being an "attack" or a "sabotage":
  • "Sources cited by Corpoelec (the state-owned national electricity company) indicated a vegetation fire occurred on three lines of 765 kV between the Gurí Dam and the Malena and San Gerónimo B substations. The fire overheated the lines, triggering load rejection mechanisms that protect the lines connected to the dam. According to the School of Electrical Engineering of the Central University of Venezuela, the momentary loss of power at the Gurí Dam caused the turbines to increase their speed, creating an overload on electrical systems."
  • "Satellite images show that the vegetation fire in the Guri started a day before the blackout."
  • "Engineers and analysts quoted by The Guardian say the cause is underfunding and mismanagement"
  • "Venezuelan energy experts cited by El Pitazo have rejected the theory that the blackout was caused by sabotage, since the area of the Gurí Dam is heavily guarded by members of the Armed Forces, where it operates a special command and the internal security of Corpolec."
  • "These specialists have also pointed out that Gurí was constructed before the Internet existed, does not use the Internet, hence does not allow for hacking."
  • "A risk management consultant cited by El Nacional dismissed the statement by government officials and assured that the design of the hydroelectric plant system does not allow "attacks" of that type."
Quoting governemnt officials and their allies it's very different from quoting details and experts in the area--Jamez42 (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag with {{R from non-neutral name}}. Easy call. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; while I am sympathetic to BDD's reasoning (tag as non-neutral), the problem is that these POV redirects result in a long-list of articles one has to sort through on search when trying to find a "2019 Venezuelan ..." topic. This is a POV, unnecessary redirect which only obscures searches for legit articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag per BDD and WP:RNEUTRAL. This is a term that people searching for this will plausibly use given its use elsewhere. The tiny inconvenience to those looking for other 2019 Venezuelan topics is unfortunate by far outweighed by those looking for this article at this title. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 10:50, 25 March 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.

2019 Venezuelan power grid attack[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. As noted, redirects need not be neutral, only useful and plausible. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Venezuelan power grid attack. wumbolo ^^^ 12:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale given above. --Jamez42 (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See my reply above. emijrp (talk) 08:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag with {{R from non-neutral name}}. Easy call. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; while I am sympathetic to BDD's reasoning (tag as non-neutral), the problem is that these POV redirects result in a long-list of articles one has to sort through on search when trying to find a "2019 Venezuelan ..." topic. This is a POV, unnecessary redirect which only obscures searches for legit articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag per my and BDD's comments in the discussion above. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 10:50, 25 March 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.

Draughtsman[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 2#Draughtsman

Duggardesh[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) 01:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Hoax. No such place/name exists. Looks like the name was inserted in many articles (which has since been cleaned up) and this redirect created from that. Gotitbro (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no recollection of what sources led me to create this redirect in 2012. Looking now, I see possible commercial use by websites but that's it. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Yngvadottir:, there is *something* about Duggar Desh and Jammu... see: duggardeshnews.com ("Duggar Desh News [...] from the state of Jammu & Kashmir"), but beats me to know if it is a valid redirect or not. - Nabla (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add matching redirect at Duggar Desh. Google Books search finds plenty of publications using it. Example: "The substance of Dogri folk songs is usually the praise of natural scenery of Duggar Desh..." - Census of India, 1961: Jammu and Kashmir. On which topic, at Dogri language we see: "Dogri speakers are called Dogras, and the Dogri-speaking region is called Duggar.", cited to: Narain, Lakshmi (1965). An Introduction to Dogri Folk Literature and Pahari Art. Jammu and Kashmir Academy of Art, Culture and Languages. The Britannica article for the Dogri language[3] says "Dogri (using the paleonym Duggar)..." so perhaps it should be a {{R from former name}}, although I'd hesitate to put that on there without verification. Some people on Instagram are posting using the tag "#Dogradesh" as well, so there seems to be a transliteration issue here.  — Scott • talk 16:43, 26 March 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.

Nergling[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 The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy (video game)#Cast and characters. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a misspelling of the name of the henchmen for a minor villain in this series. I don't see why this exists. Paper Luigi T • C 14:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 15:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems the ideas are quite split. Let's get one more chance
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 10:48, 25 March 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.

EFC Worldwide[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. Wrong place, you should go to WP:DRV to contest the deletion if you disagree (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EFC Worldwide should be be redirected to EFC Africa as it the current name of EFC Africa. Dwanyewest (talk) 09:48, 25 March 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.

Extreme Fighting Championship[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. Wrong place, you should go to WP:DRV to contest the deletion if you disagree (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Fighting Championship should be redirected to EFC Africa as it the original name of EFC Africa. Dwanyewest (talk) 09:48, 25 March 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.

File:Randum Randum Anju.jpg[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 2#File:Randum Randum Anju.jpg

Industrial food[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 April 2#Industrial food

Hardline ideology[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 Hardline. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too broad of a title PrussianOwl (talk) 04:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "Hardline" is an ideology, described as such in the article. -- Tavix (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget per BDD, whose argument makes sense—especially so considering it is currently the primary topic. My original view of that article as "taking a stance" on something didn't really seem substantive enough to be an "ideology", but looking at the examples made me think otherwise.-- Tavix (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hardline. Yes, the "hardline" of the target page is an ideology, but you could talk about a hardline version of just about any ideology. Not a great article, though. The Examples section has references but seems ill-conceived nonetheless. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hardline per BDD. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 25 March 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.

6 months same as cash[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) 14:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat implausible redirect, arbitrary time period. PrussianOwl (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PrussianOwl I don't understand the issue; 6 months is a common (though not as common as 60 and 90 days) deferred payment time period for the same as cash model. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, common phrase and covered in the article. -- Tavix (talk) 13:21, 25 March 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.

List of role-playing video games: 2020 to 2021[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON. There are currently no such video games listed for the given years, so such redirects for these years is a bit misleading. These redirects were created by moving some history around back in 2011, but the history is now back where it belongs. -- Tavix (talk) 01:39, 25 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_25&oldid=1072177180"