Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 11, 2019.

6.022[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 Avogadro constant. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a particularly useful redirect. A mole is 6.02214076×10^23. signed, Rosguill talk 22:05, 11 May 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.

Eric gryf[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target doesn't mention "gryf", I checked the corresponding articles in a few other languages (esp. Danish) and couldn't find it there either. signed, Rosguill talk 22:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Eric was of the House of Griffin, "also known as the Gryf family" (which is Polish for griffin). – Þjarkur (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, but even the Polish article doesn't refer to him that way, referring to the subject as "Eryk Pomorski" and the family as Gryfici or Grifitów. Moreover, there appear to have been multiple Eryks of Griffin. signed, Rosguill talk 22:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The small 'g' seems to give an incling of the less-than-serious nature of this. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:02, 12 May 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.

Wikipedia:XC[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 21#Wikipedia:XC

Angela LaFever[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. --BDD (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target. signed, Rosguill talk 21:38, 11 May 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.

Wikipedia:Assessment[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 Wikipedia:Content assessment. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Assessment and WP:ASSESSMENT redirecting to two different page is a source of confusion. To resolve this I suggest retargeting WP:Assessment to Wikipedia:Content assessment Trialpears (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe the two target pages should be merged instead/also? :) --Izno (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, SMcCandlish suggested precisely that nearly a year ago and tagged the target pages accordingly at that time. --Izno (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also significant text at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject#Assessment which should perhaps live elsewhere. --Izno (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Support retargeting. I also remain in favor of merging as much of it as is practical. Speaking of which, there's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ. We don't need this many pages on the same stuff. It's confusing for reader–editors trying to figure out our assessment systems and it's also a maintenance hassle (e.g. tracking down everywhere a bogus assessment class was mentioned/linked/transcluded, after the class was deleted, was more complicated than should have been necessary and required multiple editors to do it).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retarget per nom. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:28, 13 May 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 Wolf (TV series)[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. --BDD (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A circular link to a DAB page. I propose deletion to encourage article creation, if justified. (The link is in use in Kuo Shu-yao, and User:DPL bot is complaining about the WP:INTDABLINK error.) Narky Blert (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Note: not sure if its the same exact subject, but searching 狼殿下 brings up media roughly translated as "The Majesty of Wolf" [1] or "his royal highness wolf" [2] --Animalparty! (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same thing all right: see zh:狼殿下, which includes Kuo Shu-yao (郭書瑤) in the cast list. Narky Blert (talk) 05:43, 12 May 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.

Compulsory Military Training[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 Conscription. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bad scope - suggest revert to original target conscription and fix all incoming that shouldn't be using the uppercase anyhow (typically bad acro). ping User:Buckshot06 Widefox; talk 13:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the retarget to Conscription per nom. WP:INUSA is also semi-relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - did I set this one up? The specific term "Compulsory Military Training" was New Zealand's peacetime conscription scheme after the Second World War. So it's a proper name (= bad scope not applicable?). I would have set it up in the hope that an article on the scheme would eventually be established. Buckshot06 (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You retargeted it [3] . The proper noun isn't used in the article, and the lowercase compulsory military training targets conscription. I would have just reverted it, but for the incoming links which in fairness are mixed proper noun and common, for example Timeline of New Zealand history uses "1909 ... Compulsory military training introduced" "1949 ... compulsory military training." "1972... and Compulsory Military Training is Abolished." where I would have thought the "Abolished" seems incorrectly capitalised. Long story short - User:Buckshot06 put it in the article in bold and let's forget about retargeting it? (acro - I came here from the dab CMT where the NZ topic remains a valid entry) Widefox; talk 21:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The "...Abolished" thing seems incorrectly capitalized because the entire line is in title case. Titles and headlines are not dispositive in any way in questions of proper names and capitalization, but bad data to try to week out.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Royal New Zealand Air Force uses the capitalised. My point being I don't care what we have apart from a mess. If it is true that it's a proper name too (and I'm always skeptical about spelled out acronyms), then we should at least put it in the article, irrespective of this redirect. Disambiguation wise we distinguish by case, so that would be fine to leave as is if it's an improvement. If nobody cares to, then "fix the article first" applies, and revert to the original target. Widefox; talk 00:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Conscription as term is used in multiple countries besides NZ such as Croatia [4] or India [5] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Conscription. The proper name argument fails, given the quoted Widefox show it often lowercase even in an NZ context. And it's not used in this form in the article anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:49, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I admit it is confusing, and the capitalised CMT has not been included in the article yet. Might I request that if necessary, a Compulsory Military Training (New Zealand) redirect/article be considered at a later date? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about adding it to the NZ article to fix the problem first? Then this redirect can be kept. If it can't be fixed because there's no sources then better to not have any of these targeting the NZ article. Widefox; talk 09:05, 12 May 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.

Bosniaknity[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. --BDD (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. There is no such word as "Bosniaknity", zero hit on the Google Search; I moved it to Bosniakness. Sorabino (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pseudo-English by someone who doesn't understand English suffixes. There is no such suffix as "-nity". If the real suffix "-ity" were applied, the end result would be something more like "Bosniacity", and probably wouldn't apply to this exact topic but to something more general.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:43, 11 May 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.

Bosnicism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 20#Bosnicism

George Francis (supercentenarian)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 24#George Francis (supercentenarian)

Close to the Sun[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 20#Close to the Sun

Function*[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. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no plausible reason why a generating function would be called a "Function*". Jasper Deng (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; I think the redirect should be deleted (i.e., there is no other more plausible target). --JBL (talk) 11:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Jasper--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:40, 11 May 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.

P:A[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) 01:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe at one point there were only 26 portals, and these redirects were not completely ambiguous, but now there are 1,300, and so pointing to a random target no longer makes any sense. Note: some of the targets are at Mfd, and if that leads to their deletion, the redirects will be deleted before this RfD closes. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. None of these are intuitive redirects. PC78 (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep P:H, this one makes sense as a target and gets quite a bit of use. Delete the others. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some of them (like P:D and P:X) make no sense, and the rest are likely to cause confusion. All you have to do is type portal:a, portal:b, etc. into the search box and you'll get a long list of alternatives, many of which are at least as likely to be the target of someone's search. As for redirecting P:H to Help:Contents, that's not even in the same namespace! RockMagnetist(talk) 17:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The D in P:D stands for Directory as it redirects to a portal directory. The X is obviously referencing the cross of Christianity. Help:Contents can be seen as a portal of sorts to the Help namespace. That said, these pseudo-namespace redirects were meant to be quick shortcuts to often used pages and, with the exception of Help:Contents, none of these pages see heavy use. Also, per UnitedStatesian, it does seem that the original intent wasn't to get a shortcut to every portal but rather to have a P: for every letter of the alphabet which is just silly. Delete all. -- Ϫ 05:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Rock/PC78. --Izno (talk) 22:18, 11 May 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.

Triple Degree[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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite appearing to be semantically similar, Triple accreditation is about a status obtained by certain business schools, while an internet search would suggest that "triple degree" refers to the accomplishment of receiving three tertiary degrees. signed, Rosguill talk 17:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment a strange neologism that might be confused with Third degree AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to suggest retargeting to Double degree, where Triple Major targets (should be Triple major). I hesitate because there isn't really discussion there of more than two simultaneous degrees. I also thought I remembered hearing some sort of certification status like this for universities in China, but couldn't find anything about it here. --BDD (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 22:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I found the article for the Chinese concept I was thinking of: Double First Class University Plan. No mention of "triple" anything, though. It may well not be possible in that system. --BDD (talk) 20:56, 20 May 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.

1 (Dinah Jane album)[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 Dinah Jane 1. --BDD (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She just ended up calling it Dinah Jane 1, and neither of these.- NØ 22:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as confusing and not marketed as 1 or One like other albums. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first since it's not an "album". Keep & retarget the second since this seems like a plausible way to interpret the title and is neither confusing nor ambiguous. PC78 (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Dinah Jane 1. Misremembering or misinterpreting the title as just "1" is very plausible, as is not being sure whether it was technically and album or an just EP (the line between them is blurry). Neither of them are at all plausibly ambiguous with anything else, so there is no harm in keeping them. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. Reasonable mistake for listeners to make. feminist (talk) 13:46, 15 May 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.

James Silcox[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. While I can't ignore the participants preferring deletion, I'm convinced the keep !votes make stronger arguments. There are mentions, and while it may be non-standard, the redirects take readers to the relevant content, wherever it may be. Not wild about the argument that reader's will remember the serial murderer's name and not the victim's name, as that somewhat misses the point about the value of redirects. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Convicted serial killers do not need, as a matter of course, to automatically have a permanent redirect from the name of every individual victim they killed. The victims are not famous in their own right, and are extremely unlikely to ever actually be searched for by users expecting to reach an article that way. And we doubly don't need such redirects to be categorized for life trivia, like their birth year and birthplace or their prior occupation, that isn't even reflected or sourced in the article at all. (Category:Tinsmiths, for example, is supposed to contain people who were notable as tinsmiths, not non-notable tinsmiths like Maurice Granat who exist only as redirects to notable murderers.) While Category:Canadian murder victims does contain some other redirects, those are from "Name of Victim" to "Murder of Victim", not from "Name of Victim" to "Name of Murderer" -- the Wettlaufer batch are literally the only ones that are doing the latter thing at all. So these simply aren't serving any genuinely useful purpose. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It is Wikipedia practice to have redirects of murder victims linking to the perpetrator article (or vice-versa). Whether or not the perpetrator has one or several victims is irrelevant, in fact you could make the case that serial killers are generally more notable than regular killers and thus their victims are of just as much significance as an individual who was the sole victim of a particular murderer. About the only time where we might not have redirects is when victims are not named in the article, perhaps in a case of a serial killer with hundreds of victims and where perhaps they'd only actually been directly convicted of the murder of say a dozen of them. However, you'd still see all the victims who were part of the conviction/capture named in such an article, and thus there would still be many names of victims redirecting to the article. As for usefulness, well plenty of people might remember the name of a victim but not that of their murderer, and thus the redirect is useful. As for categorisation, Wikipedia consensus is that we do indeed categorise such redirects unless there was some particular strong reason against doing so. One useful function of Wikipedia categories is that redirects show in italics, and thus readers can still easily distinguish between entries that go directly to articles and ones that redirect elsewhere.Shakehandsman (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, no, it is profoundly unlikely that anybody outside of a victim's own family would remember the name of a serial killer's victims more readily than the actual name of the actual killer — if the killer is famous enough to actually have their own standalone Wikipedia article at all, then their name will be well-known to the public. In any case where the murder victim is genuinely more famous and notable than the killer, such as Matthew Shepard or Brandon Teena, the article is by definition located at either "Name of Victim" or "Murder of [Name of Victim]", and never at "Name of Killer" — and neither Shepard nor Teena were victims of serial killers, their fame as murder victims accrued because they were standalone murders. But for serial killers, go ahead and name me just one of Jeffrey Dahmer's or John Wayne Gacy's or Bruce McArthur's or Ted Bundy's victims without looking them up first.
Secondly, most serial killers do not have redirects from the name of each individual victim. So no, it's clearly not standard "Wikipedia practice" to do so, if we verifiably usually don't.
Thirdly, it is also not standard practice that redirects always have to be categorized like regular articles, either. Redirects may be categorized if there's a navigationally useful reason to do so, such as the redirect represents a title that people might actually be looking for in a category where the target page would be out of place, but there is no rule that redirects are always or even usually required to be categorized at all. And even if they are being categorized, redirects should certainly still not be categorized on points of information, such as their pre-death occupation or their place of birth, that are not actually reflected or sourced in, or even really relevant to, the target article. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but that just doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. I’ve contributed to all kinds of articles concerning such crimes and so often it’s such a complex picture. In some instances almost impossible to decide whether the murderer or the victim(s) is the most notable of the two and might as well be a toss of a coin, hence the huge importance of redirects for the other party. In some cases we don’t even have either party’s name as part of the article title, but again it’s standard practice (and certainly good practice) to have redirects for both murderer and victim. You’re quite correct that redirects are missing from some other serial killer articles and in fact all kinds of other Wikipedia articles but that’s primarily down to those articles being incomplete. The increased use of these redirects is a relative recent practice on Wikipedia, hence most older or less viewed articles may not yet be up to standard. We shouldn’t lower the quality of one article down to that of another, and the solution here is to add the missing redirects. As for the degree to which we categorised these victims, it obviously goes without saying that they belongs in the Canadian murder victims category, and I’d argue that their date of birth was indeed quite defining and relevant, particularly as they were killed mainly because of their age. It goes without saying that the date of death is defining and the dementia diagnosis was also a key factor in many cases so again that should be categorised, as should other major illnesses they led to the murders. As for their place of birth, that may be less clear, but it certainly merits inclusion if it’s in the vicinity of the locations of the crimes. Ultimately, if the content pertaining to the victims is within the article (or belongs in it but is not present as of yet) then it should be categorised. The consensus thus far was to only remove redirects when the individual is not mentioned by name in the article (and is not likely to be named should the article be expanded). It's really important to emphasise that the article in question isn't of a particularly high standard and requires considerable expansion and improvement, thus the real solution here is to fix the article, not delete redirects. In fact some recent edits have even involved people trying to censor the a names of the victims and details of the murders entirely! I made a few improvements previously and I'll try to improve it this week if I find the time.Shakehandsman (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is unlikely a reader will not be able to recall the name of a serial killer but will be able to recall that of a specific victim. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 08:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the article has information about each victim. Yes, it's not ideal that these people are only known for how they died, but it's a sad fact for plenty of other people as well. I agree the trivial categorization can be removed though. -- Tavix (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there is no reason search can't provide the same purpose as these redirects. Furthermore, these redirect pages are being misused with inappropriate categories. There is no global consensus that victim lists are to be included on mass shooting pages so I can't imagine this is something that would survive much scrutiny as a regular practice. If any of the victims had specific notability outside of being murdered it would be a different story, but as far as I can tell they do not. - PaulT+/C 03:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If mentioned in the article, search should get it. If not mentioned in the article, then it means the names are not wp-important. - Nabla (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough information in target article to justify the redirects. They are also disrespectful to the victims. Esiymbro (talk) 11:36, 28 May 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_May_11&oldid=1072177229"