Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 12, 2019.

Group captain/page history[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) 00:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requested. These redirects existed only to hold past history for their target articles. The history has since been transferred to the targets (WP:HM) so the redirects no longer have a function. Wikiacc () 23:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • agree Unless I'm missing something, it looks like I shouldn't've left rd's for the ones I moved. — kwami (talk) 23:56, 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.

Breaking the Spell (film)[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. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target or discussed in any other article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retain. Now mentioned in the target. (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 11:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Seems to be a fairly trivial topic, but if there's no other film by this name, there's no problem. (And as long as it's still mentioned, it can remain listed at the disambiguation page Breaking the Spell even if another film were made.) --BDD (talk) 16:14, 21 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.

Luigi Party[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) 16:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem like a plausible error; I cannot find any use of it anywhere. The page was originally created as a hoax by an editor on a spree of creating similar ones. Geolodus (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Reaper Eternal declined speedy deletion saying it wasn't a hoax, though a cursory web search shows no evidence that such a game exists? PC78 (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just slightly confused as to why the speedy deletion was declined. Delete since this doesn't seem to be an actual thing. PC78 (talk) 10:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PC78: Given that it was tagged with "R from incorrect name" it would need to be clear beyond doubt that this was a deliberate hoax name for the target, which is a very difficult standard to meet given that it could be a neologism, a name used by a small set of people, a translation of name used in a different language, or several other reasons that would mean it wasn't a hoax and all-but impossible to reliably determine within a couple of minutes. If there is any doubt whether a speedy deletion criterion applies then it doesn't and should be declined. There is no harm this coming to RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe I suggested that discussion would be a bad thing, it's just confusing when one user asserts that something is a hoax after another says it isn't. PC78 (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The declined speedy just means that it isn't immediately obvious beyond doubt that it is a hoax and given Reach Out to the Truth's comment below that related things with this name exist, that's not at all surprising. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find no evidence that this is a commonly used alternate title for the series. There's a non-notable video series with this title, a piece of fanfiction on the Mario Fanon Wiki, and a bunch of Mario-theme party supplies. It turns out people know the correct name of the series, and don't seriously use this version. Given that games like Dr. Luigi, New Super Luigi U and Luigi Bros. do exist, the existence of this redirect implies that this is a game that exists as well. But it doesn't. Reach Out to the Truth 02:02, 17 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.

Praise the lord[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 Praise the Lord. (non-admin closure) BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a redirect from a title with another method of capitalisation. See at Praise the Lord. And there is an article named Praise the Lord (TV program) produced by Trinity Broadcasting Network, so there is no need to redirect. BrandNew Jim Zhang (talk) 09:09, 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.

Traveler (Heroes)[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) 00:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor character that is not mentioned at the target article, who I believe only appeared in a single graphic novel, which is also not covered on Wikipedia. Xezbeth (talk) 08:34, 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.

Stephen Canfield[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) 00:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional character that is not mentioned at the target article, and while he briefly had a section several years ago, it was empty. He is mentioned in several episode articles however so maybe he should be listed. Xezbeth (talk) 08:30, 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.

Jonas (comics)[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) 00:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Dr. Jonas Zimmerman covered in the article, but he isn't a character that appears in comics, at least not according to the list entry. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was in fact referring to the redirect Jonas Brooks, which is a hoax. I won't delete this one since there was coincidentally an actual character with the same name. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:20, 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.

Evan (Heroes)[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) 00:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor character that isn't mentioned at the target article and isn't covered elsewhere, except for a passing mention at List of Heroes graphic novels which wouldn't be a useful target. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:51, 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.

Calvin Harris' Third Studio Album[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 20#Calvin Harris' Third Studio Album

Scratching (street art)[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 article covering the contemporary type of graffiti practice known as "scratching". At present, the relevant content is at Glossary of graffiti#scribe, as Scribing (graffiti) was recently turned into a redirect to it. There's no prejudice against retargeting to a different article or section if a suitable one appears in future. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind, a rather misleading redirect, as its lemma denotes a specific variety of graffiti which – as far as I can see – is not treated in the given general target article. Hildeoc (talk) 17:11, 27 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) 18:10, 4 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) 02:09, 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.

Generative learning[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) 15:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend deletion of this redirect. I created the redirect based on a source that was added by another editor to the target article, but a third editor contested that source and pointed out a different definition of generative learning. Since the term apparently has multiple meanings, and the term is no longer mentioned in the target article, the redirect should be deleted. Biogeographist (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Generative disambiguation has a bunch of topics, many of which could be related to education or academics. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:22, 27 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) 18:08, 4 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) 02:09, 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.

Digital typography[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. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the given target really the right place to go to? Hildeoc (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Desktop publishing is also the main reference for digital typography, to quote the introduction of the current target. Most elements of Typography don't particularly matter to digital typography, since it's primarily matters such as principles for setting up a page, for which the process of printing isn't relevant: when you're reading a book, do you easily notice whether it were done digitally or by hand? Display graphics, advertising, inscriptional and architectural lettering, typefaces, color, and scope, likewise, apply regardless of the medium, and aside from one paragraph, the "History" section is specifically about the evolution of the physical printing process that digital typography merely inherited. All this is to say that not much has been said about digital typography (as opposed to non-digital), with the significant exception of what's mentioned in the context of desktop publishing. Nyttend (talk) 17:52, 27 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) 17:51, 4 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) 02:09, 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.

Eyphrosine Kastamonitissa[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 Euphrosyne Kastamonitissa. A consensus to delete is not developing and Euphrosyne Kastamonitissa is obviously the most relevant article. -- Tavix (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weird and utterly mistransliterated variant of Euphrosyne Kastamonitissa. The transliteration is so weird as to be very unlikely that anyone ever will look for it. Constantine ✍ 09:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to Eyphrosine kastamonitissa as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cplakidas (talk • contribs) 09:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that redirect to the nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - when I reviewed these two redirects, I did not think that the exchange of two characters was that weird, especially the i for the y. I figured the y for the u could be a simple typo, since they sit next to one another on the keyboard. Based on those, I would lean Keep, but would definitely yield to those with a better grasp of Greek transliterations.Onel5969 TT me 11:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Onel5969: You are right that "i" can be used instead of "y" to transliterate ypsilon when it is a standalone vowel, but it is very uncommon for historical names. The convention for transliterating Greek is to not use phonetic transliteration for pre-early modern figures. Furthermore, for Byzantine figures specifically, we follow the widely used convention of the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, where the first name is either anglicized or transliterated, not phonetically transcribed. Either way, the transliteration under discussion is "weird" because it is completely inconsistent: a phonetic transcription would result in Evfrosini, or at least Euphrosini, not Eyphrosine. The "y" in "Ey" is of course simply incorrect in every way. The user who created these obviously doesn't have a clue about this. Constantine ✍ 10:01, 5 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) 02:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Euphrosyne Kastamonitissa (these predate a separate article on the wife). I completely understand that this is a weird, nonstandard transliteration, but this is obviously what a user would be looking for if they searched on it, and indeed, someone made an article at this title before the current one. I don't see a reason to be stingy with transliterations when the searcher's intent is clear. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 21 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.

Elmira-Corning, NY Combined Statistical Area[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 24#Elmira-Corning, NY Combined Statistical Area

Horton Hoedown[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) 15:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Target doesn't mention any hoedowns. signed, Rosguill talk 22:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • It appears to be a genuine event first held last year with a second planned for this year: [1]. But the Facebook page gives the address as Renfrew, Ontario rather than Horton? [2]. Maybe it deserves a mention at one article or the other, there do appear to be ample sources. PC78 (talk) 22:37, 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) 02:15, 4 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) 02:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Local event that's only been around for 2 years, but seems to be sponsored by the city. [3] It's not mentioned in the article as a big deal to the town's history though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:19, 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.

Sunny Cove[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 whatever article discusses this in the most general way. List of Intel CPU microarchitectures#Pentium 4 / Core Lines appears to be it at present, but this choice shouldn't be taken to preclude editors from boldly retargeting. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me to be a case of WP:R#DELETE #10, as the target doesn't mention Sunny Cove, and there appear to be enough articles written about Sunny Cove in reliable sources to justify an article. signed, Rosguill talk 21:42, 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) 02:15, 4 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) 02:08, 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.

Fears Within[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. I'll note for the record that "Fears Within" is not currently mentioned at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another rumoured track from an (as yet) unnamed album. Not mentioned on target, nor can I find a more suitable target. At one point text in the article read, 'Please note that these are merely tracks that have been confirmed to be recorded, and may or may not appear on the new album.' Richhoncho (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can find sources from 2006 which give this as the title of her then upcoming fifth album, so it looks legit: [4], [5]. Maybe it should be added to the article? PC78 (talk) 16:56, 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) 02:15, 4 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) 02:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really, really dusty WP:CRYSTAL. I don't know who would search for this besides Britney fans, who will easily be able to find the album itself. --BDD (talk) 15:27, 21 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.

Yog (singer)[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) 15:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some internet searching would indicate that "Yog" may be an abbreviation for "Yours Only George", but this redirect really seems like a stretch. signed, Rosguill talk 23:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, there are reliable sources which refer to him as "Yog", e.g. NME, Pink News, BBC the latter calling it a "family nickname". Mashable states: ""Yog" is a nickname for Michael, which comes from the pronunciation of his given name Georgios Kyriacos Panayiotou.", but I don't know if that's reliable. If there was a mention of this in the article, I'd say it was a plausible redirect, but there currently isn't. Adding it to the article doesn't seem to have been discussed at all, all I found was Talk:George Michael/Archive 2#Yog?. User:JHunterJ removed the entry from Yog (disambiguation) with this edit with the summary "Disambiguation page style repair" so that removal may have been unintentional? Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The removal was intentional, based on MOS:DABMENTION and the then-current version of the George Michael article (and apparently the current version). The dab entry had a commented-out reference, but Wikipedia disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia topics. So if the information on how George Michael is referred to as "Yog" is added (with consensus) to George Michael, then the entry could be added to the disambiguation page. But I doubt that encyclopedia readers interested in reading about Michael are going to search for "Yog". -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it's not mentioned in the target article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:09, 8 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) 02:07, 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.

Basement garage[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. It's fascinating that the issue can be summarized with two images. Perhaps a redirect would work if we ever get an article on Subterranean parking. -- Tavix (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Multi-storey car park
Basement garage

Delete. Unless I'm missing something, these topics are significantly different: see images at right. A multi-storey car park has multiple storeys; it's not merely below the level of the rest of a building, as is a basement garage. It may include (but need not) parking areas on the basement level, but then the basement's a small section of the whole car park, and it's just another level, rather than being a distinctive section of a building that otherwise isn't intended for parking. Garage (residential) doesn't mention basements (except in a navbox), so I don't think a redirect there is good. And finally, I suspect that houses with basement garages, as in the lower picture, are more common than multi-storey car parks; it would be more reasonable to change the target to House, and even that would be silly. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this is definitely surprising at first glance, but looking closer it's more complicated. The Mutli-storey car park#Design section does mention basement parking, along with roof-top parking, and later sections of the article also refer to parking more broadly than just multi-storey car parks (Parking garage, Parking structure and other terms also redirect there), even though the lead is nearly exclusive to what the title means. I think the best course of action here might be to discuss that article, in conjunction with Parking lot which also has some coverage of subterranean parking, and get consensus on what each is actually about, with a view to moving, merging and/or splitting and then look at the various redirects to determine what is the best location for each of them. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it mentions parking in the basement, but again, one can park in other kinds of basements too: this isn't particularly related to multi-storey car parks. Aside from houses, consider office buildings with a single parking level in the basement or roof. Problems with the target article going beyond its topic aren't good reason to keep a problematic redirect. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the subject of the redirect is discussed at the target, which covers parking in basements of buildings other than multi-storey car parks (despite the article title). It is therefore not obviously incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the subject discussed in the article? I see just two appearances of basement — one reference to garages that have basements, and one reference to basement garages in buildings that aren't multi-storey car parks. The former isn't a basement garage, and the latter isn't related to the subject of the article. Imagine that we didn't have a carport article; would it be worthwhile redirecting that title to garage (residential), just because carports are mentioned there? No, because they're fundamentally different topics that should be covered separately, and a redlink is better than a redirect to a page that merely mentions the topic in passing. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 5 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) 02:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom. I think I get Thryduulf's point; "basement garage" could refer to the residential garage pictured in this discussion or part of what's described in the target article, i.e., a "multistorey car park" that's partially or entirely under a commercial or multi-unit residential building. In US English, though, I'd still expect the latter to be called a "parking garage", so I do suspect a user searching for this term would be looking for something different. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 21 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.

Standard enthalpy change of formation (data table[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. Duplicate nomination, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 10#Missing or misplaced brackes (with history). PC78 (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed redirect. The legit one is be Standard enthalpy change of formation (data table). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:01, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_12&oldid=1138582812"