Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 28, 2020.

0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000:0000[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 0.0.0.0#In IPv6. signed, Rosguill talk 08:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one is going to search up this term. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 22:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it harmful by just existing? I can imagine the address :: being written this way, horribly verbose as it is. —ajf (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is used and defined at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine to 0.0.0.0#In IPv6 per Tavix. — J947 [cont] 23:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retarget to 0.0.0.0#In IPv6 per above. I don't think anyone's going to type the whole thing, but they might type the first few characters and use the autofill. It does get occasional pageviews. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • FTR, those pageviews are from the NewPagesFeed. — J947 [cont] 00:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine - I agree that this should go to '0.0.0.0#In_IPv6'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per those above. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 07:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per above, I'm the creator of the redirect, and while it is unlikely that someone will search up the full version of ::, there is no harm in making a redirect in case someone does. This was one of the reasons why I made the redirect, and I see that it makes sense to redirect it to 0.0.0.0#In IPv6 instead. Mattx8y (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2020 (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.

I LOVE THIS SONG[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. signed, Rosguill talk 08:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This could be any song and it's not mentioned at the target; it's totally ambiguous. The original targeted content when created lasted all of about four hours and two edits before being removed: [1]. -- 2pou (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; the meme in question is unmentioned on the site and therefore ambiguous. — J947 [cont] 23:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (I did a bit of digging. It apparently refers to a trivial meme, which the editor added to the target immediately before creating this redirect.[2]) - SummerPhDv2.0 23:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are actual songs with this title (albeit not in all caps), none of which have articles. However, most mentions of the term in article space are from quotes. If one of the aforementioned songs are individually notable (I haven't checked), an article can be created for it. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete promotional. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:14, 29 April 2020 (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.

FunkO’s[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 Funko. I'm not seeing a clear consensus on Funko vs Funko#Product lines, so no prejudice against further edits or discussion there signed, Rosguill talk 22:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The FunkOS has no apostrophe, and Funko cereal is not stylised like this. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The product boxes spell FunkO's with an image (crowned cereal hoop?) resembling a capital O. Either retarget to Funko#Product lines, which mentions the name briefly, or delete and leave search to do its job. Certes (talk) 18:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that Funko's (disambiguation) was also created recently, and should be cleaned up for twodabs. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Funko as their cereal brand {{R from product}}, clean up hatnotes. FunkOS the operating system does not have the O's stylization so it is not appropriate for disambiguation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Funko#Product lines. Certes points out the image for reference, but even the product listing pages use the styling "FunkO's" (c.f., [3])
  • Retarget: I'm happy to change my opinion as the nominator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Funko, but perhaps give a mention there to the fact that the boxes all feature the strapline(?) "Funko's"? PamD 09:29, 30 April 2020 (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.

Strictly convex[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May also refer to strictly convex spaces. Suggest disambiguating. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Create disambiguation Thanks qwer4, agreed! (I created the page originally, and you're right, it's better as a disambiguation.) —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If we have just two topics, one of them being primary and the other being secondary, do we really need a disambiguation page? Can't we simply use a note on the primary topic's article? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:18, 28 April 2020 (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.

Steven speilbergo[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. signed, Rosguill talk 08:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia, old edit summaries from 2005 indicate this may be an error. Hog Farm (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. TheTVExpert (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to A Star Is Burns. This is a character in this episode. I am linking to Simpsons Wiki for verification instead of linking to copyright-violating YouTube videos. [4] Yes, it is spelt wrong, but Speilberg redirects to Steven Spielberg, which suggests that not everybody knows how to spell that name. No harm in keeping. Wallachia Wallonia (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First off, it is not mentioned in the target article. Second, even if it redirected to Steven Spielberg, the distance between the g and the o would make this an implausible typo. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it should be Señor Spielbergo, which is multiple typos away from this version. There is nothing in the episode to explain that Senor's first name is also Steven. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:30, 30 April 2020 (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.

Category:Media in the Dallas – Fort Worth Metroplex[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per recent CfD. Maybe recreate with new nomenclature. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2020 (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.

Soulstice (Band)[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 Soulstice. The discussion itself was no consensus between retargeting and deletion, defaulting to retarget as preferable to keep. signed, Rosguill talk 22:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Soulstice is also about a band, so this redirect is ambiguous, and should be deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per K5 and RHARMFUL; close to pointless to delete. — J947 [cont] 22:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as (band) now covers the appropriate redundancy. The (Band) version is not needed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:33, 30 April 2020 (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.

Economy of Wake Island[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) NASCARfan0548 ↗ 19:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

R with old history, but there is no information given on that topic. If this is deleted, the R from subpage Wake Island/Economy should also be. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the history as historical, but I'm not opposed to a retarget if possible. — J947 [cont] 20:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding Wake Island/Economy to the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - These aren't appropriate since, as stated above, the targeted article doesn't discuss the topic. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This edit summary does say merge, so best not to delete Economy of Wake Island due to possible attribution issues. FWIW, I'm still in favour of keeping the other one as well. — J947 [cont] 00:38, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947. As an additional argument, while there isn't a top level "Economy" section in the target, there is information that is related to the economy so the redirect isn't entirely useless, and any information yet to be written about the island's economy would certainly be appropriate to include there. signed, Rosguill talk 22:08, 8 May 2020 (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.

Megan Wants a Millionaire Cancellation[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. 5 to 2 split in favor of deletion without a clear basis for discounting any arguments means a rough consensus for deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 22:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect that was created during the deletion discussion for Megan Wants a Millionaire Cancelled. This redirect serves no better purpose than that one. A suggestion was made early in the discussion to refine the target but that did not receive support. The deletion arguments in that discussion apply to this equally. AussieLegend (✉) 09:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree. I see no good reason to keep this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Narky Blert (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Page creator here. I am going to say keep per WP:RCHEAP and because this article was recently created, so maybe we should keep this to see if there will be a decent number of pageviews. Also, I recall that someone in the previous discussion said all TV shows have to end eventually, but this is one of the few shows that was not cancelled due to poor ratings or low audience viewership. Can someone give me another show that was cancelled because one of the main cast members was arrested for a murder trial? OcelotCreeper (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In all honesty, the creator of this redirect should have considered creating this redirect after the discussion Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 12#Megan Wants a Millionaire Cancelled closed to see if there would be consensus-backed direction to create the redirect nominated in this discussion. To me, creating this redirect before the aforementioned discussion closed was like putting the cart before the horse and accidentally came off as WP:POINTy. Steel1943 (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do agree, I should have waited a little bit to see if people are actually suggesting if I should or should not create the redirect, but I'm going to let this discussion take its course and see if it will be kept or deleted. I do thank you for mentioning the cart before the horse though, I'll have to remember that next time. OcelotCreeper (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as helpful and unambiguous, nothing is to be gained by deleting this redirect. — J947 [cont] 21:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia articles are not news headlines, especially not for routine coverage. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:18, 1 May 2020 (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.

Trump virus[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 move without replacement to Trump virus (Wild Cards) and retarget to List_of_Wild_Cards_characters#Dr._Tachyon. While on a purely numerical basis there's a majority in favor of deletion, several of these votes appear to have been made under the assumption that the existing target already had to do with covid19 and/or Donald Trump. The proposed move addresses concerns raised by delete voters that the current title is ambiguous, while also preserving the redirect's history and sending any readers searching for the Wild Cards plot element to a relevant page. signed, Rosguill talk 21:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clear violation of WP:ASTONISH. Should either be retargeted to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in the United States something coronavirus-related, disambiguated, or deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget or weak delete This element is not mentioned at the target, but is listed at List of fictional diseases. I cannot rule out the possibility that COVID-19 is nicknamed the "Trump virus" in the US, but I'm also unsure if it is common enough. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The term was popularized by Gail Collins's NYT opinion piece "Let's Call It Trumpvirus". I think even 10 years from now, the term will be associated with coronavirus rather than some obscure fictional virus by a wide, wide margin. So the question is whether it is desirable to have a redirect from a non-neutral term. For example, in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 12#Obama bin Laden (which I closed), it was determined that "Obama bin Laden" was much more likely to be an attack on Barack Obama than a misspelling of Osama bin Laden, and that it should not redirect to an Obama-related article for editorial reasons, so it was deleted as having no suitable target. I think in this case anything related to Wild Cards is definitely wrong from the perspective of helping our readers get where they are trying to go, so the question is whether we should give a nod to coronavirus or not. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've given it some more thought, and my preference would be disambiguation > deletion > coronavirus target > Wild Cards target. The term "Trump virus" has been picked up by a lot of media, but unlike Donald Drumpf we don't have an article which can fully contextualize it at the moment; Criticism of response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Trump administration looks like the most promising spot. Anyways a disambiguation page would give the reader the most options to get to their desired target and also briefly give context on both of the entries. I'm also fine with deletion a la Obama bin Laden, though blaming a poor virus response on the president isn't quite comparable to calling him a terrorist. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to reiterate for the purposes of gaining a consensus I support deletion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to future creation, in light of the argument above. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'd rather that we just be rid of this given the ambiguity as well as the extremely pejorative nature of the term. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and definitely do not retarget to COVID-19. --MarioGom (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it could just be moved to Trump virus (Wild Cards) or Trump virus (George R. R. Martin) -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlike AfD, the point of an RfD is not to determine where content goes, because a redirect has no content. So even if we did what you suggested, that still does not solve the question of what should remain in its place at Trump virus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing would remain in its place. The new name of the redirect will show up in the searchbox with the suitable disambiguation. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of Wild Cards characters#Dr. Tachyon, where there is information about something with this name that search doesn't find. Peter James (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trump part not mentioned at target article. OcelotCreeper (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is why I proposed to retarget to where it is mentioned. Peter James (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ambiguous, does not appear to be worthy of mentioning anywhere, and almost WP:G10. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So you haven't looked at the redirect, the article it links to, or this discussion? Peter James (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:astonish. no redirect to Covid related thing. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 23:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So you would prefer to hide the information about this and show COVID-19 related content instead? Peter James (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It has never been our goal to optimize the content of search results of nonexistent titles. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advocacy neologism. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So you haven't looked at the redirect, the article it links to, or this discussion? Deletion would provide results for the neologism instead. Peter James (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if you don't like the neologism, it is what most people will associate with the term for the foreseeable future, as the original term was extremely obscure to begin with. Pointing the redirect to a highly unexpected place does a disservice to readers. Most of them will be here for COVID-19, even several years down the road I'm sure, and it is better for them to see a red link and a link to this discussion showing why we do not have anything there, rather than forcing them to an article they never intended to read. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget (then possibly Move w/o Redirect or Move & Dabify) - Overall, I think the minimum solution would be to retarget per Peter James. Do not delete per WP:RHARMFUL as this is an old redirect and has history prior to this becoming a redirect. Side note: around the time it was redirected, there was mention at the target. Once that is done, I think moving to Trump virus (Wild Cards) per the IP is not a bad idea. I think that it should be moved without leaving a redirect, though, to avoid giving credence to a neologism via a redirect or dab page. -2pou (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I see what the IP was talking about. I agree, we can move the history to Trump virus (Wild Cards) for preservation, leaving nothing or a dab in its place. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 6 May 2020 (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.

Rogelio Guevarra[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 Daet massacre. (non-admin closure) NASCARfan0548 ↗ 19:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the spot. Guevarra is more appropriately a redirect to Daet massacre. Chieharumachi (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2020 (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.

Category:Media in Novgorod[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 6#Category:Media in Novgorod

Floof[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. Per tacit withdrawal from nom. (non-admin closure) LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying this should be deleted. I nominated this to say that there are a few issues I think it has, and I want to see if they could be taken care of. The main one I can think of is that the target article doesn't mention the redirect. I recall this was nominated 1.5 months ago and the IP who nominated it called it a WP:NEO, and I think the redirect not being mentioned in the target could be the reason why. OcelotCreeper (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2020 (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.

*Time Doesn't Notice[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old duplicate article redirected to the article it duplicated. There doesn't seem to be a clear reason to have the * preceeding, and as explained in another nomination, having a leading * interferes with the search function unless there's a good reason to have it. Hog Farm (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2020 (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.

Dan (Middle-earth)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned anywhere on the English Wikipedia in a Middle-earth context. Has always been a redirect, so no WP:ATT issues with deletion. Hog Farm (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, and not likely to be mentioned, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see no reason to keep this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the one hand, this is the name Lenwë was originally given by Tolkien in early drafts, and he is mentioned at the target. On the other hand, this is likely to be confusing unless the early name is explained, and that is really not terribly important. So, on balance, I'd lean for delete. Double sharp (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2020 (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.

*Tain Hindu Mandir[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover from an old page move. Starting redirect titles with the * when not necessary actually inhibits the use of the search bar, as the * can be used to bring up all usages of a string in a search, much like Google has some searching aids involving certain characters. Hog Farm (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2020 (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.

Category:Media in the Republic of Macedonia by city[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 move without replacement. by Fayenatic london signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not sure if creation of Category:Mass media in the Republic of Macedonia by city is needed) per recent CfD discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2020 (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.

Category:Media in the Republic of Macedonia[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 move without replacement by Fayenatic london signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not sure if creation of Category:Mass media in the Republic of Macedonia is needed) per recent CfD discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2020 (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.

Category:Media in Bremen[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 move without replacement by Fayenatic london signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and create Category:Mass media in Bremen per recent CfD discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2020 (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.

CCP Virus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 5#CCP Virus

Horned devil[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague to point here, or probably anywhere. Should be deleted due to vagueness and let the search engine do its job. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. An extremely minor D&D monster. In the real world, it sounds like a hybrid of a Horned lizard and a Thorny devil; two species which look similar but are unrelated. As second choice, weak retarget to Devil, because in Christian iconography devils very often have horns. Narky Blert (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The ambiguity makes deletion seem to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add that I don't agree with going over to 'devil' given that a lot of demonic figures aren't depicted with horns. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2020 (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.

UFC (video game)[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 Ultimate Fighting Championship (video game). signed, Rosguill talk 18:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either retarget to Ultimate Fighting Championship (video game) (the first UFC game) or create a disambiguation. The date of disambiguation creation (June 2013, around EA UFC 1 release) suggests the redirect creator were unaware of the first UFC game or something, I don't really know. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 08:35, 28 April 2020 (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.

iPhone SE[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. A narrow majority of editors support disambiguation. While normally a vote split like this would be closed as no consensus, at a certain point several editors arguing that the 2016 model is not a clear primary topic is itself enough evidence that it is not the primary topic. signed, Rosguill talk 01:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After the announcement of the new iPhone SE (2020), the old iPhone SE page was moved to iPhone SE (2016). I turned the redirect into a disambiguation page, but was reverted by Prahlad balaji with the rationale that there are still many inbound links to the old iPhone SE. Here we have two options: 1) the old iPhone SE is still the primary topic, and should be moved back to its original page since by definition the "(2016)" qualifier is unnecessary; or 2) there is no primary topic, and iPhone SE should be a disambiguation page. The current situation, a primary redirect to a parenthetically disambiguated title, is impermissible. I, of course, favor disambiguation as neither of the two models is more important than the other. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @King of Hearts: The iPhone SE (2020) was just announced. Since the page iPhone SE (2016) has been called just "iPhone SE" for many years, there are still inbound links to it. There is a separate disambig page that is linked at the very top of iPhone SE (2016) and iPhone SE (2020). Also, there is already an iPhone SE disambig page. Check it out here. There is no need to make this a disambiguation page when there already is one that has a clearer title, so that readers know that it's actually a disambig page. -◊PRAHLADBalaji 04:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The existence of inbound links is not a reason to hold up implementation of our naming/disambiguation policies. They will be fixed eventually, and in the meantime readers will still be able to get to their desired destination with one additional click. Again, the naming convention for disambiguation pages states that iPhone SE should be the disambiguation page and iPhone SE (disambiguation) should be a redirect to it. (Unless you are arguing that the old iPhone SE is the primary topic, in which case the move to iPhone SE (2016) should not have been done. Pick one or the other, the current situation is not supported in policy.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the 2016 iPhone SE back to the base title. Until reviews and sales figures for the 2020 device have been released, the 2016 iPhone SE remains the more prominent topic by long-term significance and should be treated as the primary topic. feminist Wear a mask to protect everyone 04:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move - I support the above proposal to move things back given that we clearly have a primary topic here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per CoffeeWithMarkets, though if there's ever a third model, that would probably be the time to disambiguate the base title. --BDD (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back to the old iPhone SE page as the primary topic. --17jiangz1 (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move back and keep together. Apple chose to continue the name, so the 2020 model should be characterized as a new version of the iPhone SE, not as an altogether different thing. Note that this is also not a proper disambiguation page, as the topics are not unrelated. It would be a set index article. BD2412 T 20:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FYI Talk:IPhone SE (2nd generation)#Requested move 16 April 2020. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move, it's too early to say if eventually the articles will be swapped (with the older unit being "iPhone SE (1st generation)" and the newer unit being at "iPhone SE"), but for now the older unit is clearly the primary topic. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What renders the 2016 model the primary topic, and is it likely to remain the primary topic for a significant period of time? If not, is it worth having to change the page names again if, in the future, the 2016 iPhone SE fades out of memory and the 2020 model is better known? Guy Harris (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The existing RS coverage does, based on proportion. We can’t choose a primary topic based on projected future coverage! — MarkH21talk 05:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC lists "two major aspects that editors commonly consider" when deciding what's the primary topic.
The first is "A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." It's not clear, given that the most recent iPhone SE model is the 2nd generation one, that this would be the first-generation iPhone SE.
The second is "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." The only thing that would inherently give the first generation more notability and educational value is that it introduced the notion of a "Special Edition" iPhone; I'm not convinced that's sufficient.
If we look at "article traffic statistics", including redirects, the iPhone SE page dominated until 2020-04-14. At that point, there was a surge of traffic for pages (including redirects) for both models. Traffic bounced around a bit for all of them; by 2020-04-19, the pages for the first generation (iPhone SE, iPhone SE (1st generation), and iPhone SE (2016) got a total of 10,986 pageviews, and the pages for the second generation (iPhone SE (2nd generation) and iPhone SE (2020) got a total of 10,504 pageviews. (I'm assuming that if you "include redirects", pageviews of redirect pages are counted as pageviews of the page to which it redirect, as the graph in question shows only the main 2nd generation page, the main 1st generation page, and the iPhone SE page, which is a redirect-for-discussion and no longer redirects.) So, based on pageviews, they were about equally interesting on Wikipedia on 2020-04-19. I don't expect interest in the 2nd generation to die off and leave behind only continued interest in the 1st generation; my guess is that interest in both will drop down to a lower level, probably with the 2nd generation having more interest, but not necessarily a lot more interest.
Google Trends shows only "iPhone se 2020" as having much interest - neither the "1st generation" nor the "2nd generation" versions, nor "iPhone se 2016" have much interest. Plain "iPhone se" beats them all - and it's probably people looking for the 2nd generation phone, as it spiked recently, along with "iPhone se 2020".
So, at this point, I think the most reasonable approach is to have separate pages for the two generations, neither one named "iPhone SE", with "iPhone SE" being the disambiguation page - the only non-redirect page in article space that links to iPhone SE now is Macintosh SE, and that's just in a hatnote "Not to be confused with iPhone SE", so that would end up pointing to the disambiguation page. Guy Harris (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or, if the general concept of a cheaper "Special Edition" iPhone is worth an article, make iPhone SE that article, with short sections about both generations, with a Template:Main link to the articles about the generations in each section. Guy Harris (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting that iPhone SE is no longer linked to Macintosh SE. -◊PRAHLADBalaji 00:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
iPhone SE should be merged with iPhone SE (disambiguation). -◊PRAHLADBalaji 00:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MarkH21: And where does it say ongoing RfD, do not modify until RfD is closed, may I ask? -◊PRAHLADBalaji 16:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Prahlad balaji: Click on the diff I linked. It’s an edit summary. Alternatively, look at the edit history. — MarkH21talk 16:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make iPhone SE an overview article a disambiguation There should be a definition of the term and an illustration what sets apart an "iPhone SE" from other iPhones. There should also be a summarization section for each generation. -- Tavix (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tavix: Maybe? The only thing is that the two iPhones are completely different. The only things that bind them together are the name and marketing strategy. -◊PRAHLADBalaji 15:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the name and marketing strategy is exactly what "binds them together", and both of these things can be explained in an overview article. -- Tavix (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    At the moment I'm not convinced that the vague idea of an "iPhone SE" meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for a general-concept article; how many secondary sources treat these two models as one class distinct from the other iPhones? But a disambiguation page doesn't need to meet any notability requirements. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @King of Hearts: Here are the similarities between the two. They are both $399 iPhones that ship with the near-final versions of their generation of iOS, compared to their higher-end counterparts, which shipped with the initial release. For example, the first-generation iPhone SE shipped with iOS 9.3, while its higher-end counterparts, the iPhone 6S/6S Plus, shipped with iOS 9.0.1. The second-generation iPhone SE shipped with iOS 13.4, while the higher-end iPhone 11, 11 Pro, and 11 Pro Max shipped with iOS 13.0. Ah, but there's more. Both are the smallest phones of their time. For example, 4.0 inch screens were small for 2016, and now 4.7 inch screens are small for 2020. And that brings me to another point. Both of these phones take an aging design and put modern parts into it. For example, the 2016 SE took the aging design of the 5S and put 6S internals into it, while the second-generation iPhone SE took the design of the iPhone 8 and put iPhone 11/11 Pro components in. Both are released in the year after their higher-end counterparts are released. For example, the original SE was released in 2016, the year after the release of the 6S/6S Plus, while the second-generation iPhone SE was released in 2020, the year after the release of the 11/11 Pro/11 Pro Max. -◊PRAHLADBalaji 13:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Any source that calls the 2020 iPhone SE a "second generation" would inherently make that distinction. Otherwise it'd be referred to as a 13th (or 14th?) generation iPhone. I note that Apple did so in their press release. -- Tavix (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's more akin to a trivial mention; I just don't think we could write a general iPhone SE article that isn't just stating facts about one phone and comparing them to facts about the other phone, as opposed to talking about the broad ecosystem and strategy of the SE line. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it would help if I show you examples? Sub-lines of the iPad, for example, have their own overview articles, like the iPad Pro and iPad Mini. I don't see this situation being any different. That being said, I don't have the time or energy to develop such an article, and it doesn't look like anyone else has stepped forward to volunteer... -- Tavix (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tavix: I can do it for you, if this discussion is closed. An overview article is a great idea. -◊PRAHLADBalaji 13:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! Would you be willing to start it before the discussion is completed, at Draft:iPhone SE perhaps? If participants know what it will look like, it may be easier to find consensus for and implement once the discussion is over. -- Tavix (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tavix: Sure! I'd be willing to start the draft page. Would you be willing to help me with it a bit? -◊PRAHLADBalaji 13:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Tavix: Wait, wouldn't that be a duplicate of a legitimate article? -◊PRAHLADBalaji 15:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Tavix: Sorry, nevermind what I said there. I'm getting a bit annoying, so reply when you can. Cheerio! -◊PRAHLADBalaji 15:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm updating my !vote to disambiguation. Partially to help with consensus, partially because my suggestion isn't gaining favor. -- Tavix (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make iPhone SE a disambiguation page. I came here to this discussion because I searched for "iPhone SE" and wanted info about the new model. --Petar Petrov (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Петър Петров: That's what we all want to do. But the one thing is, there is already a disambig page located here. We need to make iPhone SE a disambiguation page, then redirect the existing disambig page to iPhone SE per Wikipedia's naming guidelines. -◊PRAHLADBalaji 19:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Петър Петров: Oh yes, and the new model's article is at iPhone SE (2nd generation). -◊PRAHLADBalaji 19:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make iPhone SE a disambiguation page. As per my long post above under Comment:, there's little reason to think one of the current iPhone SE models is a primary topic, and as per other comments, it's not clear that there's enough to say about the general notion of an "iPhone SE" to make iPhone SE a real page, so, as per MOS:DABPAGENAME, "the title of a disambiguation page [would be]] the ambiguous term itself", namely "iPhone SE". We'd do that by 1) having iPhone SE redirect to iPhone SE (disambiguation), and then ask an administrator to do the "rename iPhone SE (disambiguation) to iPhone SE and then make iPhone SE (disambiguation) a redirect to iPhone SE" dance. Guy Harris (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make iPhone SE a disambiguation page. There is no primary topic and there are only two models of phone with the name. We don't want an overview article that only worsens the Wikipedia disease of "we must have an article for everything". Oh, DrPizza! (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make "iPhone SE" a disambig. These are two phones which aren't related. Having a simple page to redirect the user from "iPhone SE" to either the 2016 or the 2020 model should work. The iPhone SE page itself, on the other hand, could either be renamed to "iPhone SE (1st generation)" or "iPhone SE (2016)"; the best choice would be something consistent with the iPhone SE 2020's article. KevTYD (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2020 (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.

Rushdown (Middle-earth)[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned anywhere in a Middle-earth context. Was previously RFD'd in February, and closed with "no action" (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 17#Rushdown (Middle-earth)). However situations have changed since this discussion, and I believe it's time for a deletion. Not really an important feature of anything, and not mentioned anywhere in this context except at the dab page Rushdown, which will have only one valid entry once this is cleaned up. Hog Farm (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A really minor featurelet. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As other RfDs (e.g. this one) have shown, there is at least some consensus for deleting redirects for Middle-earth geographical features that are not discussed in the target. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2020 (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.

Cuts and alterations from the book in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (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 delete. signed, Rosguill talk 18:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section it redirected to no longer exists. Delete unless someone can find a good spot to retarget this to. OcelotCreeper (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2020 (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.

Prsident-Regent[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. signed, Rosguill talk 18:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete, because obvious typo in Estonian Estopedist1 (talk) 05:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This isn't helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unhelpful typo. Narky Blert (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unambiguous error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, especially considering that Prsident has never existed during the almost 20 years of Wikipedia's existence, and shouldn't, proving it to not be a likely misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; nothing is gained by deleting this. — J947 [cont] 21:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...Except for discouraging editors from cluttering the Wikipedia search function by creating redirects based on unlikely misspellings. Steel1943 (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a very minor qualm – it isn't even listed in the full search results. I agree with you that they shouldn't be created, but if editors do create these then there's no harm in keeping them. — J947 [cont] 21:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "Prsident" is an implausible typo and should not have a redirect. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Implausible. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:14, 2 May 2020 (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/2020_April_28&oldid=1072177339"