Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 8, 2020.

Enkyklopaideia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#Enkyklopaideia

Encyclopedia of silliness[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#Encyclopedia of silliness

Blocking minority[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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this term has applications beyond that of only voting in the council of the EU, and could be misleading to searchers. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to redirect

I have edited the article so that it is now a redirect as discussed above. No doubt it can be improved, please feel free to do so. --Red King (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A disambiguation has been drafted, but I'm not seeing a clear consensus in favor of disambiguation. Please continue to discuss.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate (changing !vote). I've added a see-also to the draft. Narky Blert (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate (changing !vote). My own conclusion from the discussion above was the case against a simple redirect was convincing and that it could not stand. Even if I say so myself, I think that the draft disambig article has turned out to be a good outcome of this discussion. Incidentally, Google search turns up fewer direct uses of the phrase than are listed, because it contains logical 'synomyns'.--Red King (talk) 21:23, 9 March 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.

Pronunciation of X[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#Pronunciation of X

How to pronounce English[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#How to pronounce English

/°C[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 18:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The coefficient of thermal expansion can be expressed as the reciprocal of temperature, but as far as I can see – and I'm no physicist or engineer – so can any other temperature-dependent coefficient. – Uanfala (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Reciprocal temperature makes as much sense as reciprocal pressure, acceleration, or longitude; i.e. none at all. Narky Blert (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see this making sense at the current target nor the proposed retarget. Perhaps there is a target that makes sense, but I'm not seeing it. -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 18 March 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.

Jon Perrin[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 John Perrin (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer mentioned at the list he was once mentioned at and does not appear to be affiliated with a professional baseball currently (and has not been in the Royals organization since 2018). One mention at 2014 Baylor Bears baseball team as having lost a game to Baylor, a mention in a list at Mankato MoonDogs, and is on a roster list at 2015 Oklahoma State Cowboys baseball team. John Perrin is also a disambiguation page. I'd say either retarget (maybe to the dab page?) or delete per WP:XY, none of these potential targets seem to claim priority aside from the dab page. Hog Farm (talk) 20:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:15, 8 March 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.

The Windy Apple[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article, 14 pageviews in 2019 [1], no real utility. Hog Farm (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak-ish keep due to the low-ish pageviews. No other English Wikipedia articles mention The Windy Apple and, upon doing some Google searches, I can see it's the nickname for the fictional capital city of the state in which the Simpson family. As well, from what I can tell, no other places are called The Windy Apple, so there's little to no ambiguity or confusion per WP:R#D2 and WP:XY. Thus, it's harmless and, potentially, modestly useful. I would add {{R from fictional location}}, {{R without mention}}, {{R to section}}, and, possibly, {{R for convenience}}. Doug Mehus T·C 03:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 23:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned anywhere so should not be a redirect. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:16, 11 March 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.

Xpert Engine On[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, doesn't appear to be an alternative name for the subject. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 8 March 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.

Intelligent Technology and Electronics[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#Intelligent Technology and Electronics

Hitler dead[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 by others. (non-admin closure) 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar dead. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is an easy to excuse search term if English is not your primary language. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is probably in reference to the big Stars & Stripes headline, as seen at the top of our article. I can see a little bit of harm in that a reader could be looking for something about that article (cf. Dewey Defeats Truman), and we only give the image, with no specific discussion. But overall, I think this is reasonable. --BDD (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Logical search term, redirects don't have to be perfect grammar. Hog Farm (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others and WP:R#K5. — J947 (user | cont | ess), at 05:53, 9 March 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.

Deſign[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No reason a reader would search for the term with a long s. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:01, 8 March 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.

Shak-spere[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#Shak-spere

Generation V[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 Fifth generation. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that there is old history on this page, but it is presently not mentioned in the target, and the topic of the previous article does not appear to be a notable concept, searches predominately come up with results about generation V Pokémon, but I would advise against retargeting there as it might be confusing for people who come across sources such as this, so I suggest deletion if there is no reason to disambiguate. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:10, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as made up by the author as their own name for Generation Z. Utopes (talk / cont) 15:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Seems to be the same case as "Homelanders", above, traceable to a single Forbes writer and picked up by nearly no one else other than random bloggers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no evidence of common usage for this term. Moreover, it is quite confusing. Nerd271 (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When a whole bunch of RS use it consistently and it starts appearing in dictionaries, and we have something encyclopedic (WP:NOTDICT) to say about it, then include it. This isn't ProtologismPedia. Cf. also WP:NFT.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate to Gen V pokemon and Generation V reactor, LS based GM small-block engine#Generation V with see also to Fifth generation AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Fifth generation. Practice for generations 1-4 have the disambiguation pages (at "Nth generation") include both uses. No need to duplicate efforts. --BDD (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Per BDD. Least confusion, most useful. I'd be a little concerned given it has been this way for over a decade, but beyond the merge discussion, it seems quite reasonable. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:44, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BDD's proposal would be okay. I'm wondering about Gen IV and some leftovers like that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as BDD suggested would also make sense. Nerd271 (talk) 20:31, 15 March 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.

Yup yup yup[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) 19:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has other uses beyond that in The Land Before Time, delete as ambiguous. Hog Farm (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (was Keep) Yes, it's got potential other users, but any extant to English Wikipedia? Even still, it's one of the most memorable lines in the film, not unlike, "life's like a box of chocolates...you never know what yer gonna get," is to Forrest Gump, so I think it's potentially at least a weak-ish primary topic here. If not, I'm willing to invoke WP:IAR here. Doug Mehus T·C 02:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem seems to be that the phrase isn't even worthy of a sourced mentioned, let alone discussion in the current article. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't really care about sourcing for redirects, though, as long as it's plausible and there are no other targets extant to existing English Wikipedia articles. I can confirm there are offline sources which do confirm this line from the film, but equally important, the primary source (i.e., the film) is just as valid and can be used, per WP:VERIFIABILITY. Doug Mehus T·C 14:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can, with certainty, say that offline reliable sources do exist for this phrasing. Moreover, we have primary reliable sources, which confirm this phrasing. I would support a retargeting there, but given that it's mentioned in the first film, I think refining the existing target to where Ducky is mentioned is better. We could add {{R from misspelling}} and then create a second redirect for Yep yep yep for the correct spelling. Or, alternatively, retarget yup yup yup to the suggested target by the IP editor, and yep yep yep to either of the two targets. Doug Mehus T·C 14:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for 59.149.124.29, what exactly is "marginal" about Syracuse.com? It's a born-digital, hyper-local news publication owned by Advance Local LLC, itself part of Advance Digital, that is itself owned by Condé Nast owner Advance Publications. I have no concerns about its editorial reliability whatsoever. Doug Mehus T·C 16:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dmehus: My exact words were "marginal-looking". In particular, the "byline" on the Syracuse.com piece is the name of a zoo rather than the name of a journalist, which made it look like a reprint of a press release or native advertising or something similar. I remain neutral between deletion and retargetting. 59.149.124.29 (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
59.149.124.29 Okay, thank you for clarifying that. Doug Mehus T·C 02:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at its current location (2nd choice) with rcats {{R to article without mention}}, {{R from catchphrase}}, {{R from alternative spelling}}, and {{R from fictional element}}. No real reason for deletion here. Doug Mehus T·C 00:28, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I am an IP currently, I would like to say Delete because people who have watched the film are the only people who would get the reference and even then, they are very very unlikely to search up The Land Before Time this way. 209.237.105.108 (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too vague. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not really plausible as a search term for the suggested targets. signed, Rosguill talk 18:50, 18 March 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.

Customs and Immigration[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. I realize how unsatisfying this is bound to be, but there simply isn't consensus for any one course of action. By my count, the thinnest plurality favored deletion, but this was still ultimately a minority position. Nor was there the sort of unanimous consensus against the status quo that would make me call no consensus but still retarget somewhere. Should anyone want to try creating a broad-concept article as discussed, that might be welcome. --BDD (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No action recommended, just looking for feedback about the redirect. Prisencolin (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts for this redirect were that "Customs and Immigration", especially in that order, is most likely to refer to the process at airports. Customs, a related topic, is another possibility, with government agencies being a less likely intended search target. as far as I can tell, the only government agency with an article on Wikipedia that includes "Customs and Immigration" in their names in that order is States of Jersey Customs and Immigration Service. Confusingly, the previous target for this redirect, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), doesn't actually conduct customs checks at borders, a task left to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. ICE is mostly known for carrying out deportations. signed, Rosguill talk 01:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I question the value of this redirect. Immigration and customs doesn't exist, even though in my experience that's the usual order of processing. Land and sea routes are also important, notably in Europe. One role of the UK Border Force is to check for illegal immigrants, so that checking the contents of a lorry is a combined customs and immigration operation. Narky Blert (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comments are similar to the above in that I would prefer to see Customs and immigration, with Customs and Immigration using {{R from other capitalisation}}, target to a generic article on foreign affairs, immigration, customs, immigration and customs enforcement, and the like. Being targeted to the article on international airports is not the greatest. I think it's fine, for now, but without prejudice to a bold retarget to a more appropriate target. --Doug Mehus T·C 13:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Narky Blert, Dmehus, how would you feel about Customs as a potential target? signed, Rosguill talk 21:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill Glancing at the sections of the article, it does focus on immigration enforcement and customs, import tariffs, and so forth, but it's actually not that great. I'd actually prefer to see Customs move to Customs and immigration, with Customs continuing as a redirect to the section on Customs. Or, instead of a redirect, Customs would then become a dab page for border-related "Customs" and topics related to social and political customs and traditions. Or, alternatively, if editors want to have a separate article on more immigration-related topics, then dab-ifying Customs and immigration. As to the order of the title, in Canada, as well as the United States, "customs" usually comes first and, alphabetically, this seems to make sense. Doug Mehus T·C 21:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill: two separate things, so WP:XY. We may be lacking an article which describes even in general terms what can be involved in crossing a frontier, with or without goods. I can remember both currency controls on leaving and duty-free goods on reentering UK. (That redirect is very poor. All purchases made outside UK were subject to customs duty, up to a personal limit of something like 200 cigs and a bottle of booze. At one time, there was even a limit on the amount of money you could bring into UK on returning.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is history, even recent history, in this. Immigration and customs aren't always about just routinely showing your papers to and opening your suitcase for a couple of bored officials. (1) In 1959, we went on a family holiday to northern Spain. The second or third day there, my father was up early in the morning with a pair of binoculars, birdwatching, when he encountered a policeman. To avoid possible trouble, he volunteered in broken Spanish an explanation of what he was doing; but the policeman just smiled, and said, We know. (2) In 1964, I went on a school trip to Russia. One of my friends had an orange, and the customs officer made him peel it. Why? So that he couldn't sell it on the black market. (3) In 1968, my parents were in Czechoslovakia when the Soviets invaded. They were advised to, and did, leave in a hurry. Neither the Czechoslovak nor the Austrian border guards had the slightest interest in their papers or in what they might be carrying; nor in those of anyone else crossing in the same direction. Narky Blert (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Customs which in its lead mentions migration/immigration authorities and has a link to Immigration. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY unless a retargeting option is found where this redirect is a proper name of something. Oppose retargeting to Customs or Immigration since redirecting to either one causes the WP:XY issue, since one target is inexplicably preferred over the other in such circumstances. Steel1943 (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although no action was recommended by the nominator, and I am fine with closing this as no action if the previous participants @Prisencolin, Rosguill, Narky Blert, Shhhnotsoloud, and Steel1943: are as it's not a targeted to a terribly bad location, but it's also not great either. Like Narky and Steel1943, I would be oppose retargeting to Customs or Immigration per the above, and am more or less neutral on deletion. I think, ultimately, what we need here, if action is to occur, is for Customs and immigration to either be converted to either of (1) (a) a disambiguation page or (b) a broad-concept article or, in absence of consensus on how such a page would look, deleted or kept as is without prejudice (as is the case with all deletion discussions) to recreation in the future when suitable alternatives emerge. What do you guys think? Doug Mehus T·C 15:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd support a WP:BCA, which need only be very short; effectively, an annotated list of targets. I would not support a DAB, because there are no full title matches. Narky Blert (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Narky Blert Yeah, I concur with your arguments re: the partial title matches. Any idea what one might look like? If you get a chance to draft it below the target, we can work on it. I think we should relist this to suss this idea out. Doug Mehus T·C 20:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Involved relist to further evaluate a brief broad-concept article as an alternative to deletion or, as was desired as an alternative by most of the participants in the discussion, to take no action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doug Mehus T·C 20:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete (or...) per Steel1943. Plus, the search engine is good enough to find both "Customs" and "Immigration" - Nabla (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I think deleting is still better than "border control" (although it is better than "customs" or "emmigration") - Nabla (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Border control, which covers both topics. If "customs and immigration" (or "customs, immigration and quarantine") are combined together, they usually refer to the processes in the context of border control. feminist (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral on either delete-ing, per Steel1943 below, or retarget-ing to Border control, per feminist above. It's not necessarily ideal in that I'm not sure that article is appropriately titled, but I would concur that both aspects are broadly discussed. I would add {{R to related topic}}, {{R from synonym}} (broadly speaking, it is), {{R for convenience}}, and any other rcats as may be appropriate. I would also encourage feminist to participate in some other close discussions—their participation is invaluable and welcome! Doug Mehus T·C 17:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Involved relist to discuss the retarget option identified by feminist, which discusses both customs and immigration broadly speaking. Pinging the previous participants via {{ping}} @Prisencolin, Rosguill, Narky Blert, Shhhnotsoloud, Steel1943, and Nabla: in order to update them on the potential target identified by feminist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doug Mehus T·C 17:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I oppose retarget to Border control since there could still be someone looking up this term looking to find specific information about Customs and Immigration combined. Best to just delete this redirect to help readers the most. Steel1943 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I maintain my support for targeting Border control, because when "customs and immigration" is used as a combined concept it is usually in reference to border control (including at international airports, seaports, train stations etc.). Readers rarely combine the two concepts in any other context. feminist (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Noting Steel1943's convincing counter-argument to retargeting to border control, I thought the suggestion was better than any of the other targets identified, but I was never completely satisfied with that target. I now think either retargeting per feminist or deletion per Steel1943 is probably best here, to encourage article, including a broad concept article, creation. What I'm only opposed to is to retargeting to Customs or Immigration. Revised and amended. Doug Mehus T·C 18:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget border control where readers may find relevant information about customs and immigration being enforced in the same place. Deryck C. 17:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to close oldest log day. Any uninvolved discussion closer can close this at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 8 March 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.

Rome II Conference[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 Rome II. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article, delete unless connection to IBS can be provided. Hog Farm (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: These articles may be of interest:
    • "Visit by Jean-Yves Le Drian to Rome - Rome II conference and UNRWA ministerial conference (15 March 2018)". Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs.
    • "Rome II Conference to Be Held on March 15". Asharq Al-Awsat. 13 February 2018.

Glades12 (talk) 11:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Never mind; they are about a seemingly different subject. Glades12 (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rome II (and later) conferences, part of the Rome process for Functional gastrointestinal disorders (including irritable bowel syndrome), have moved on over the years since 2000. Rome IV is the current version. No need to keep target. Cannot comment on need for disambiguation to any other Rome conferences. Jrfw51 (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no mention of a Rome II conference. However, a Search for "Rome II" alone will lead to an appropriate disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to the disambiguation page Rome II. There's context there for the IBS usage, and I added a couple of more speculative uses in the See also. --BDD (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the plausibility of retargeting to the Rome II disambiguation page highlighted by Shhhnotsoloud and expanded on by BDD. It would be useful for @Hog Farm, Glades12, and Jrfw51:, as previous participants, to revisit their comments in light of the added comments. In turn, another week will help to develop a more thorough consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doug Mehus T·C 21:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there isn't anything about conferences at Rome II that would convince me that pointing there is an improvement. signed, Rosguill talk 02:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Functional gastrointestinal disorder. These are a notable series of conferences relating to how to define functional GI disorders. It's a tricky subject and so these conferences have been important in the field as they act to allow some sort of consensus. They are commonly mentioned in textbooks and literature. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Rome II. Based on convincing comments below I think this is the best option. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 8 March 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.

Google Generation[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 18:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure synonym. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:20, 8 March 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.

Leptosomatidae[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 withdrawn. I wanted to allow time for Plantdrew to comment if he wanted to, but especially with the listing period having passed the one-week mark, there's no reason not to prefer the valid nematode article with hatnote. Thanks all! --BDD (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this is an erroneous form of the actual bird family, Leptosomidae. Since I had tagged the redirect accordingly, I was pinged by JoergenB on the talk page, who informed me that it was the name of a nematode family. It's listed at List of nematode families, though I would not recommend retargeting there, since no other families do.

However, this has redirected to the cuckoo roller since 2003, and there are reliable sources, like ITIS, that give it for the bird. I'm still leaning towards deletion in the interests of not promulgating the apparent error, but would like others' input. (Pinging my go-to taxonomy expert Plantdrew.) BDD (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created a stub for it as the nematode family. --awkwafaba (📥) 19:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep In my opinion, the stub (although short) is worth to retain (in the hope of some expansion sooner or later, and since it at least has valid sources and a valid taxobox, and a disambiguating hatnote). This would make the RfD moot, wouldn't it? JoergenB (talk) 20:09, 9 March 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.

Fooking, Austria[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 withdrawing nomination per provided justifications signed, Rosguill talk 01:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification is provided. signed, Rosguill talk 19:57, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as phonetically plausible – "Fooking" is how an English speaker might write down the name as pronounced in German. – Uanfala (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uanfala. I don't think misspellings should be mentioned at the target... -- Tavix (talk) 20:47, 8 March 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.

Future of English[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 all. Ruslik_Zero 18:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect says almost nothing about English's future (nor its future tense for that matter). The Italian one says literally nothing about it. I would suggest deletion for both. signed, Rosguill talk 19:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've gone ahead and added Future of French for the same reason as the originally nominated redirects. I'm inclined to leave the Portuguese ones alone, if only because there's actually a section discussing projected future trends in the distribution of Portuguese. signed, Rosguill talk 01:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how I had missed that section for French. I'm fine with keeping that redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 23:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, there are corresponding sections for the other languages too: Italian conjugation#The future and Future tense#English. – Uanfala (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as ambiguous. But even if we ignored the meaning intended by their creator and instead decided that they should only refer to the future tense of the respective languages, then they're still problematic. They use one of the many ways of descriptively referring to the topic (Future tense in French, Future in French, French future, etc.), and I see no reason why we should have any of them. We just don't have redirects at such a low level of granularity for individual grammars. – Uanfala (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uanfala, more or less. These are too vague to be useful. -- Tavix (talk) 16:28, 18 March 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.

List of portugese butterflies[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) 21:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miscapitalised and misspelt word. List of Portuguese butterflies should be created, however, probably. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:48, 8 March 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.

Portugese india[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#Portugese india

Beisebol[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 18#Beisebol

Arithmetique[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#Arithmetique

Barycentriq[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) 20:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a real spelling of barycentric. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Would only arise as a joke, not even as a plausible typo. ComplexRational (talk) 14:43, 9 March 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.

Arithmetiq[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. Deryck C. 16:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a real spelling for arithmetic. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Would only arise as a joke, not even as a plausible typo. ComplexRational (talk) 14:43, 9 March 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.

Langue anglaise[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, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FOREIGN, nothing particularly French about English. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:21, 8 March 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.

Stabbery (Shrek)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#Stabbery (Shrek)

Northern Ireland women's national under-17 football team[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) 20:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in the target article. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all These underage teams are clearly related to the senior team. Totally irrelevant if they are not mentioned in main article. Underage teams are not always notable in their own right but they should be linked to parent article. Djln Djln (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia:Redirect. Please read it. They are totally different teams from the senior national teams, they are not parent-child articles. It would only make sense if the target article mentions them. If there is no mention, there is no proof they even exist. Similar youth basketball teams were deleted. Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you need to read one section of Wikipedia:Redirect: #When should we delete a redirect?. J947 (c), at 18:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep, 10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • RHARMFUL says: Therefore consider the deletion only of either harmful redirects or of recent ones.. For the more recent redirects, K7 cancels out D10. J947 (c), at 20:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several nominations with identical rationales have been bundled. -- Tavix (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all so long as no mention remains at the target. Someone searching for any of these teams is going to want specific information about that team, and being directed at the senior team where this information cannot be found is doing a disservice to those searchers. Redirects should not be misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Tavix to encourage article creation. Redirects from potentially-notable topics to articles which don't mention them are worse than useless. Narky Blert (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 22:07, 8 March 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.

Espanolo[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#Espanolo

Neo Patwa[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16#Neo Patwa

Shooting at the 2024 Summer Olympics[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. Deryck C. 16:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

g2 and this event is a few years out; can be recreated then. Right now exists as a blue link, which leads readers into falsely believing article exists. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and per WP:CRYSTAL. Write the article when there's something to be said, this redirect implies there's something to be said when as yet there isn't. Narky Blert (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Narky Blert. Speculation that is misleading. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:05, 10 March 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.

Globasa[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 delete per G7. -- Tavix (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This used to be an article, but it got deleted in January after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Globasa, and now the page has been resurrected as a redirect to a list that doesn't have any relevant content. The list can't be expanded with an entry for Globasa as it lists only constructed languages with wikipedia articles. – Uanfala (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait – I have planned to add a mention of this wordlang on the target article. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 14:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete – author requests deletion. I realized what to include on the list (I feel uncomfortable that I am killing editors' time). --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 14:20, 8 March 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.

Concours D'Elegance[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 Concours d'Elegance. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an alternate spelling of Concours d'Elegance, which is about an automobile competition. It is also a trim level of the Cadillac de Ville series automobile. I do not believe anyone would search for the current target, a T.V. episode, but I am not against listing the latter on a dab page of some sort, if that is to be the outcome here. Note: Cadillac Concours redirects to the de Ville article, which mentions the d'Elegance as a trim level of the de Ville Concours model. StonyBrook (talk) 09:14, 8 March 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.

If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle[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 08:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per {{wi}}: Do not place it on every possible word. Soft redirects to Wiktionary are to dictionary definitions, and generally Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is not an encyclopedic topic. As page view statistics show, this is not a common search term. feminist (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not an encyclopedic phrase. -- Tavix (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google is your friend. Backstory: this redirect was created after I had introduced the expression into an RFD discussion, and the editor towards whom I'd directed it (currently serving a 3- or 4-month sentence) didn't know it, and it had to be explained. Narky Blert (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my arguments at "I see, said the blind man". SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:20, 10 March 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 see, said the blind man[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) 20:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per {{wi}}: Do not place it on every possible word. Soft redirects to Wiktionary are to dictionary definitions, and generally Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This is not an encyclopedic topic. As page view statistics show, this is not a common search term. feminist (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This isn't "every possible word". This is a common English idiom, and it's likely that someone wanting information about it would try searching on Wikipedia rather than Wiktionary; the redirect is helpful in this regard. Page views are of limited relevance; the item has only existed for two weeks, but it's had several views since the day of and day after its creation. The redirect template used has four criteria for its use; this redirect clearly satisfies the first three, and as for the fourth—people clearly have searched for it—so while it's early days, I think we can say it's presumptively satisfied as well. P Aculeius (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google it! we don't need it; along with hundreds or thousands of other idioms with no target in WP. (New pages always get a spike in views on their day of creation, so that's no argument. I've written several articles about seriously uninteresting but worthily encyclopedic topics which got a couple of dozen views within a day of hitting the "Publish" button.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't including those views—that's why I said since the day of and the day after. But what kind of an argument is "it doesn't need to redirect to anything because you can Google it"? What redirects couldn't you apply that argument to? There are all kinds of redirects between Wikipedia and Wiktionary when one has an article on something and the other doesn't. Readers turn to Wikimedia projects because they're looking for reliable information, not random contributions by teenagers trying to impress their friends or flame their rivals, or someone just guessing what something is about. If Wiktionary has an entry on an idiom, and Wikipedia doesn't, but readers who don't know that might try looking it up, then a redirect of this kind is utterly cromulent. P Aculeius (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary: we do not need a soft redirect to every Wiktionary entry. Template:Soft redirect says Only use it when: There is no scope for a Wikipedia article at this title... and readers search for it on Wikipedia. WP:SOFTSISP recommends using soft redirects when the word/phrase is commonly wikified. This is not commonly wikified, [4] readers do not search for it, [5] (the spikes at the beginning and end of the timeframe are obviously from NPP and RFD), and it's not obvious that the topic is totally unencyclopedic - there are many legitimate articles in Category:Idioms. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:18, 10 March 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.

Windows Express[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 08:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure synonym. Delete. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:43, 8 March 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.

The Battles (or Invasion) of Naboo[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 08:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Novel and obscure way of referring to a plot element in the movie - 7 pageviews in 2019. This isn't helpful for users. Hog Farm (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Implausible search term combining two alternative names. Narky Blert (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not opposed to deletion, but wanted to note that Naboo would be the more appropriate target, probably tagged as an avoided double redirect from Battle of Naboo. --22:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
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.

R2-A6[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 15#R2-A6

'Gnostic'[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 08:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation marks around this term make it a very unlikely search term, nobody's gonna search for terms within single quotes. Hog Farm (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- the redirect from Gnostic already exists, so perhaps 'Gnostic' can be deleted - Epinoia (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Redirects in either single or double quotes are unnecessary clutter; except in the very rare cases where an official title is enclosed in quotation marks. Narky Blert (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete'. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:57, 10 March 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_March_8&oldid=1158235075"