Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 10, 2020.

Shitshow[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 19#Shitshow

Teqvoly[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. While there's still minimal information at the target, both are now explicitly mentioned there so a redirect is viewed as perfectly fine. ~ mazca talk 13:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These appear to be the names of a Teqball organizations ([1], [2]) that are not mentioned at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Those are two names of sports that use what could be called the TeqTable, along with Teqpong and Qatch. The Hungarian Wikipedia has an entry on Teqis (here). --Apisite (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD, Tavix, Rosguill, Thryduulf, and Ivanvector: I added the variant names to the section "Teqball Table" so the redirects should be covered. --Apisite (talk) 08:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I appreciate the work you've done, but I'm afraid this makes me even more inclined to say delete. I was under the impression that teqvis and teqvoly were teqball organizations, as suggested by the nominator. If they're separate sports that just use the same equipment, that makes for a very dubious redirect, IMO, like redirecting "Futsal" to Association football#Ball. A somewhat fanciful example since futsal has its own article... but perhaps these should too (cf. WP:REDLINK). --BDD (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both - both of these, and the two that Apisite mentioned, are variations on basically the same game, with the common element being the (patented and trademarked) table on which they are played. Teqball (played with a soccer ball) seems to be the first in the series and the most actively promoted, while Teqvoly (played with a volleyball) and Teqis (played with a tennis ball and racquets) are variants with appropriately modified rules, also promoted by the entity that owns the patents on the table. I'll let you guess what equipment "Teqpong" is played with and on which site you can find the game promoted. "Qatch" is somewhat more unusual, but played with the same table again. A short "variants" section could easily be added to this article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 19:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per Ivanvector. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I understand the situation, but we aren't doing anyone any favors if the terms aren't mentioned. You'll have readers familiar with the teqball IP situation who will not need such navigational aids, and those who aren't, who are very likely to be confused. --BDD (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. I'd be fine with these redirects if a "variants" section is added, but until then these will confuse those looking for specific information about each variant. -- Tavix (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note per Apisite's post-relisting comment above that both terms are now mentioned in the target article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to seek further input and to allow the Oct 26 log page to be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per Ivanvector. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the terms are now mentioned in the target article, seems fine to keep. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:11, 19 November 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.

Greater Bay Area[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 18#Greater Bay Area

🧑‍🎄[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. The current target has gained very little support. Some users have suggested plausible alternative targets, but there's far from a consensus even among those participants as to exactly where it should be. There is some decent precedent for keeping single unambiguous emoji redirects (see WP:REMOJI) but both (a) the joined-emoji issue that leads this to display as two emoji on many systems at present, and (b) the self-evident lack of consensus as to exactly where this is pointing, leads to a general dissatisfaction with the existence of this redirect at this time: it's neither clearly a single emoji, nor clearly unambiguous. ~ mazca talk 13:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that this redirect means Santa Claus, maybe Christmas or Christmas tree? TheAwesomeHwyh 15:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: It means "Mx Claus", which is a gender neutral alternative for Santa Claus and Mrs. Claus. The reason it looks like a person next to a Christmas tree to you is because your platform does not (yet) support this emoji. See Emojipedia for details. -- Tavix (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Claus#Fictional characters seems like the best place to point this for the time being. Christmas gift-bringer might be an okay target as well, though not optimal. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If it represents "Mx Claus", and this term is not used anywhere in Wikipedia, then delete. A7V2 (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Christmas gift-bringer as that seems to most closely represent the defined meaning of this emoji. Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this two-emoji combination is way too ambiguous. Aasim (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Awesome Aasim: This is a single emoji, not a two-emoji combination. Per Emojipedia: The Mx Claus emoji is a ZWJ sequence combining 🧑 Person, ‍ Zero Width Joiner and 🎄 Christmas Tree. These display as a single emoji on supported platforms. It sounds like your platform does not support this emoji, so instead you see its components. See Zero-width joiner for more details about how this works. -- Tavix (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Christmas gift-bringer per Thryduulf. -- Tavix (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking per 61.239. After reading their !vote, I agree that Christmas gift-bringer is a bit too broad. I explicitly oppose retargeting to Emoji#Joining. It isn't mentioned there—nor should it, and one wouldn't even be able to ascertain the definition there. I now agree with Godsy that Claus#fictional characters is probably the best target. -- Tavix (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, two emojis which comprise of a man's face and a Christmas tree do not equal "Santa Claus". This is too ambiguous.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 16:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Crumpled Fire: As noted above (multiple times) this is not two emojis, it is a single emoji with a defined unambiguous meaning. It is displayed as two separate characters on platforms that do not (yet) support the required character, but that does not make it ambiguous any more than multiple different e.g. Arabic characters being displayed as identical question marks or empty characters on systems that do not have an appropriate font installed. Thryduulf (talk)
  • Retarget per Thryduulf and Tavix. This emoji is clearly unambiguous, and I'm not sure why deletion is being considered here, since this would greatly affect readers who may search for this emoji. CycloneYoris talk! 08:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested deletion since as Tavix explained above, the emoji is for "Mx Claus", a character/figure not discussed or mentioned at Christmas gift-bringer or anywhere on Wikipedia as far as I could tell (apart from here, obviously). A7V2 (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Setting aside concerns from editors whose computers don't render this emoji properly, there's still some disagreement over where to retarget and one valid delete !vote
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Two emoji sequences are even more implausible than one emoji sequences. Aasim (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Awesome Aasim (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
    Didn't catch that. Thanks for striking out! Aasim (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we do not have an exact match for gender-neutral Santa. There are plenty of emojis without redirects - this does not need one. Christmas gift-bringer would technically match, but I can guarantee anyone searching this emoji is not looking for that page. Ultimately, yes, we could try to find technical matches for every emoji, but it would appear a lot easier to just delete them as they are liable to create more confusion than having no redirect at all. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 20:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Emoji#Joining, assuming my edit request is accepted by editors of that article; otherwise delete. Single characters are likely search terms, but we delete plenty of likely pop-culture search terms for which we have no matching content to show the reader, and I agree with A7V2 and El cid that Christmas gift-bringer is not a good match. That article does not discuss this emoji, and per WP:PROPORTION I don't think it should --- this emoji is specifically a Claus, rather than a culturally-neutral stand in for Befana, Grandfather Frost, and everyone else. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aggressively delete. This is ridiculous. Maybe instead of debating if emoji redirects should be deleted, it should be policy they should be deleted unless a discussion came to the consensus it should exist. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some previous discussions have in fact come to a consensus for keeping such redirects, assuming the existence of a good target. See WP:REMOJI for reference. This is a special case of the more general (though not universally-accepted) principle that single characters are probably likely search terms. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at the links to the discussions that appear to have set the precedent, which I think is very misguided, seem to have had very few participants. A much larger discussion would be prudent on this. These are characters can't be typed on a conventional keyboard (so hard to understand how this is even a redirect for convenience) and are extremely likely to generate insignificant traffic. Unicode has well over 100,000 characters and over 3,300 emoji. For even just the two-character combinations like here, that's over 10 MILLION combinations. And of course we can't forget that the appearance of the emoji may vary too. Where's a single reliable source that says 🧑‍🎄=Santa Claus or is even related to Santa Claus? Let me suggest it means a Christmas tree salesman. I just made that up. How does that interpretation have any less validity than the Santa Claus one? At best this seems like some neologism slang used by some small set of people on their mobile phones. At worst it's just loose interpretation of pictures that a user thought implies something. We need higher standards than that. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • The meaning of this sequence as "Mx Claus" is defined in "Recommended Emoji ZWJ Sequences, v13.1". The Unicode Consortium. 15 September 2020. Retrieved 17 November 2020. An early draft of that document was probably the basis for newspaper stories like Wright, Mike (30 January 2020). "Gender-neutral Santa Claus and man in wedding dress among new emoji". The Telegraph. Retrieved 17 November 2020. Note that the list of recommended emoji sequences is limited and specifically enumerated; i.e. of the ten million arbitrary combinations, only a tiny subset are valid. You could start an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Redirect or Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion to get wider input. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 06:58, 17 November 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.

First strike[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 disambiguation page over redirect. There's some suggestion that the previous target might be the primary target, but most participants seem to think that a disambiguation page is a better option. ~ mazca talk 13:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects seem overly broad. Surely this term doesn't only apply to nuclear warfare? TheAwesomeHwyh 15:35, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move First Strike disambiguation over First Strike. Do not merge Preemptive Strike as it has its own media titles that differ from First Strike. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:13, 10 November 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.

Template:Pr[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. --BDD (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated for speedy deletion by @Tom (LT) with the reason "Cleanup of unused template since 2010, following an article move" FASTILY 05:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Fastily. I have been wikignoming and cleaning up the dark and untended halls and recesses of the once glorious peer review. One major part in how difficult it is to conduct housekeeping is that there are just so many little nooks and crannies, and this is one of them. As an unused redirect, it would make life just that much easier by removing it, and thereby also preventing the one or two accidental future uses of this redirect. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There also exists a redirect at Template:PR, and it may be worthwhile to consider it too (though it has some history). – Uanfala (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Good job Tom. Two letter words like this, which more often than not, are also the names of language codes or country codes should not be used if possible. Searching for templates with "Pr" also brings a lot of "press release" related templates. Better to just not have these if we can. --Gonnym (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'm not keen on such a short and ambiguous string being used for this one template. However, we don't know if it is getting any use or not – the target is a subst-only template. – Uanfala (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I see no problem with the ambiguity. Shortcuts are generally ambigous. Given this is a subst-only template, it is unused by its nature. Unless a compelling case for retargetting this is made, it should likely remain as is. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 04:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, other than a vague dislike for (this sort of) redirect or for templates using names like this nobody has identified any actual problem, let alone a problem requiring deletion to solve. Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Equally compelling alternative targets so since currently no natural choice, recommend deleting as clutter. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subst or not I'm not seeing any evidence of significant use of this, and in general I don't think very short-title redirects for seldom-used templates are good to keep around in the absence of any real justification. ~ mazca talk 13:44, 23 November 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.

North Carolina Historical Review[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 26#North Carolina Historical Review

Torching[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. No prejudice against disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 21:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this makes sense. At a glance I do not see the term in the target article. I searched it to see if we had an article on the wildfire phenomenon known as "torching" where the limbs and branches rapidly burn off large numbers of trees, often leaving the bare tree trunk un-burned. Since the purpose of redirects is to help people find what they are looking for, and this didn't do that for me, I feel like it should be discussed. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. As far as I can tell we don't have any content anywhere about that or any other uses of the word not mentioned on the present target article. If that changes then hatnotes and/or disambiguation can be added at that time, but there is nowhere for them to point at the moment. I also note that the wildfire sense mentioned by the nom is not currently present at wikt:torching either. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my position is that since it doesn't lead to any content that uses the term, we probably shouldn't have it all. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Evidently this redirect is ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 22:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's an ambiguous term that we ultimately don't have particularly useful specific coverage of, and it's best not to pretend we do. Just off the top of my head, I could think of meanings in the sense of arson or cookery on top of the general "burning" meaning the redirect implies, and that's not including the wildfire meaning the nom refers to. ~ mazca talk 16:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate It's ambiguous but different uses are mentioned in Glossary of wildfire terms, Metal fabrication#Processes and Roof shingle#Stone shingles, there can also be a link to wikt:torching. Peter James (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm ok with disambiguation if others think that is viable. Thryduulf (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 22:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the Oxford Dictionary says the definition of the word is to "set fire to," which is the same as burning or combustion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Félix An (talk • contribs) 19:00, 11 November 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.

Stonks[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 Stonk. --BDD (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a silly fad slang term with no information at the target article. This is an implausible search term for someone actually looking for information about stocks. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect {{wiktionary redirect}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would specifically oppose this. Soft redirects make it more difficult to perform a plain search for a term, which will also bring up a match from Wiktionary anyway. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the dab page I've just created at Stonk which has an entry for a character called Stonks. The stocks meaning can be added too if someone wants. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to newly created DAB page Stonk per Thryduulf. CycloneYoris talk! 10:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Stonk per Thruduulf. For the record, I went and found an article discussing the "Stonks" meme, used it as a reference to add it to List of Internet phenomena#Images, and then added an entry on the Stonk DAB linking to that section, so all our bases should now be covered here. BlackholeWA (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to DAB page Stonk and tag as {{R from plural}} and {{R ambig}}. Narky Blert (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not just create the actual page? This Internet meme is IMHO too notable to not stay on Wikipedia.--Il Gatto Obeso (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that's the case, then other memes should have their own pages as there are far more notable memes than Stonks. Of course, that will never happen, though, so maybe Stonks should be a redirect rather than its own article. Chris6d (talk) 22:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Stonk. The meme is mentioned there. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:59, 17 November 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 (year) box office number-one films in Taiwan redirects[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 Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Target article, and the AfD closed as redirect, despite not being covered at the target and failing WP:V. There was a substantial lack of participation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete at least the 2020 one (which year the target doesn't mention), no solid opinion on the other three yet. I'm also adding the 2014 and 2016 ones here, which were also retargeted per the discussion's precedent, and which we might need similar action done on. Working on it...done. Regards, SONIC678 21:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is no Taiwan box office number one films article for 2015. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all except the 2020 one per Sonic678. The rest are all mentioned at target (not literally but at least each individual year is), and are therefore plausible search terms. CycloneYoris talk! 10:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These strike me as oddly contradictory. The target page is indeed listing the number-one film for each year (or at least most of them), but the redirects seem to promise multiple films per year. You'd think there would only be one number-one film, but perhaps we could break down biggest total, biggest domestic total, etc. Given this ambiguity, I think these are more likely to be disappointing than helpful. --BDD (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per BDD. These are effectively falsely advertising content that isn't at the target, and I don't view them as helpful. ~ mazca talk 13:31, 23 November 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.

Bidrohi (Disambiguation) (disambiguation)[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 WP:SNOW. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages or pages that redirect to disambiguation pages should not use "(disambiguation)" twice. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't know what the creator of this redirect had in mind but this clearly makes no sense. Pichpich (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RDAB. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an error in disambiguation (WP:COSTLY). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a malformed title, per above. As these appear uncontroversial, do they occur frequently enough to be added under a CSD criterion? ComplexRational (talk) 16:23, 12 November 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.

Nationalist Party of Taiwan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 17#Nationalist Party of Taiwan

Fashion mogul Michael Ball[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 17#Fashion mogul Michael Ball

China occupied Kashmir redirects[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 16#China occupied Kashmir redirects

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_10&oldid=990694244"