Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 4, 2021.

Steven King[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. A separate disambiguation page has been clearly rejected, and there were no arguments for deletion so the decision is between keeping and retargetting to Stephen King. There isn't much of a consensus either way, but the arguments for keeping are a little stronger and a little more supported. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a redirect to Stephen King (disambiguation) for years, but even per the disambiguation page, Stephen King (the world-famous author) is the primary topic for this spelling variant. In other words, readers typing "steven king" in the search box are most likely looking for information on the prominent author and aren't sure how to spell his name, rather than looking for any of the individuals listed on the disambiguation page. None of the individuals listed by the spelling "Steven" are prominent enough, nor sufficiently more prominent than any of the other Stevens, to compel different treatment for this common variation. Propose that Steven King should be retargeted to Stephen King, where there is already an "other people" hatnote. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 19:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is since it is not the correct spelling of the author's name. And the author's name appears in big boldface at the top of the disambiguation page, so the current state is not a problem for people unsure on how to spell it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Stephen King per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In support of the OP here are the 30 day page views for Stephen King and other Steven Kings: Stephen King received 247,203 views, Steven King (footballer) received 705 view, Steven King (ice hockey) received 113 views, Steven King (journalist) received 90 page views, and Steven King (jockey) received 71 views. This data shows clearly that when people come to Wikipedia and search for Stephen King or Steven King they are most likely looking for the Stephen King article. JaredHWood💬 23:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Retired U.S. congressman Steve King is still getting nearly 1000 views a month. (He left congress a few weeks ago, and his page may become less active in the coming months depending on how much he remains a public figure.) —jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 00:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Congressman King has a good argument for primary topic for "Steve King", but not for "Steven King". If you Google "steve king" you get almost all results for the congressman, while if you search for "steven king" you get mostly results for the author, or for other non-notable authors who do spell their names "Steven", rather than anyone else on the dab page. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 11:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom and Jared. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is and don't retarget. There is no primary topic for this spelling variation, so it must be a dab page, or as is the case here, target a combined dab page. Those seeking the author will quickly get there via the dab page. I disagree that this misspelling of the name should be a primary redirect at the expense of all the other entries for Steve King or Steven King. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We should give priority to results with a correct spelling over a misspelling. Stephen King is only a click away. - Eureka Lott 01:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the nominator that the status quo is not ideal, and yet retargeting doesn't quite feel right. A misnomer should not usually be primary topic over a correct usage. This one is just on the edge, IMO, of where we would make such a call. I considered whether moving the disambiguation page to this title could be a third option, but the ph spelling is more common. What about this title as a new disambiguation page? The two would link to each other, of course, and this one could have a separate see-also listing for the author. I can't decide if this is a brilliant compromise or an unnecessary obstacle to readers that only works in theory. --BDD (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 20:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is, since it's an error when it comes to the author but is correct for many of those listed at the DAB page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate by splitting the Vs off into a separate disambiguation page. Building on my thoughts from the other day, if we're not willing to send this straight to Stephen King, readers are going to end up at a disambiguation page anyway, so why not give them exactly what they request? --BDD (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't support this. It would make it more difficult for visitors to find what they're looking for, and the page isn't so long that it needs to be split up. Even the much longer Steven Smith disambiguation page isn't divided into multiple spellings. - Eureka Lott 20:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate this per BDD and "Steve King (disambiguation)", which also redirects to "Stephen King (disambiguation)". All of these should clearly be separate disambiguation pages so that they don't get confused with each other. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 12:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to echo EurekaLott's objection. It's entirely normal for us to redir variant spellings of names to the same DAB page unless and until it gets so long that a split seems to be in order.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I too object to the splitting of the DAB pages. As the author is presumably the intended target for at least some searchers, these users would be confusingly staring at an unhelpful DAB page without their desired link, may not realize accessing another DAB page from the "See also" section is the way to get them to where they want to go, and even if they do adds unnecessary extra clicks and page loadings. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2021 (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:R from alternative hyphenation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 15#Template:R from alternative hyphenation

Template:R from alternative punctuation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 15#Template:R from alternative punctuation

M2019 US Navy MQ-4 shootdown[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 18:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. Could potentially be confused with the M2019 gun from Blade Runner. Dominicmgm (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The extra leading M is an implausible typo. 6 page views in the last year. According to the page history of 2019 US Navy MQ-4 shootdown the page was at this title for under a minute. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given that the page history indicates this was an accidental typo followed immediately by a page move, this is actually speediable as routine maintenance. I.e., this is a redir the creation of which would have been suppressed if the editor had the PageMover or Admin permissions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:31, 5 February 2021 (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.

Comfort pillow[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 Pillow#Comfort pillows. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, internet and google scholar search return results for comfortable-looking pillows of a variety of shapes and sizes, not exclusively dakimakura. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Pillow#Comfort pillows which gives a general overview of the topic. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto, and I wonder whether a merge is in order. I'm hard pressed to think of why we need a separate article for long pillows under a Japanese name when we already have a mainspace locale for long pillows in general. "Wikipedia is not a foreign-language dictionary", as it were, to hone WP:NOTDICT down a little. I don't think this is like, say, "cartoon" vs. "anime"; there's not a major cultural distinction here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pillow#Comfort pillows per above and tag with {{R to section}}. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2021 (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.

Paulson (Fallout)[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. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a duly sourced mention or justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 16:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:ARTSPAM[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. signed, Rosguill talk 17:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As agreed here, ARTSPAM is a confusing and misleading neologism and so should be deleted. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. With over 1400 hits last year and lots of incomming links it's clear that this is currently a very well used redirect. The handful of people commenting on a signpost talk page 6 years ago did not lead to it being removed from the shortcut box on the target page until you did it today, so presumably most people have not got any strong opinion about it. Way too soon to consider deletion now, but happy to revisit this in six months or so if the views dry up. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's also linked in one of the optional comment texts on Template:AfC_submission, so deletion could break old substs of that template. In addition, it's heavily used, and has so many incoming links that deletion would be disruptive. Hog Farm Talk 14:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nom. rationale is misapplying reader-facing standards to an editor-facing redir. Lots of WP:ABCXYZ stuff contains neologisms particular to WP, and they're all "confusing" until you've been on WP long enough to know what they refer to. That is not a good rationale for deleting an internal WP:ABCXYZ shortcut (unless it is apt to be confused for something else internal to WP that it could refer to, but even then we just use hatnotes, or in extreme cases (like WP:CONSISTENCY or MOS:THE) create an internal DAB page). These shortcuts are for editorial convenience and have nothing to do with reader/encyclopedic concerns like whether they're neologisms or whether a reader may be confused as to their meaning. If we were going to use "confusing" as a criterion for deleting internal shortcuts, first we'd get rid of all the "notability of [whatever]" SNG shortcuts that contain "NOTE" or "NOT", since they are in fact genuinely confusing (they have nothing to do with notes, and we already use "NOT" in various shortcuts, e.g. WP:NOTDICT, to actually mean "not" rather than as a truncation of "notability/notable"). Anyway, aside form the fact that this is in frequent use, this is no more confusing than any other shortcut with an abbreviation that accidentally coincides with an unrelated word. We have a spam-related guideline, with a section on spam as "articles". And we use ART to mean "article" in various other shortcuts (WP:ARTCON, etc.). So, ARTSPAM and SPAMART are entirely reasonable shortcuts, given WP's shortcutting habits.
    PS: WP:SPAMPAGE, however, might be a better shortcut to "advertise".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:56, 5 February 2021 (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.

Spfsfnm/sandbox[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 17:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects result from moving pages that were intended to be in user space. In article space, they are clearly implausible and unnecessary. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per being mistakes. I believe these could have been speedied. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete all per nom and as housekeeping.Less Unless (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete all as this is just housekeeping. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2021 (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.

J. Barker[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 12#J. Barker

P. Varley[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 17:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful XNR; a reader does not learn anything about the person from the list at the category. Does not seem to have a mention on Wikipedia. Delete to encourage article creation, unless an appropriate target can be found. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; same with the rest of these. Bio names should not be redirecting to occupational categories but be redlinks until there's article content to go to.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just like the previous one - not useful.Less Unless (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2021 (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.

John Smith (Sheffield cricketer)[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 Restore article without prejudice to AfD signed, Rosguill talk 18:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith (Sheffield cricketer) was replaced by the article creator, AssociateAffiliate, by a redirect to the category page. These are not useful XNRs; a reader does not learn anything about the person from the list at the category. Per the ESPN Cricinfo ID, this is definitely not identical with John Smith (cricketer, born 1833). Maybe restore the article content without prejudice for AfD? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore John Smith (Sheffield cricketer) without prejudice for an AfD nomination. This was a 7 year old article with a couple of sources until redirected 4 1/2 ish months ago, so this should be evaluated as an article rather than a redirect. The fate of the other redirect will depend upon what happens to the article. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the article per above, without prejudice to AfD, and retarget the other redirect to the restored article. If the article is deleted, then retargetting to the list entry would be a good option. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete John Smith (Sheffield cricketer) - there's no evidence that the man played for Sheffield, which is how we would usually dab these. Then by all means either restore John Smith (1845 Yorkshire cricketer) or redirect it to List of English cricketers (1841–1850)#S, which is where I'd have redirected it to if I'd been willing to make the decision that there wasn't any hope of the article ever being notable - and tbh, the two fragmentary sentences that are in the list article entry are all we actually know about the chap. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2021 (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.

Moshe La Khaim Eche Laerry La Jewess[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. Without any clarifying content at the target article, the arguments for deletion are stronger than the lone keep !vote. While very old redirects are sometimes kept for historical reasons, the cutoff for that is generally around 2003/2004, whereas this redirect was created in 2010. The page history does not suggest that a prior article existed at this title. signed, Rosguill talk 17:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make heads or tails of this, and Google isn't helping me out much on figuring out what (if any) connection is here. Deleted twice before the creation of this, once per G3 and once per R3. Old deleted redirect history sounds like it may be some sort of obscure youtuber. Hog Farm Talk 06:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. After a few minutes of research, this seems to be an obscure meme from about a decade ago. Some high schooler, possibly a youtuber, made it up as a name for themself or something. I can't find any real mention of it outside of Yahoo Answers, or any substantive information about it anywhere, so there's probably no reason for this redirect to exist and almost definitely no reason for it to redirect to Judaism. warmly, ezlev. talk 06:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Listed here in the "Lexicon of Hate". No need for a redirect discussion, I'm going mark it for speedy deletion under G10 or A7. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've declined the speedy deletion. A7 does not apply to redirects, and even after viewing the link and google hits I can find no evidence that redirecting this title to Judaism is an attack page. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not useful in the slightest. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not remotely useful to redirect a dead meme to a page where it isn't mentioned. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have no idea what this is. Probably just gibberish. warshy (¥¥) 17:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as silly memecruft.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep a speedy delete has a statute of limitations that have long passed at 10 years of age. Furthermore, this page in question originally existed as its own article about a Jewish scholar - the article sources were entirely electronic and are now deprecated (again, for you to contend for deletion after 10 years blows the mind). The point is the consensus reached back then was an innocuous redirect to Jewish scholarship was the best call. The Lexicon of Hate is not a reliable source. JohnnyFiveHole (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2021 (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.

Final testament[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 17:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the best thing to do with this is. There appears to be an English translation of the Quran known as "Quran: The Final Testament", but it's not mentioned in this article. The Final Testament of the Holy Bible also seems to be sometimes referred to as The Final Testament, and there's "final will and testament", which appears in American legal stuff, as well. There may be a case for keeping Final Testament pointing here per WP:DIFFCAPS, but I'm not sure about at this capitalization. Hog Farm Talk 05:57, 4 February 2021 (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.

Printer's manuscript[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 11#Printer's manuscript

Chernozhopyi[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 Racism in Russia#Peoples of the Caucasus. signed, Rosguill talk 17:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not used in the target article (or anywhere else). Google translate suggests this is Russian for "black ass". Delete per WP:RFFL, no strong connection to Russian over other languages. Hog Farm Talk 05:18, 4 February 2021 (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.

Random trashy Croatian musical[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 17:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This could refer to just about any Croatian musical, and sounds highly subjective, plus a Google search doesn't bring up anything relevant to Ruža na asfaltu. Delete unless someone can find a reliable source describing it as such, or some other justification can be provided. Regards, SONIC678 04:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Searching Google using "Random trashy Croatian musical" to produce exact strings brings up only this redirect. This doesn't seem to be a name actually used to refer to this topic. Hog Farm Talk 05:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G3 as pure vandalism unless someone can find a connection between this redirect and the target page. I was unable to turn anything up so it seems like vandalism to me. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. G3 per IP 86; this title has the makings of vandalism unless the musical somehow talks about randomness and trash. ComplexRational (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G3 and send to WP:DAFT. Dominicmgm (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2021 (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.

A Voyage to the Moon[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. signed, Rosguill talk 17:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than one English translation of Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon which are titled "A Voyage to the Moon", including one linked to on the article so I'd say retarget there. That said, A Trip to the Moon may well be so much a primary topic that it is still a better target (much of what comes up in a google search is related to the film), hence why I am listing this here as I'm not sure. A7V2 (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would keep this but use a hatnote, because the present target was named Le Voyage dans la lune, which is directly cognate, and it's overwhelmingly more familiar to more readers. Given that it's a public domain work, I would be shocked if it were not available under the title [A] Voyage to the Moon anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I refined the hatnote at the target and added Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon to the disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alcremie (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as I said, I'm not overly against keeping at the current target, but I feel that the hatnote (and disambiguation page), even as changed, should explicitly mention the word "voyage" since that is the exact title that the Bergerac book is published under. A7V2 (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2021 (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:Référence nécessaire[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 11#Template:Référence nécessaire

Fuck her right in the pussy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 14#Fuck her right in the pussy

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_4&oldid=1006923810"