Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 18, 2021.

Sons[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 Son. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From 2005 until the middle of September 2021, this pointed to Son. It was changed to Son Kolis after an editor built a page on top of the existing redirect, and then moved it. I believe that a retarget is in order so that Sons points to Son. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Return to long time use per nom -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget back to Son (the longstanding primary topic) per nom and 64... above. We already have the page for Son Kolis, so now it doesn't serve the purpose of directing readers to a WP:ASTONISHingly different target. Regards, SONIC678 01:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Son: Revert to the long standing consensus, and common sense. Sons is plural of son, so that's what people will most likely be looking for. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Son as {{R from plural}} --Lenticel (talk) 02:34, 21 October 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.

Differential notation[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 Notation for differentiation. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notation for differentiation seems like a more apt place for us to retarget this redirect to. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:16, 18 October 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.

Work from office[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 Commuting. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like commuting might be a better page to redirect this to, so I propose that this be retargeted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:13, 18 October 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.

Women's Hockey League[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. (non-admin closure) feminist (+) 08:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Zhenskaya Hockey League is the primary topic for "Women's Hockey League". I propose that this be retargeted to the relevant disambiguation page (currently at Women's Hockey League (disambiguation)). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:04, 18 October 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.

October Storm[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. I've drafted a DAB based on Thryduulf's comment (except I did not include the "October Storm of 1800" for reasons explained here). (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not the only notable storm in October. Destroyer (Alternate account) 21:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or disambig. This is indeed far from the only notable storm to happen in October, but it seems to be one of only two referred to as the "October Storm" as a proper noun, the other being the Great storm of 1987 - and the latter is far more commonly the "Great October Storm" and so a hatnote to that would be appropriate. As a second choice a disambiguation page between the two of them and would be OK, but I don't think it's necessary as the current target is primary and the only other uses I found are a racehorse and a song, neither of which seem to be notable and three see also entries: the St. Jude storm (briefly referred to as the October Storm 2013 in Danish, i.e. Oktoberstormen 2013); Typhoon Songda (2016) (also known as the "Ides of October Storm"); and The October Storm of 1800 (about which we have less than a paragraph of information). The 2006 storm is also known as the Surprise October Storm, and is unquestionably the primary topic for that phrase but it does If we have list of notable storms that happened in October that should be hatnoted/dabbed too, but I don' t think we do. Thryduulf (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's also worth noting that a two-sentence "article" was independently created about this storm at this title 6 years before this redirect, beforebeing speedily deleted for no context (incorrectly as it was clearly about this storm, I would have speedily deleted it for no content though). Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per Thryduulf --Lenticel (talk) 02:36, 21 October 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.

Things to Do in Phoenix When You're Dead (Medium)[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 Medium (season 5)#ep78. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is created as a redirect from the name of a television episode, but there does not exist any television episode with the redirect source as its title. Therefore, I propose that this be deleted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both to Medium (season 5)#ep78, the season containing the episode in question. Yes, Medium does have an episode by that name, but we don't want to put readers at the page for the wrong season. Regards, SONIC678 01:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Medium (season 5)#ep78 per Sonic. I was copy and pasting #REDIRECT [[Medium (season 4)#ep78]] into the redirects I was creating and must have forgotten to change the season. EN-Jungwon 03:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as nom. The above seems more reasonable than deleting and recreating. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:36, 20 October 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.

Moral supremacy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 26#Moral supremacy

James while John had a better effect on the teacher[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This may be, per its creator's edit summary, a "shorter title", but that's because it strips away the thing that makes the phrase notable: all the "had"s. That would be fine if this were an abbreviation that people use, but that does not appear to be the case. This is essentially a shortcut title, which we don't do in mainspace. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no need for a shortened sentence to be used as a redirect. We have search for this. User:GKFXtalk 20:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I like this clipping because then you don't have to guess how many additional hads are in the sentence. One 'had' had a better effect on Tavix. -- Tavix (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Tavix. The correct form certainly comes up in search results, so the utility of this redirect is questionable, but I suppose it could be useful for creating piped links and whatnot as an alternative to having to find and then copy/paste the cumbersome full title. Could possibly be confusing in that it could suggest the short version is also notable, however. On the fence here, Mdewman6 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 20:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems useful with respect to us not having to type in a million "had"s and it may be useful when searching. This isn't harmful in any real way, so I see no reason to delete. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep keep keep keep keep keep keep keep keep keep keep per the "keep" voters above. It doesn't hurt hurt hurt hurt hurt hurt hurt hurt hurt hurt hurt to have a shorter title in cases like this, in fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact fact it can also be helpful to people searching it. Regards regards regards regards regards regards regards regards regards regards regards, SONIC678 04:06, 19 October 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.

Tiff Watson[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 List of Made in Chelsea cast members. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should retarget to List of Made in Chelsea cast members, as she's actually mentioned there Joseph2302 (talk) 18:41, 18 October 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.

Ways and Means Committee[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 00:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This had previously targeted to United States House Committee on Ways and Means for ten years. Is this a case where the capitalized version should have a different target because it most commonly means the US committee? MB 18:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Better to have it pointed at a general article rather than a specific one for the US. It's the same text but different capitalisation, we shouldn't be assuming that everyone wants to read about the US-specific content. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Joseph2302. If the capitalised title was US committee's proper name then it might be different, but as things stand there is no primary topic for "Ways and Means Committee" in any capitalisation. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 19 October 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.

All American authoritarian[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 WP:CSD#G10. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, no relevant results in an internet search. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 18:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tagged as WP:G10. This is an attack page in the form of a redirect. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:34, 18 October 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.

Bruce Whalen[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 26#Bruce Whalen

Draft:R.O.B. Gronkowski[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. Anarchyte (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible redirect to Rob Gronkowski. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note moved from MfD Elli (talk | contribs) 15:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No idea why this redirect from draftspace to an existing article was created recently. Makes no sense, and there's no history to preserve (which is generally why we keep sensible redirects from draft to mainspace). Joseph2302 (talk) 21:56, 18 October 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.

Draft:Delete me Telfer[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) 01:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible redirect (not even mentioned as a nickname at the target article). Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See NFL.com. --2601:192:8801:6970:3152:C359:81F3:656A (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NFL.com doesn't mention a thing at Randall Telfer's page. Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See this link: https://www.nfl.com/players/delete-me-telfer/ --2601:192:8801:6970:3152:C359:81F3:656A (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where it says that refers to Randall Telfer. Larry Hockett (Talk) 22:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note moved from MfD Elli (talk | contribs) 15:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Pointless redirect, looks like an IP just wanting to cause disruption (as they can't create in article space, it's gone into draftspace). Joseph2302 (talk) 21:57, 18 October 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.

Truth Of Consequences[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 Truth or Consequences (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The episode's name is Truth or Consequences. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Truth or Consequences (disambiguation) (which maybe ought to have the base name). Everything that Google brings up for the exact phrase is either a non-notable article or an error for some meaning of "Truth or Consequences", most commonly Truth or Consequences, New Mexico but not commonly enough to be primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given the uppercase O, this isn't a common enough typo to be worthwhile to redirect anywhere. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • REtarget per User:Thryduulf -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 16:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Truth or Consequences (disambiguation) per Thryduulf. Though the page doesn't list this exact spelling, it can be a reasonable misquotation of any one of the entities on that page, plus the R and F keys are really close on a QWERTY keyboard. Regards, SONIC678 18:34, 18 October 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.

Core vocabulary[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 25#Core vocabulary

Side channels[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 Side-channel attack. to follow side channel (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Term not mentioned at the target, an internet search does not turn up relevant results, with most results being about Side-channel attack. I'm leaning towards deletion over retargeting to Side-channel attack signed, Rosguill talk 15:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment central channel is also a yoga redirect, that needs fixing -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost all the hits for that exact phrase are related to yoga so this one might be correct, but I'm not certain it's the only "central channel" related to yoga - someone with more understanding of the subject than me needs to look. I've added a hatnote to Central (TV channel) which was the only other specific thing I found (everything else was channels that happened to be central in some way or a Comedy Central channel). There are quite possibly other things I haven't found of course. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's the medical "central channel" [1], central channels of rivers in River bifurcation, aside from channels named Central. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two potential targets are being discussed...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply to the previous comment, Central Television lists several other stations which could plausibly be called "Central channel", though they don't turn up in a search for that phrase. Certes (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Certes: It sounds like we need a full nomination of the Central channel redirect then to avoid hijacking this one further. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to side-channel attack. The cyber term seems to be the primary term for "side channel" and it would make little sense to redirect the singular and plural to different locations. A hatnote on top of the new target would suffice to guide users to the yoga concept. There is no need to create a new disambiguation page over this, though if we create one it should be at side channel (disambiguation) rather than at side channel. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:33, 20 October 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.

Interstate transport[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. I see skepticism towards the possibility of a disambiguation page or broad-concept article, not unalloyed opposition. So no prejudice against the idea, but if you're considering it, please read and consider the concerns here. --BDD (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The target is a specific US law regarding regulations of interstate commerce, but the search term could also refer to general travel between states, whether in a US context or elsewhere. I think that deletion is probably the way to go here signed, Rosguill talk 20:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment these terms are clearly not exclusive to the US. The first page of search results for the exact phrases on Wikipedia brings up topics related to (in order of first appearance: Travel: US, US and Canada (with a globalise tag), Malaysia and Australia. Transport: Australia, US, India, Australia and New Zealand. The status quo is clearly not correct, but I have a feeling that we should be able to do better than search results, which are a real hotchpotch of mostly (transport) and entirely (travel) articles that are too narrow to be useful (e.g. Interstate 20 in South Carolina). That said I haven't actually found anything existing that is better, a dab page wouldn't work and so I'm left at maybe a broad concept article? Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Neither of these terms have anything to do with the Commerce Clause; they're more closely associated with the Privileges and Immunities Clause. But the concept of interstate travel is much broader than a single clause in the U.S. Constitution, so that's not a very good target either imo. Mlb96 (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous and likely to cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I immediately thought of South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. when seeing the RfD. However, the case was about the Dormant Commerce Clause from the Commerce Clause. I would say the redirect is ambiguous. – The Grid (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as ambiguous. There doesn't seem to be a broad article about this covering all countries, so better to let the reader choose which country's interstate travel they want, rather than assuming everyone wants US. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. If it's ambiguous, then disambiguate it. Don't delete it just because there's not a single natural thing to point to. A DAB would be much more helpful to users than to not have the term there at all. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What entries would you put on the disambiguation page? The lack of obvious articles that could be at this title is why I suggested a broad concept article rather than a dab. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per thydulf --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:06, 26 October 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.

Property of a Lady (film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Not a strong consensus but no alternative target was ever suggested and the deletion recommendation was not explicitly objected to. Thryduulf (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be retargeted as Property of a Lady is not mentioned in the redirect pbp 19:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shhhnotsoloud: Here's what I seem to gather: Timothy Dalton was contracted for three films. "License to Kill" and "The Living Daylights" were made. The third one was in production, but never finished, due in part to a dispute over the ownership of the Bond franchise. "Property of a Lady" may have been the working title of that film. But it's not laid out in those words, with the phrase "Property of a Lady", at the targeted article. pbp 15:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:14, 18 October 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.

SW Cephei[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. Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to avoid circular redirect. Nussun05 (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the target has information on this star, and this star was deleted at AfD under redirection outcome, so cannot be easily recreated, and should not be encouraged by being a redlink. Therefore, the current redirect seems to be serving its purpose, discouraging recreation, while pointing to a target that contains information. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 64.229.90.53. It's hard to encourage article creation for an AfD-deleted article. ~~~~
    User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)     11:13, 30 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_18&oldid=1053085132"