Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 11, 2022.

Gorr the Golden Gorilla (character)[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! 21:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect that was (temporarily) made to move the initial article Gorr (comics) (now a redirect) to Gorr the Golden Gorilla as part of a split of the former, which also housed info for another character since moved to Gorr the God Butcher. This is an unnecessary disambiguation as there are no other articles of this name, and it is clearly for a character. I attempted to request deletion, but that process didn't fit this situation, and thus I have taken it here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I've tagged it with {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, because you're right that the disambiguation is currently unnecessary, but the fact that we have such a tag proves that this alone is not a good reason to delete. Are readers likely to use this term very often? Probably not. But if they do, will it take them where they want to go? Without question. It's also some insurance if the character no longer becomes the primary topic. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless. BD2412 T 22:51, 11 April 2022 (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:ARM[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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 21:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest a retarget to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. The are only 12 current links to the present target - Wikiproject Armenia, which looks to be a basically inactive Wikiproject. Redirecting to the arbitration page would bring that page into alignment with the other Arbitration/Request pages (WP:ARC for Case requests and WP:ARCA for Case requests/Amendments). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions per nom. There doesn't seem to be a single actual link to this shortcut redirect. I checked almost all of them and they were all shortcut listings, links to this discussion and a single use in a userpage about the overuse of shortcuts. WikiProject Armenia already has the much shorter WP:AM and the proposed target seems like it would be useful. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarger per nom and the above comment. I actually just discovered this because I expected it to redirect to the arb motions page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2022 (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.

Roman Empir[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. As unneeded, not useful, and potentially confusing. An exercise in discussing R#K5 did not conclude as it required the involvement of the (currently inactive) redirect creator. Jay (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is an unlikely typo, not a misspelling which could thwart a searcher if they didn't know they had misspelled. signed, Willondon (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:R#K5: The redirect creator finds it useful, and no harm comes from it. Pageviews appears to support usefulness to others. Paradoctor (talk) 23:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pageviews [1] doesn't support it to my mind. Subtract the views in the past week, when I myself was perhaps responsible for most or all of them, or others investigating the validity of the redirect as it was brought to attention along with "Hittite Empir" a few days ago. There remains but one view; perhaps the editor who created it.
There's a distinction between a misspelling and a typo. A searcher looking for "Ukranian" would be stymied were it not for the helpful redirect from the misspelling of "Ukrainian", because they otherwise might not realize that they've entered an "incorrect" search target. With a typo, the searcher will certainly realize that they've entered "empir" instead of "empire", and will not be thwarted, even if they haven't been coddled by a redirect of extremely little value.
I appreciate the sentiment (WP:R#K5) that "if someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do." In submitting the redirect for discussion, I did notify @RedPanda25:, the creator. The edit summary was "it's a misspelling that happened to me so it's plausible". They could reconsider whether they meant a misspelling or just a typo, and weigh in. Or we could consider their silence as tacit agreement with a retroactive look supporting its deletion as ultimately not likely to be useful in the long run. signed, Willondon (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could consider their silence as tacit agreement Only if there is actual silence. The user said they found it useful, that is what we know. Newton's second law says that, for any speculation, there is an equal and opposite counter-speculation. What if they simply don't want to get dragged into a discussion about what they find useful or not? Either way, speculation is not evidence. As long as we don't get an update from the horse's panda's mouth, we can only go by what evidence we have.
coddled Beg pardon? Are we Nurse Ratched? You might not find it useful [...] because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. The point of K5 is that it is upon you to demonstrate harm outweighing the usefulness, where "useful" is not defined by you, but by someone else.
Speaking of evidence: Always go as far back as there are data. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well actual silence depends on a period of reticence, so it's open ended. I note that the creator is relatively active (about three or four edits a month, though I think it's rude to impose any schedule on an editor, or any requirement to spend time engaging) and has been notified.
I see now what you've supplied as far back as there are data. I still appeal with an analysis that (1) early views may be from the creator or others investigating a novel addition to WP, (2) recent views are instigated, of course, by this Schroedingeurian observation, and that (3) statistical noise aside (some views may be the result of administration, curation, curiosity, or error), (4) even the genuine typoists remaining would not have necessarily been thwarted absent the redirct, likely instead having gone on to realize their fumble and revised their search. I assert again my distinction between a misspelling and a typo, regarding their relative chances of recovery from error.
My challenge then might be the weighing of the extremely miniscule value of the redirect against the extremely small cost of a few bytes among pterabytes. I would appeal by adding the general psychological cost of having such a useless thing in Wikipedia. Don't coddle me, Nurse Ratched. This is serious. signed, Willondon (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
views may be [...] views may be [...] likely → more speculation.
Don't coddle me (my emphasis) You keep missing the point of K5: it's not about you.
The function of redirects is to make things easier. The very fact that you consider this one "coddling" is admitting that it does that. Part of our job is to make things as easy and convenient as possible for our readers.
The only rationale for deletion is demonstrable harm. You have provided nothing in that department. Paradoctor (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(note: I made some amendments to my posts above while a response was composed and published above)

My note that this was serious was facetious. I think it boils down to whether "Roman empir" is a misspelling (searcher might not know why there are no matches), or just a typo (searcher will likely realize what needs to be amended without a redirect). With "Hittite empir", my suggestion of speedy delete as a typo was rejected as its creation was not actually a recent thing. So with my similar challenge here to "Roman empir", I again solicit the creator, and am required further to articulate and debate my reasoning for its deletion. On the fun side, I'm enjoying the exercise of having to express my deliberations in clear terms. On the serious side, I just think it should be deleted, because it's not a helpful instance of redirection. Cheers. signed, Willondon (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, since anyone typing this should see the correct spelling suggested, and will almost certainly realize that it is missing the 'e' if they haven't already clicked on the right article, so I doubt having this redirect will actually assist anyone. I won't be too worried if this opinion doesn't prevail, though—it's definitely not a big deal if it continues to exist. P Aculeius (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the essay we already have at Wikipedia:Redirects are costly#Some unneeded redirects. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per P Aculeius and Shhhnotsoloud above. Ifly6 (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My first expectation seeing this on an article alert page was a person named "Roman" with the surname of "Empir". Given that we don't seem to mention anyone with that name on Wikipedia, the redirect is not actively confusing, but it's also obviously less than useful. Daß Wölf 19:11, 22 April 2022 (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.

Chinese swords and polearms[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 20:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY: Chinese swords vs. Chinese polearms, which are redirects to articles titled with their respective singular forms. Steel1943 (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I couldn't find a suitable target. List of premodern combat weapons lists both topics, but plenty of other weapons that are not Chinese, swords, or polearms. List of martial arts weapons is more manageable, but doesn't really answer the query, and may be a narrower topic. Military history of China before 1911#Equipment and technology seems like it could fit in theory, but is more about crossbows and gunpowder. --BDD (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking at the history it appears it was created as part of a quickly reverted attempt to merge the two articles. Given that they weren't merged and that there is no broader article about Chinese weapons, I think best to delete. A7V2 (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2022 (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.

Data of the sword[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) 01:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the use of the word "data", this redirect is unclear on what it is meant to refer. Steel1943 (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This was an article for around 20 minutes in 2009. It was created by the same user a day after they created History of the steel sword which is nominated below (which itself was an article for about an hour). This one seemed a bit more fleshed out. I suppose the reason for redirecting was to encourage the user to edit the Sword article instead of creating one from scratch. I don't think either would survive AfD, but I do think this should have been mentioned by the nom. A7V2 (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth ... something that was an article for 20 minutes over 10 years ago, to me, is like a WP:PROD that was never disputed due to silence. Also, as you said, I don't see that content surviving an AFD either. Steel1943 (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not helpful as a redirect, not necessary for attribution compliance. signed, Rosguill talk 20:05, 26 April 2022 (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.

History of the steel sword[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 20:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially misleading redirect. For one, Steel sword doesn't not exist, and the phrase is mentioned only once in the target article. In addition, if a redirect with "History of..." on its title were to redirect to the current target, it would probably need to have the word "steel" omitted since it makes the redirect overly WP:PRECISE to where it could potentially be inaccurate. Steel1943 (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we had an article focused on the history of steel weaponry, I could see retargeting this subtopic, but I can't find one. Closest things are scattered discussion of weaponry at Steel and Ferrous metallurgy. --BDD (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2022 (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.

Game of Desire[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) CycloneYoris talk! 21:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially a working title, but there are no references to this on the target article or other related articles pertaining to Azerbaijan's participation in that year's Eurovision Song Contest. Suggest deletion unless there is a more relevant target to repoint. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was the original title of the article before it got moved to Mata Hari, because of this teaser. Disambiguation would probably be the best choice per Paradocter. — TheThomanski | t | c | 12:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate or delete. The "original title" of the song appears to be an assumption with no sources supporting it as an official initial/original name. If the disambiguation page is the option, I don't think Mata Hari should be included on it, though I have not assessed the other related articles cited by Paradoctor. Grk1011 (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A disambiguation draft will help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2022 (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.

Jesus's race[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 Race and appearance of Jesus. Socking aside, this is clear consensus for an obvious action. --BDD (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure nonsence, why is it that the Chinese are called the Jesus's race? upd. Retarget per Uncle G. --Balkovec (talk) 16:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pinging @User:Explicit who declined speedy G1, G3 and G5. --Balkovec (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. -- Tavix (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • … on the correct grounds that they do not apply. That said, on purely policy grounds this redirect is not mentioned in the target article, either now or when the redirect was made back in 2012, has no plausible reason to redirect there, and no significant edit history. However, it does have a quite obvious alternative target of Race and appearance of Jesus. Uncle G (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2022 (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.

TDEE[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 20:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"TDEE" is not mentioned in the redirect target except as the title of an external link. The external link goes to a calculator for "Total Daily Energy Expenditure", which is not the same thing as the basal metabolic rate. I'm not really sure where to retarget this or if it should be deleted. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Richard-of-Earth: you say that readers are most likely wanting Basal metabolic rate (or the other one), yet you want to retarget to a different page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not mentioned there. People who want to know what TDEE is will search for it and expect an explanation of what it is. Otherwise it should not be a redirect at all. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2022 (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 grapheme[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 21#Template:R from grapheme

L̥̄[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 26#L̥̄

Ḹ[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 26#Ḹ

Terminology(software)[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. Jay (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article was created at this page name, then immediately moved to the correct punctuation Terminology (software). It was later merged and redirected. This original redirect is just clutter, which shows up rather than the correct one when entering "terminology" in the search box. Delete per WP:RDAB. – Fayenatic London 07:14, 11 April 2022 (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.

O-Cresyl glycidyl ether (o-CGE)[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. Jay (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search-term of this exact combo (name and parenthesized trade-term/acronym). The spelled-out name is the actual article-title and the acronym is a redirect to it. DMacks (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed GRALISTAIR (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Could be confusing to some readers as it might suggest disambiguation and incorrectly imply the compound name is ambiguous. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. ElementSix (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2022 (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.

White Russian Americans[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. Jay (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"White Russian" is a term that historically was used to refer to the modern Belarus, but it also can refer to White people from Russia (as opposed to non-white Russians). It's not clear to me that there is a primary topic here or that "White Russian Americans" is a term that most often talks about Belorussians. — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate "White Russian American" does not refer to white people from Russia, and neither does it refer to Russian Americans of "white" ethnicity.
White Russian is ambiguous between Belarusians and (perceived) White movement supporters. Accordingly, White Russian Americans is ambiguous between Belarusian Americans and White émigrés.
No opinion on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Paradoctor (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC) ( added missing qualifier 20:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC) )[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A disambiguation draft will help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Increased the wind chill factor. Paradoctor (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate I don't see any reason this couldn't refer to white people from Russia. I added a simple see-also entry to the draft, which I support. I do think we should accommodate this as a search term, but something like "Russian Americans, most of whom are white" would look silly. --BDD (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2022 (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:April Fools' Day[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 20:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is created last April Fools'. Since the April Fools' Day page has never existed as a Draft, the redirect should be deleted for its implausibility. NotReallySoroka (talk) 06:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess? I dunno. Doesn't really seem worth doing anything about, but since we're here, sure. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 09:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Convert it into a {{workpage}} for April Fool's vandalism, which could be indicated next year with a header banner on the article page -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I don't see the value in keeping, and do see the potential for confusion. If anyone wants to recreate this as the IP suggests, fine, but it's not like there's important history now that we'd need to preserve. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2022 (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.

Australia's macho national soccer 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. Jay (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is unclear what "macho" is meant to define. In addition, the target page does not have the word "macho" mentioned in it at all. Steel1943 (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2022 (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.

Ex Hex(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. Jay (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RDAB; this redirect's disambiguator both has a capitalized "D", and there is no space separating the title from the disambiguation. Steel1943 (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2022 (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.

Prathi Gnayiru 9.30 to 10.00[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 20:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect title is a typo. It is not the title of the film. This title should be deleted. The film is named 9 to 10.30 as shown by here and here. Because of the past incorrect page title, reporters have incorrectly reported this film by the false title here and here. A redirect titled Prathi Gnayiru 9 to 10.30 would be more accurate and better than the current redirect and should replace the current redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DareshMohan (talk • contribs) 03:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The simple solution would be to just move this page to Prathi Gnayiru 9 to 10.30, then, without leaving a redirect. It's already a redirect that points to the relevant article, after all. Uncle G (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing to gain by doing the move as Prathi Gnayiru 9.30 to 10.00 will continue to be a redlink and confuse the page history. Jay (talk) 06:36, 18 April 2022 (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.

Amerikai Egyesült Államok[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) 15:00, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From RFFL: Direct translations where the native/original form of the title is in English Happy Editing--IAmChaos 03:24, 11 April 2022 (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/2022_April_11&oldid=1084861196"