Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 12, 2022.

Johnny Ware[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 19#Johnny Ware

Wikipedia:CHG[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. Editors remain split between delete, keep, retarget, and move/retarget combination solutions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really can't think of a way to abbreviate exactly what phrase this redirect is. Q𝟤𝟪 07:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this was created as a redirect to Wikipedia:Changelog, which was intended as a list of major changes to Wikipedia policy, process and guideline pages. A good idea that never got off the ground - it had only two entries from December 2005 when it was userfied to User:Radiant!/Changelog and the title redirected to What Wikipedia is not following a 2019 MfD. The shortcut was changed at the same time to avoid a double redirect, the edit summary citing WP:CHANGELOG and WP:NOTCHANGELOG (which have pointed to WP:NOT since 2012 and 2011 respectively). Getting off topic, but the idea of a changelog has recently been resurrected as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and free the name for future use by the revival, if needed. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Wikipedia:Change since "CHG" is a plausible abbreviation for "change". NotReallyMoniak (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Change is already pretty short. This will be less clear than just typing the name, so the value added might be negative. Louis Waweru  Talk  09:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A three-letter shortcut to a six-letter title could be useful, but WP:Change is only a disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is not an intuitive abbreviation. "CLOG" or "CHLOG" would be better for the Change Log, so no on retargeting. Louis Waweru  Talk  09:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No good reason for deletion. It's fine for shortcuts to just not get used much. It happens. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see the point in the 2019 changes. WP:NOT says nothing about changelogs, but while I guess you can imply WP:NOTCHANGELOG, it seems silly to me to also usurp other pages for that purpose. In the interest of not burying history, I'd say move User:Radiant!/Changelog back to Wikipedia:Changelog and retarget WP:CHG and WP:CHANGELOG there. That way there can be some kind of foundation in case the new changelog Thryduulf is hinting at ever comes to fruition. This also clearly illustrates for anyone looking for a Wikipedia changelog that one did get started but it's just historical, so they need not keep looking. -- Tavix (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist for consideration of the late proposal from Tavix
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unclear meaning. ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(per Louis Waweru). ― Qwerfjkltalk 09:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the other page and retarget this there per Tavix, and do not delete, as there is no good reason for deletion as Tamzin states above. CycloneYoris talk! 09:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rectify per Tavix. Projectspace shortcuts are ambiguous by nature. If something better exists or comes along to place at Wikipedia:Changelog, then I am open to those ideas as well. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Only one link to it, which was intended for its current target; no reason to delete now, but could be retargeted if there is a more significant use. It was a correct use at the time, and was also used in an edit summary where it is not editable, so it should link to something (and if used for something else, a hatnote can be provided). Peter James (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Peter James: which link is that? Jay 💬 14:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    User talk:Jay D. Easy/Archive 2#Reversion on The Collector (TV series), which quotes the edit summary from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Collector_(Canadian_TV_series)&diff=987093767&oldid=987086688. Peter James (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had seen that but didn't think it was the one because it seemed to be about a list of broadcasters. Looking at it again, I think Jay D. Easy may have used WP:CHG to imply an indiscriminate list (WP:NOTDIRECTORY). Jay 💬 11:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to WP:Change per NotReallyMoniak and let the user choose what they want, unless there is a primary target for CHG. Agree with Louis Waweru that CHG is not a good shortcut for Changelog (although it was created that way in 2005). Agree with Tavix's proposal for WP:Changelog and WP:CHANGELOG, and they can be done boldly or through a separate RfD. The 2019 MfD was not pointless because it made WP:Changelog consistent with WP:CHANGELOG. WP:NOT used to have a sub-heading for Changelogs or release notes which is now Exhaustive logs of software updates, so CHANGELOG (or even WP:NOTCHANGELOG) continuing to point to WP:NOT is not helpful. Jay 💬 14:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:Changelog is more likely to be typed by someone looking for a changelog, and has no links to it for the WP:NOT use. WP:CHANGELOG had more use as a shortcut to the WP:NOT section, so its current target is better than a historical page for which it was probably never a shortcut. Changelog has the hatnote "For information on Wikipedia changelogs, see Help:Page history." Peter James (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll stick to CHANGELOG/Changelog being a separate discussion. They were not bundled here and it need not affect CHG. Jay 💬 11:34, 21 August 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:Da-delete1[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. ✗plicit 23:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect, likely a botched attempt to redirect to Template:Uw-delete1. See also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_3#Template:Da-delete1. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete When the redirect was created, the code for substitution was used instead of a link. It was deleted before [1] for CSD R2; not a valid criterion in this case, but the TFD outcome suggests moving without a redirect was preferred. Peter James (talk) 16:06, 14 August 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.

Neoboletus praestigiator[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. ✗plicit 23:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this redirect, as it is incorrect and misleading. Neoboletus praestigiator is a valid, independent species (see here, for example) and it should not redirect to another species. Esculenta (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Interesting. Would it make sense to retarget it to the genus Neoboletus? We can do that by ordinary editing. Central and Adams (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually probably not because it would create a cycle of the species were added to the list in the genus article.Central and Adams (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:37, 19 August 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.

Michael D. Williams[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 Michael Williams. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 15:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect left from a title correction page move. It was at the wrong title for two days in July. There are no links using the old name. R3 deletion was declined, apparently because the article was at the incorrect title for several weeks earlier before it was moved to Draftspace. MB 14:02, 12 August 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.

Army green[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 Olive (color)#Olive drab for at least providing the best encyclopedic information about the use of greenish colours by armies. How to organize the shades articles can be dealt with outside this discussion. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Cannot find it mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia either (which is a bit shocking ... the only potential retargeting options I could find are Pinks and greens, the target of Army greens, or Army Service Uniform ... but I'd think anyone looking for the singular term "Army green" would be looking for a color, not information about a uniform.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • To me this means olive drab which is a redirect to Olive (color)#Olive drab so retarget there. Striking, now supporting Ljleppan's proposal. SpinningSpark 07:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The target section was removed in this edit by user:ThunderBrine, along with many other named shades of green, after a brief edit war. No explanation to be found in edit summaries or talk page. Perhaps the editor can enlighten us on what is going on. SpinningSpark 07:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section was moved to shades of yellow[2], where it can be found under the heading "army olive", but "army green" is still used in the text. Peter James (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems like a stupid place to put them. It certainly WP:ASTONISHes having them in yellow and not green. Olive drab and army green are used to blend in with green foliage not yellow flowers. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed, that is stupid. This whole thing seems to have come about by one editor attempting to classify colours by some WP:OR arbitrary spectrography when in fact colour classification is quite subjective. This is not the only one, a large number of colours have been improperly moved in this way. SpinningSpark 14:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      It appears that when you think of yellow, you only associate it with high saturation or high lightness, which is why you associate Olive with green, but Yellow as a color is able to appear at many different saturation levels and lightness levels (like cyan, red, and others).
      Regarding Olive's ability to blend in, lots of foliage don't only come in green. The "green bits" of plants (roots, stems, leaves) may come in Spring, Chartreuse, and Yellow, as well as Green at varying saturation, lightness, and hue. Olive, as a dark yellow, tends to blend in with many yellow and chartreuse plants (or generally desaturated plants), commonly found in dry/arid biomes (Deserts, Savannahs, and Grasslands). ThunderBrine (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Dry arid environments used a different camo colour, frequently known as khaki, and not army green nor olive drab. That's why they have those tan colored uniforms used in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan and North Africa. To blend with aridland plants and sand. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I know that darkening yellow results in olive, but that does not mean we should file it under yellow. We shoud file it under how the colour is commonly percieved. Changing the tint of a colour frequently results in it being perceived as a different or a new colour. Browns are not perceived as darkened orange. Pink is not percieved as desaturated red. Further, relying solely on spectrographic analysis for classification will result in some quite bizarre statements. The peak wavelength emission of the sun is in the green part of the spectrum, but nobody says the sun is green. Well almost nobody, I seem to remember Arthur C. Clark writing it in one of his SF books (without explanation so as to baffle everyone). How would you classify a mixture of red and green light? Everyone knows the result is perceived as yellow light. But it isn't yellow – it's an utterly different colour from monochromatic yellow, and many species of bird and insect have no trouble distinguishing them. Humans only see it that way because of our limited number of colour receptors, and it's a good job too because otherwise colour television wouldn't work. So should we make a new page for red-green (colour)? Not in my opinion we shouldn't, we should go with the subjective perception, not the objective spectrography. SpinningSpark 14:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redirect and the page have been fixed, with further transparency being added. Army green → Shades of yellow#Army olive ThunderBrine (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Having army green under shades of yellow is truly WP:ASTONISHing. Also, I've never heard it referred as army olive, and I'm not convinced that is the WP:COMMONNAME. Unless there are multiple reliable sources stating something to the effect of army green is a yellow color that.., I'd suggest reinstating the content in shades of green. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good point. There is zilch in gbooks associating army green with yellow. All the results are coincidental mentions of the two colours on the same page. I support your proposal to return it under green. SpinningSpark 16:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Olive (color)#Olive drab. I'm struggling to come up with a more articulate rationale because this just seems so obvious. That's where discussion of this topic is. --BDD (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:03, 12 August 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.

Tajickistan[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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misspelling. "c" and "k" are not adjacent letters on the keyboard. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Plausible misspelling. The fact that these letters aren't adjacent on a keyboard is irrelevant, the misspelling is still valid. CycloneYoris talk! 03:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a phonetically-sensible misspelling. It is very reasonable for the country to be encountered in conversation, searched up by someone interested. In that case, I think one would almost expect a -stan to be misspelt – this is one of many potential scenarios. Admittedly, it isn't very plausible, but is plausible enough IMO. J947 † edits 05:23, 12 August 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.

Uzbeckistan[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) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 16:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misspelling. "c" and "k" are not adjacent letters on the keyboard. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Plausible. Same as with the other nomination above. CycloneYoris talk! 03:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible, same as CycloneYoris; same as above. As the nominator points out, this one won't be used as a typo; rather, as a misspelling. Has views as well, though I'd venture that may be down to some unbecoming behaviour in its history. J947 † edits 05:27, 12 August 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.

Bekistan[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. ✗plicit 13:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Bekistan" is not short for Uzbekistan. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 03:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Most mentions in a web search are either hyphenated line breaks of Uzbekistan or of a likely-NN French actor, Luce Bekistan. This does not look to be any sort of likely misspelling. Has received a few views, but I find it unlikely that those are genuine Uzbekistan misspellings. J947 † edits 05:40, 12 August 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.

Uzbekistane[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 19#Uzbekistane

Nimtaj Ayramlu[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Valid redirect as shown by Central and Adams. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 12:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned on the page and from doing some research I can't see an immediate reason for the redirect. TartarTorte 02:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep as redirect. It is her birth name and therefore a plausible search term. This was the second Ghit: [3]. BTW there is no requirement that a redirect term need be mentioned in the article. Central and Adams (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I did not realize Tadj ol-Molouk was the same person as Tajolmolouk but that makes sense. Oddly, there's 0 ghits for Tadj ol-Molouk + "nimtaj ayrmalu", which is what I searched. TartarTorte 02:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Transliterations are hard. Interestingly Tajolmolouk is already a redirect! Central and Adams (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I likely sourced this from Women in World History. gobonobo + c 07:07, 12 August 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.

Cereal eating by humans[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Cereal eating by humans

U k[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. No consensus between deletion and keep, trending towards keep after two relists. signed, Rosguill talk 20:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. Qwerfjkltalk 18:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • As U K exists, the existence or nonexistence of this redirect makes little difference, but I think it is plausible enough. —Kusma (talk) 22:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, plausible enough, and whatever happens, do not make this go to a different place than U K. —Kusma (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Harmless, someone searching this will be taken to what they were most likely looking for, and certainly seems plausible enough to me. A7V2 (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per A7V2. Not sure how this would be implausible. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to UK (disambiguation). The lowercase and space leaves a lot of possibilities. CLYDEFRANKLIN 02:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to retargeting suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - Is there a plausible reason why someone searching for the United Kingdom would include a space in the search term? That's not usual for initialisms. Someone might search uk, UK, or Uk but why would they search u k? Adding a space doesn't seem like a likely typo and I don't see why someone would think to do it deliberately. I agree with Clyde that u k is not necessarily suggestive of "United Kingdom", but I don't see it as a plausible abbreviation for the other possibilities listed at the disambiguation page. If there is no plausible reason, then I'd actually lean towards agreeing with the nominator - this seems about as plausible as redirecting p r c to People's Republic of China. (Same applies to the all caps version.) – Scyrme (talk) 00:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with the nominator that this is implausible and unnecessary. Joyce-stick (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think this is a plausible search term that is not an error. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A WAXy counter-example to the lack of existence of P R C is that U S A exists. While It's not U s a, it's rather similar. TartarTorte 21:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there's arguably a difference, in that U S A could plausibly be informed the common chant, U-S-A!. (U S A doesn't target the latter, but I think it should now that you mention it.) To my knowledge, similar chants do not exist for the UK or PRC. The USA is an exceptional case.
    That said, maybe I'm wrong about that; perhaps there is a plausible rationale for other spaced out initials which I'm not aware of. That's why I framed my earlier response as a question, and not necessarily as a vote. I didn't mean it as a WAXy example, I only meant that I don't see a rationale for a hypothetical p r c either. That it doesn't already exist wasn't the point; I'd be even fine with creating it if someone provides an answer for why spaced out initials is plausible in general. – Scyrme (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry @Scyrme I realize that came out passive-aggressive, which was not my intention. I was mostly trying to be self-deriding in saying my example was WP:WAX so it wasn't really a policy based retort in any regard. I think you're correct in that U S A should probably retarget U-S-A!. Sorry about that trout Self-trout. TartarTorte 12:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, I see now that I misread. The apologies should be mine, sorry. I've gone ahead and retargeted U S A to U-S-A!. – Scyrme (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Uk already exists. Uk (disambiguation) also a redirect to a disambiguation page. 2405:9800:BA20:AB7A:401B:6EE7:75D8:26B (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because redirects are cheap and this one had 59 hits in the last month. Maybe that's high because of this discussion, but U K had 22, which is also not nothing. Plus who freaking cares if this is a redirect? What harm is it doing? Wasting storage space? Central and Adams (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pageviews tend to be inflated in a redirect's first month – whether that be new page patrollers scouring the land, crawlers cataloguing, something else, or a mix. J947 † edits 05:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree this redirect is nigh harmless and potentially useful given the sheer number of searches to its target. J947 † edits 05:57, 12 August 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_August_12&oldid=1180592168"