Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 24, 2022.

George Zho[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. Jay (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

implausible typo or misnomer. RZuo (talk) 23:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait, weak keep for now. This is an {{R from move}} from a title that lasted for nearly two years, and therefore may have gotten external links. As the page was only moved today, I think we should wait to see what the pageviews are like before deleting. Also noting that the mover MSGJ wrote Redirect kept per normal practice on Talk:George Zhu. eviolite (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep two keys away could be considered an implausible typo for a newly-created redirect. But this is a {{R from move}}, was on Wikipedia for years, and made it into publications like Wired UK [1]. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP, which says that "redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason." —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:56, 26 March 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.

Mercedes-Benz CLT-Class[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference to this I can find anywhere is this article [2] published one day after the redirect was created (but that could be a timezone issue I suppose) claiming the CLT would be shown in Paris. It's safe to say that didn't happen and that nothing ever came of this rumoured model. Delete. A7V2 (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The CLT was a real concept car that gets referenced by even Mercedes Dealerships in their modern marketing materials. In fact, both the modern marketing materials and the automotive snooping sites reference a “shooting brake” design, which makes me think that this was a real concept car. It looks to me like this might just be the CLA under an in-development name, but that would be a bit OR-y to explicitly claim. In any case, the CLT was clearly a real thing, though it never made it to mass production under that title. I see no harm in keeping the redirect under these circumstances. — Mhawk10 (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This redirect was created back in 2008 when the "spy shots" of this supposed new model (I personally wouldn't consider them a reliable source) were taken. It's unlikely that the dealership describing the proposed CLT is referring to the same model, and I wouldn't say it is evidence that this is "real" as it is more of a vague reference when describing something else. In any case, there is no mention at the target, so keeping this redirect would serve only to mislead or confuse anyone searching this term. A7V2 (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 24 March 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.

Special military operation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 1#Special military operation

Mercedes-Benz T-Class[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these are rumoured/recently announced new models (see for example [3], [4] for the CLE, [5] and [6] for the T-Class) with no information or mention at the target or anywhere on wikipedia. Delete. A7V2 (talk) 10:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Mercedes-Benz T-class is a real thing and it's made by Mercedes. The all-electric version of the van will be called the EQT, which itself is a concept car still listed on the Mercedes-Benz website. The T-class has been covered by enough sources that a redirect is warranted, at minimum. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not questioning that information exists about these. A redirect is not warranted, however, if there is no information at the target. That is one of the "reasons to delete". WP:RFD#DELETE number 10 seems to apply here. But we should not be keeping redirects just because information exists about the subject elsewhere. A7V2 (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 11:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 24 March 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.

De Gebroeders Ko[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 31#De Gebroeders Ko

Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis[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 procedural close. The nominator has been blocked as a sock. -- Tavix (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a useful redirect. Olchug (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If this linked to a single article, it would be useful. With a disambiguation page, it will lead to whichever article they were intending to get to. HotdogPi 15:36, 24 March 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.

Turok (BVG game)[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 14:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear what "(BVG game)" is meant to refer to, leaving the disambiguator in these titles unclear and potentially useless. Steel1943 (talk) 09:30, 24 March 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.

Carpenters Corner, Minnesota[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 14:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In an AfD, users previously have rejected using the redirect to Viking, Minnesota. As far as I can tell, the GNIS entity of Carpenters Corner is in a different county (Pennington County) from the city of Viking (Marshall County). On top of that, there's no mention of "Carpenters Corner" in the Viking, Minnesota page. I'm unsure as to whether to retarget this redirect to Pennington County, Minnesota or to simply advocate for its deletion per the AfD, but the current redirect is simply not correct. — Mhawk10 (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Pennington County article. It is listed in the "Communities" section. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I believe a speedy WP:G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion) may apply. Given the fact that the AfD mentioned this redirection, and which was rejected by the participants, the creator should not have re-created it. Pennington County has a mention, but the citation is a map with no mention of Carpenters Corner, or how it is a community. The AfD mentioned it as "just an unnotable corner", but if there is more to it, it should be referenced in some article. Jay (talk) 21:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per the AFD, which reject redirection and essentially came to the conclusion that this isn't an "unincorporated community", at least by the definition Wikipedia should be using. Hog Farm Talk 14:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a real community. Also remove it from the Pennington County article. casualdejekyll 20:01, 24 March 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.

Sope Willams- Elegbe[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 01:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name of redirect is not viable with the space but page contains some historic content and actually pre-dates existing article page. The redirect Sope Willams-Elegbe already exists with content. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sope Willams- Elegbe started as a draft Nov 12, 2020 and Sope Willams Elegbe started as an article on Feb 22, 2021, both from the same editor Zend2020. The article may have been a copy of the draft, although the article creator did not mention the source. If there is nothing additional at the redirect's content to merge to the target, we can delete it since the nom has attributed User:Pallet182 (the only other editor till Feb 22, 2021) at the target's talk. Or is there a standard format for attribution at the talk page?
If there is no support for delete but the typo at the redirect title is a concern, we can move it to Sope Willams-Elegbe, but we need to delete that redirect first, and that is another content fork mess. Jay (talk) 06:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the reason to delete (a typo) is outweighed by the reason to keep (the page history). Per WP:CHEAP, keeping really doesn't have a negative since in the unlikely event someone types this in specifically, then they will still be taken to what they are looking for. A7V2 (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:30, 24 March 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 zoology (disambiguation)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 17#History of zoology (disambiguation)

Pinocchio: A True Story[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 Pinocchio#21st century. WP:BARTENDERS close. There's consensus that the current target is not appropriate; going with retargeting over deletion as that is better-supported. Hog Farm Talk 15:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preemptive creation of an article as a redirect to a disambiguation page, which defeats the purposes of an article, a redirect, and disambiguation. Nardog (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget: I made the redirect for those looking for info about the film in the Wiki. However a disambiguation page redirect may not be the best, so what I can do is specify more on the section that does mention the film on Pinocchio and redirect there instead. Iamnoahflores (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And delete the entry at the disambiguation page (MOS:DABMENTION). If this film becomes notable, it can have an article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said I can redirect it to Pinocchio as that actually mentions the film in question, it just needs a bit of expansion. We can also keep the disambiguation entry, since some entries don't even have links, although it can be reduced. Iamnoahflores (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I suggest we create an article of them, considering how it has been memed. ZX2006XZ (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You know what? Fair. Iamnoahflores (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pinocchio#21st century which has a mention. Jay (talk) 06:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:26, 24 March 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.

Computerwoche (0170-5121)[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 14:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to have an ISSN in redirect titles (implausible and unnecessary disambiguation), especially as the publication in question does not have a standalone enwiki page. eviolite (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Computerwoche" ("Computer week") and "Computerwelt" ("Computer world") are German titles of publications which in the US are called "Computerworld". Therefore we don't need a separate article about "Computerwoche" and the redirect to "Computerworld" is perfectly accurate. However, there were/are 46 different parallel editions of this publication internationally, some running under the same name, some under similar names, and some even under rather different names. They have some common contents but also country-/language-specific contents and they obviously firm under different ISSNs. In citations, we often link to specific publications rather than only by name. In this case, the different editions of Computerworld and Computerwoche have a common origin (so the corresponding redirects point to the same page), but often enough there are even identically named journals, magazines or newspapers which have nothing at all in common except for the name. In both cases, such similarly or identically named publications need some disambiguation so that they can be linked to specifically and distinguished in reverse lookup ("WhatLinksHere"). In the case of periodicals we quite often use the ISSN as parenthetical disambiguator. So, it is perfectly okay to use the ISSN here as well. In addition to this, we also need to distingish between publications named "Computerwoche" and the (former) company named Computerwoche GmbH. So, for proper linking the disambiguation is necessary.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthiaspaul: I highly doubt any of the other publications/entities known as Computerwoche besides the original German one are notable; there aren't even any articles in dewiki. I can find no evidence that this (or any) redirect with ISSN is helpful; we don't have ISBN redirects for the same reason. I only found one previous RfD for a ISSN-disambiguated page here; though it was from 2009, it closed as Delete.
For the record, I believe this is a complete list of redirects with ISSN as a disambiguator in parentheses:
List
It is possible that I missed some where both the first and second part of the ISSN start with 1 or 2 as it is difficult to differentiate these from date ranges. In any case, all of these have vanishingly little pageviews (10-30 over all time, each) and have no incoming links. If there's consensus to delete this one, all of these should probably be bundled in another nomination. eviolite (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So what? They do not need to have incoming links to be useful. They aid searches, they allow article editors to be non-ambiguous and specific for example when linking to a publication from citations, and they allow for selective reverse-lookup (provided that these redirects are eventually used in citations) - and they do not harm anything else.
How else do you want to distinguish between multiple serial publications using the same or similar names, in particular, as in this case, the publisher belongs to the same family of companies, and they are published at the same timeframe?
I don't think they can be confused with year ranges, because per MOS:YEARRANGE year ranges would have to use endashes whereas ISSNs use normal dashes. Also, it is extremely unlikely that the two pairs of 4-digit ISSN numbers would match a reasonable year range, and even if they would, confusion would only emerge if these redirects would be listed in an article with their disambiguators visible - however, this would never happen as the disambiguator would be "piped way". Visibly, they only show up in "What links here". So, let's discuss this as a potential problem when this would actually happen somewhere somewhen, instead of using it as a pseudo-argument to preempt more advanced usage pattern.
Obviously people use Wikipedia in different ways. There is no right or wrong way, but we should create an infrastructure enabling any kind of usage pattern we can technically support. It is possible that you do not see the purpose, but I do. See WP:KEEP #5.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom per WP:RLOTE since the subject of the target article has no affinity to German. Also, the redirect is not used as a loanword in English, meaning if someone is looking up the redirect, they are most likely a native German speaker looking for the article on the German Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steel1943: this is not a RLOTE case per se as Computerwoche is a different publication that is mentioned in the target article; however, my concern is the (AFAIK non-standard) use of an ISSN as a disambiguator. eviolite (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no incoming links, no mention at target. We have Computerwoche redirecting to the same target, so I don't see why we need more qualifiers. Jay (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jay casualdejekyll 20:04, 24 March 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.

Khaled \(musician\)[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 14:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an attempt at placing escape characters before the parentheses characters as if using regex. As a search term, this is both unnecessary and unlikely. Steel1943 (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: seem completely useless. Veverve (talk) 14:27, 24 March 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.

Redirects with no space before disambiguator that target spaced title[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 14:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few redirects that are clutter between per due to there being no space between the end of the subject's name and the disambiguator. In each of these cases, the target article has the properly-spaced title of its respective nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For what it's worth, none of these redirects have incoming links in the article space. Steel1943 (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up comment: I guess I assumed this would be uncontroversial due to several instances in the past where such redirects were deleted, so I didn't think I needed to say this, but here goes: Some of the nominated redirects had incoming links that I bypassed after discovering them, which most likely explains any page views they receive. From first glance in the search bar prior to the nomination, whenever one of these titles are starting to by typed, the target appears, NOT the nominated redirect itself. (I seriously didn't think I had to wait a month or two after bypassing the links to nominate these redirects to avoid any "keep per page views" comments per previous precedence with such redirects, but whatever.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm it seems like WP:RDAB conflicts with WP:RTYPO, so don't know which of these are better. Natg 19 (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. As links they shouldn't be used and as search terms these are very unlikely as people use spaces, as evidenced by the fact that these redirects also use spaces between some of the words. Gonnym (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The question we should be asking ourselves is, "will readers find the article they are looking for without these typos?" - and the answer is a resounding yes, otherwise we need to create a typo redirect for every article with parenthesis. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:38, 27 March 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.

Teaser(gesture)[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 14:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Tease(r)" is not mentioned in the target article, and the properly spaced version Teaser (gesture) doesn't exist and never has. I think it's safe to say this redirect's target is a WP:SURPRISE, so probably best to delete this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 05:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We do not need to include every slang name for sexual acts here, and as you say it is not mentioned in the main article. If it does get mentioned, I'd support restoring the redirect. QueenofBithynia (talk) 12:59, 25 March 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.

Gaysex[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 14:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded redirect - I feel like practically nobody would spell "gay sex" without the space. Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 03:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it also wouldn't make sense for Gay sex to redirect to Gay sexual practices if Gaysex to redirects to Men who have sex with men. Pabsoluterince (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with both points. Either delete this, or redirect to gay sexual practices. Personally, I lean towards the former because of the reasons Capsulecap gives. QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:16, 25 March 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.

Lifeformed[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) 17:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An {{R with possibilities}} that could equally point towards either Dustforce or Tunic (video game) (Lifeformed composed the soundtrack for both; neither article has any information about him), so suggest deletion to encourage article creation and to avoid confusion for readers. eviolite (talk) 00:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. (I have nothing to add.) Steel1943 (talk) 07:09, 24 March 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.

Decke[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 13#Decke

Vermont Avenue (Washington, D.C.)[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 state-named roadways in Washington, D.C.. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 01:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded redirect. This redirects to an article about streets in Washington, D.C. but is not mentioned at the target article. Natg 19 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per the above. QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:17, 25 March 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_March_24&oldid=1083239948"