Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 22, 2022.

Roman Catholic Concept of the Divine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 29#Roman Catholic Concept of the Divine

Masayuki Kamimura[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 Masayuki Uemura. With no prejudice to renomination if further information contrary to the mistranslation angle comes to light. Jay 💬 11:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a non notable person. Not mentioned in the article and not mentioned in reliable sources. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak retarget to Masayuki Uemura, a key person in the development of the system in question, whose name is originally mistranslated like this, but the mistranslation it doesn't show up in his article (I haven't checked all the sources it cites, but I couldn't find the mistranslation anywhere in those I did; I did find it in a few others with a Google search, which are mostly in French and one each in German and Dutch). Delete the redirect if retargeting doesn't work. Regards, SONIC678 19:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 15:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Try again?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Clyde!Franklin! 21:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Masayuki Uemura. According to Sonic, this mistranslation seems to have some use in sources. RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 01:48, 24 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Gaycism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 29#Gaycism

Tornado outbreak sequence of May 1–5, 2022[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 01:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

please delete this. Only the last 2 days of this sequence are even mentioned at the target, making it misleading. 71.125.62.146 (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was the original creator, back when most of us believed a more significant event had taken place. It then became clear that simply placing the tornadoes within the May 2022 tornadoes list was enough. Hence, this may be deleted without issue. Mjeims (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 16:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and AFD per Jay. A bit strange reading that discussion that no-one thought to list it at AFD or to PROD it. A7V2 (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete it. There is already consensus for it at the talk page, and no one else is advocating for it to be kept—including the original author. Why kick it elsewhere for an obvious result? Jay or A7V2, do either of you have reason for it to be kept at AfD? -- Tavix (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, since there was consensus at the article's talk, Delete. Jay 💬 02:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if that discussion is really enough but I don't care much either way. Certainly don't not delete it (or relist) on account of me alone. A7V2 (talk) 07:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Restoring it and bringing it to AfD is just deleting it with extra steps. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it straight, no AfD. Consensus exists on the talk page and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. — Clyde!Franklin! 22:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Sending this to AfD is clearly unnecessary. CycloneYoris talk! 00:11, 30 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Planet Fun[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. After the DAB was drafted, near unanimous consensus for disambiguating. (non-admin closure) TartarTorte 17:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect seems to have no connection to its target page. I think it is associated with a different Minimax company, not the subject of the Minimax article on WIkipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or retarget?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Regards, SONIC678 16:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate as non-notable names 1) incident at castle 2) List of television channels in Pakistan - also see Mimyuni Media Entertainment listings [3] 3) a distributor in New Zealand according to Thunderbirds Are Go (TV series) 4) former moniker of KXBS AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I might want to include as a possible disambiguation that "Planet Fun" was the name of a song segment that appeared on Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!. MightyArms (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Created a disambiguation page at the redirect. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. The creator of this redirect was pblocked from mainspace for disruptive page moves such as this very one, and AngusWOOF's creation of a disambiguation lists all of the potential targets. — Clyde!Franklin! 22:18, 28 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Pokemon 2022[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 29#Pokemon 2022

1) What[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. czar 20:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, and I can't imagine someone using this as a search term. Onel5969 TT me 13:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has now added the context to the target article and as creator of the redirect, I have expanded on it. Fuzheado | Talk 14:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of that was removed by Molochmeditates with summaries CoinTelegraph is not an RS especially for a BLP. Also, this information seems too trivial to be part of a biography. and Information about a tweet thread likely started for the purposes of misdirection should not belong in a biography, even though it has been covered by the media.. Jay 💬 13:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not enough context in any of the Wikipedia articles to explain. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. Also we are not an indsicriminate collection of memes. --Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 26 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

January 6 movement[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 12:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not without difficulties. The liberal (in its American meaning) The San Diego Union-Tribune uses the term here. I would argue that this merits a WP:RFD discussion. User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That term is not "used by The San Diego Union Tribune" itself; it is used in a opinion piece by an unrelated contributor. I live in San Diego and I have never seen the U-T use that phrase in its own reporting. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not understanding what you are asking to be done in this case. Are you claiming that a person who types "January 6 movement" into the Wikipedia search box would be looking for a different article than the one it is currently directed towards? --Jayron32 12:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator of the redirect was the bad hand in a Good-hand-bad-hand socking incident, and frankly I'm not seeing the term mentioned in the redirect target. That a single opinion piece written by a "community voices contributor" uses the term doesn't make this a wise redirect. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Red-tailed hawk's reasoning. Not a widespread neologism. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 01:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only is this not a common term, but "January 6 movement" appears nowhere in the target article, thus it is inappropriate as a redirect. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 26 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

ISO 639:dlc[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! 21:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a real ISO 639 code, deprecated or otherwise. Delete as misleading. Glades12 (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a real ISO code,[4] and the point of a redirect is simply to direct readers to the article on the topic they are searching for. When ISO codes are retired, we keep them as redirects to their referents, because readers may encounter old sources that use them. If you want deletion, you should make a mass-deletion request for all retired ISO codes, so we can have a consistent response. — kwami (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're stuffing words into my mouth. I absolutely don't want to delete redirects for ISO codes that have existed at some point. Rather, the problem with this redirect is that ISO 639:dlc doesn't seem to have existed in the first place. I can't access your Ethnologue link without subscribing, but all publicly available listings of three-letter codes I can find contain no mention of your purported code.[1] Please double-check your own link too, using CTRL + F and then "dlc". I doubt you'll find anything not from a third-party assigner. Glades12 (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a copy-paste of that [dlc] link, www.ethnologue.com/15/show_language/dlc/, formatted as a table:
Dalecarlian
A language of Sweden
Population 1,500 (1996 Oesten Dahl).
Region Upper Dalecarlia (Oevre Dalarna), especially Aelvdalen (Elfdal).
Alternate names Dalska, Dalmaal
Dialects Quite deviant from other varieties. Various dialects, some of which are reported to be unintelligible to each other's speakers.
Classification Indo-European, Germanic, North, East Scandinavian, Danish-Swedish, Swedish
Language use Speakers also use Swedish.

The genealogy is:

Linguistic Lineage for Dalecarlian
Indo-European (449)
Germanic (53)
North (11)
East Scandinavian (6)
Danish-Swedish (6)
Swedish (3)
Dalecarlian [dlc] (Sweden)

And the entry under 'Sweden' is:

Dalecarlian [dlc] 1,500 (1996 Oesten Dahl). Upper Dalecarlia (Oevre Dalarna), especially Aelvdalen (Elfdal). Alternate names: Dalska, Dalmaal. Dialects: Quite deviant from other varieties. Various dialects, some of which are reported to be unintelligible to each other's speakers. Classification: Indo-European, Germanic, North, East Scandinavian, Danish-Swedish, Swedish

— kwami (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its use as an Ethnologue code doesn't necessarily mean it's a real ISO code. Do you have access to an older version of the standard that lists it? Theknightwho (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We created these for all Ethnologue codes. When they were handed off to ISO, we started calling them ISO codes, but the reason they were adopted by ISO in the first place was that they were being used in the literature, and that hasn't changed. Again, if you want all of them deleted, you should make a mass-deletion request rather than proposing them piecemeal, so that we can make a general decision on whether language codes that are used in academic literature, and that readers may need to identify, should be deleted because we call them by a different name now. — kwami (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ In addition to the links provided in the nomination:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a niche topic, and I see that the RfD has been linked at the Languages WikiProject. I have notified of it at the target talk page as well. One more relist can help in further opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: As unambiguous and otherwise harmless. While it seems that this specific code from Ethnologue wasn't adopted by ISO in ISO 639, I am convinced with the evidence that it is an Ethnologue code. It sees that this could be helpful to those that see dlc as a language code and use the ISO 639: search format even if the code is not specifically listed in ISO 639. As a compromise {{R from incorrect name}} could be added. TartarTorte 16:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That would work. All of the retired Ethnologue codes that were not ported over to ISO are provided as RD's, for readers who come across them in the lit. I don't see how anyone's going to be "mislead" when they're redirected to the appropriate language article. I suppose we could add a section on history of Ethn/ISO codes, but that strikes me as trivia. — kwami (talk) 03:32, 23 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

New York Bar[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 29#New York Bar

Hound Group[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. czar 20:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the solution for this redirect "Restore and send to WP:AFD" for Hound Group. The edit history of Hound Group shows a lot of pruning of the article in 2016 until it was full scale WP:BLARed. As a redirect, it is rather unhelpful since the target is not clear what "group" is mean to refer, which may also be compounded on confusion by the fact that one of the references in the target article is from an organization named "Hound Group". Steel1943 (talk) 08:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:07, 22 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Mario kart:Double dash!! characters[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 Mario Kart: Double Dash#Characters. Basically just a refinement of the current target. There's no agreement to create the other similarly titled redirect, but anyone can simply be BOLD and create it if they wish to do so. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 22:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are a ton of things going on with this title. First, the first part of the title is uncapitalized. Second, there is no space between the title and the subtitle. And third the redirect uses the stylization of the game’s title. All of these things combined make this redirect implausible. Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 16:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per nom. While yes, there is a section on characters (though that doesn't list the characters, which would be outside of WP:VGSCOPE), and the capitalization wouldn't normally hurt things around here, the lack of a space between the title and subtitle undercuts its plausibility. Regards, SONIC678 18:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as mentioned above, the combination of errors makes it implausible. Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Mario Kart: Double Dash#Characters. All points the nominator has made for deletion of this redirect actually support its existence. The first two points are plausible in the event the user doesn't use a capitalization or space properly (plausible {{R from miscapitalisation}} and/or {{R from misspelling}}), and the third point about the stylization means that it is plausible the term could be typed in this way (which in itself supports the first part of the redirect being plausible). That, and the redirect is not ambiguous. No harm found here. Steel1943 (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This redirect has had only 145 page views throughout its entire lifetime.[5] Pizzaplayer219TalkContribs 14:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not a plausible search term. Jontesta (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 02:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per Steel1943. Seems to be plausible enough, and redirect itself makes sense. DecafPotato (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per Steel1943. Seems plausible enough, and certainly the use of the same stylisation as the game itself is completely plausible. A7V2 (talk) 06:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:53, 22 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Incessant[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. czar 20:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I restored this redirect after someone blanked it, but I'm not actually sure this is a useful redirect. The term doesn't appear on the linked page (except in a Wiktionary box) or on the page Continuum (measurement). I guess I can see the logical connection, but I don't think this would be helpful to someone who doesn't know what the word 'incessant' means. Suggest deleting or replacing with a Wiktionary redirect. Spicy (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak soft-redirect to Wikitionary [6]. Otherwise delete. Current target doesn't really make sense unless one of the subjects is also specifically referred to as incessant, but that doesn't appear to be the case. A7V2 (talk) 06:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Soft redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 08:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The redirect is not remotely useful, per nom. Also, per WP:SSRT, only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. This is not a commonly wikified word, nor is it a redirect that has been repeatedly recreated, so a soft redirect is unwarranted. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not useful --Lenticel (talk) 05:06, 26 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Freedom Ride 1992[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 Withdrawn. Lenticel (talk) 04:27, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of this term in the article. Delete? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The topic was already mentioned, just not by name. Added a citation. czar 15:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to keep now that it has been mentioned and cited. I've improved the citations and made it a redirect to section. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Laterthanyouthink: I assume that you're withdrawing the nomination? Lenticel (talk) 00:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine, thanks Lenticel. Withdrawn. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:20, 26 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

USS R. E. & A. H. Watson (1859)[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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 06:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per page 83 of Neil Chatelain's Defending the Arteries of Rebellion and this from DANFS, the actual pre-war name of the vessel was "R. E. & A. N. Watson". This redirect title is an alteration that I don't see existing anywhere reputable outside of Wikipedia, so while this redirect is quite old, it isn't going to be useful and may unintentionally propagate a mistake. Hog Farm Talk 05:36, 22 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

Like Planning[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 04:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Searching indicates "Like Planning" is a company owned by Mr. Lee. MB 03:51, 22 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

فورد[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 💬 03:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While redirecting to the dab page Ford would be better than the current situation, I'm not convinced there's the special connection needed to meet WP:RLOTE for non-English redirects here. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Original or official names' clause in WP:RLOTE would be the only one that says this redirect is valid. However, that would only apply if Ford was an Arabian company - which it isn't. And the Arabian subsidiary of Ford isn't what is being linked here. As RLOTE says, better to leave non-English names to the non-English Wikipedias.  Stepho  talk  03:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stepho RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 01:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stepho's findings --Lenticel (talk) 00:48, 26 November 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 an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_November_22&oldid=1124692585"