Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 3, 2023.

SoundCloud rap[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 SoundCloud#SoundCloud rap. Looks like the best option. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 16:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect. "SoundCloud rap" and "Mumble rap" are not interchangeable terms. The article previously conflated the two, which I removed. I went into further detail on my reasoning in the article's talk page. मल्ल (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Looks like there's been two separate instances [1] [2] where this redirect was split off before being BLARed. I'm not gonna comment on whether it should be its own article, but I am gonna note that a redirect does not mean that two terms are interchangeable and the current redirect is the most applicable as a Template:R to related topic. :3 F4U (they/it) 05:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand why it would make sense to have a redirect to that section, but my main issue with that is that it makes it seem like SoundCloud rap is a subgenre of Mumble rap when it's really the other way around. I think SoundCloud rap is notable enough as a broader music scene to split off into its own page.
    मल्ल (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Full disclosure, I am an author of "plugg music" and "rage rap". These two are electronic trap subgenres which both arose (largely) from soundcloud. When you start researching both of these genres ("pluggnb" - the subgenre of plugg, and "rage"), you come up with [reliable] sources, talking about some "soundcloud 2.0" scene, which these two happen to come from. There are more subgenres related to "soundcloud 2.0", for instance "sigilkore", "digicore", "glitchcore" and other micro-subgenres related to hyperpop, and more (I am not interested in them, but you can find a good source on these among sources in "plugg" article, something-something about "soundcloud demonic underworld", as the author put it). Yet, you barely ever find these sources talking about mumble rap anymore. This buzz phrase ("mumble rap") was a standard label thrown around everywhere during the late 2010s, and this is when the original soundcloud scene was happening (Carti, Uzi, MadeInTyo, Yachty, Dex, Rich, XXX, early Lil Pump, early Smokepurrp, early Post Malone and so on, many such cases!), but even around that time "mumble rap" co-existed with emo rap (oftentimes sung not rapped, and that's why I've read "internet debates" about whether Lil Peep was a rapper or not) and with, at least, trap metal (which is mostly shouted: Nascar Aloe, Zilla, Ghostemane, Scarlord etc). Also can be noted that "new age phonk" (DJ Smokey, yung vamp), 2010s lofi beats/lofi rap (and a million of vaporwave/lofi-related hip-hop "movements"), 2010s cloud rap were also happening mostly on soundcloud/bandcamp, but these are, in general/largely, instrumental sub-genres. That's why "soundcloud rap" is not "mumble rap" although "mumble rap" is a part of "soundcloud rap", the first wave of soundcloud rap, to be precise. PDDisPDDat (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to SoundCloud#SoundCloud rap. There is a Draft:SoundCloud rap created in March 2019 and deleted as an expired draft an year later, which may be restored if someone is ready to work on it. The draft was never submitted for review. Jay 💬 17:20, 14 August 2023 (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).

🫸[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 24#🫸

CPRR[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 22#CPRR

Judeo-Kashani[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 💬 17:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judeo-Kashani

The only connection of the title of this redirect, Judeo-Kashani, and the target of this redirect, Soi language, is that the special-purpose infobox includes a link for Judeo-Kashani as one of six links to information about endangered languages. The redirect provides no useful information for a reader. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I added some content on it from an article about it that I found. It's not the strongest content, but it's a start. Reading the article I read, I am unconvinced this should be part of the article on Soi language, but that is probably a different discussion. TartarTorte 13:10, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Glottolog also lists it as a variant of Soi. Many Judaeic 'languages' are not even separate dialects, but merely the language written in Hebrew script and often with some Hebrew vocabulary; calling them 'languages' is a bit like calling Catholic English a language because it has some vocab differences from Protestant English. — kwami (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Robert, at one point I did go through all the Judaeic languages I could verify as being distinct languages, and merged the rest with the articles for their parent languages. This included volumes on Judaeic languages in general, that separated the actual languages from things that just have a "Judaeo-" prefix in their name. If you can find a RS that Judaeo-Kashani is actually a language and not just Kashani/Soi as spoken by Jews, then it would be worth splitting off; if not, IMO the rd should remain. Note though that many purported Judaeic languages are poorly researched. — kwami (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's pretty fair. The research on Judeo–Kashani is pretty scant and there's little to suggest in what I've read that it's an entirely different language from Kashan in a linguistic standpoint, or even itself a dialect. I found two a few things from two different academic papers by the same author (and pretty much the only sources I could find that seemed at all reliable on the topic) that it does share similarities with other Judaic languages spoken in Iran beyond seemingly just being transcribed in Hebrew; however, the author does not note one way or the other whether the similarities to other Judaic languages is due to them all being spoken in a nearby area. Habib Borjian writes Comparative studies of the CDPs of the Isfahan and Kashan areas (Stilo 2007b; Borjian 2011a) show how well the Jewish dialect of each city fits into the continuum of the CDP in its geographical context. Nevertheless, there are cross-areal isoglosses shared by Judeo-Kashani and Judeo-Isfahani that could only be explained by direct historical contacts between the two Jewish communities (Borjian 2012). With CDP in this scenario referring to Central Plateau Dialects. It seems, like you stated above, that it as best a dialect with a few loanwords likely from Hebrew, but not a truly distinct Judaic language. TartarTorte 13:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:37, 3 August 2023 (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).

Queen of Morocco[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. Of the two suggested targets in the nomination, participants were split. However, there was no support for keeping at the current target, hence targeting to King of Morocco as a better target than the current, and having slightly more support than Sayyida al Hurra. Jay 💬 17:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page was initially created as vandalism. From what I can tell, Morocco's current constitution limits the throne to males, and even a king's wife is a princess rather than a king (see Princess Lalla Salma of Morocco). There are three current uses of the phrase on the English Wikipedia: one at Steve Cohen (magician), which probably refers to Lalla Salma; one at Lalla Latifa, in a quoted reference explaining the absence of Moroccan queens; and one at Tétouan referring to Sayyida al Hurra.

The current target doesn't mention any queens. I would be fine with deletion; retargeting to King of Morocco for readers who may assume the monarchy is gender agnostic; or retargeting to Sayyida al Hurra ("the last person in Islamic history to legitimately hold the title of al Hurra (Queen)"). BDD (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 23:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget to King of Morocco - per nom's assertion that readers may assume the monarchy is gender agnostic. Plus the "Princess consort of Morocco" link on Princess Lalla Salma of Morocco goes there. Even those who know that Morocco does not allow women to take the throne, they may not know that wives of Moroccan kings don't take on the title of Queen (as most would assume undoubtedly that is automatic). estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:36, 3 August 2023 (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).

Old style pen[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 Pen#Historic. Looks like the best target, and, as Synpath noted, the section serves as a somewhat wordy disambiguation page. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 15:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate: Fountain pens aren't the only type of "[o]ld style pen"s. In fact, the quill is an "[o]ld style" writing tools whose shape can plausibly lead one to believe that it is an "[o]ld style pen". Silcox (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak retarget to Pen#Historic which is a section that discusses historic (and thus "old style") pens, maybe? Duckmather (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Responding to Silcox, a quill is not a pen, and would sooner occur to someone's mind as a feather than as a pen. Fountain pens are recognizably pens, and thus would be a more suitable target. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Festucalex: This is valid, but per Pen#Historic, fountain pens are not the only type of historic pens (or even a type of historic pen, for that matter). Duckmather (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Festucalex But the fact that a quill and a pen serves essentially the same purposes (i.e. to write) means that the man on the Clapham omnibus can plausible come up with the (wrong) conclusion that the two are equivalent. Silcox (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Duckmather and Silcox: I'd be fine with a retarget, but I argue for keeping because fountain pens are the most common "old style" pens in use today, and thus would be most likely what the Clapham bus man is thinking of. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are many styles of old fashioned pens -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 04:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget or disambiguate are my two choices retarget to Pen#Historic is my first choice. It's certainly a reasonable search term and I don't think we can really guess what exact "old pen" people are looking for. Hobit (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ReTarget to Writing tool#Pens - I was leaning towards retarget to Pen#Historic, similar to User:Hobit, above, but because fountain pen is still in use, it's not in that section. But more importantly, "old-style" is very subjective. How old is "old"? Looking through options, I think Writing_tool#Pens gives a better overview (and disambiguates fairly well), for what I think this redirect is going for. - jc37 22:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pen#Historic as the section is essentially a wordy disambiguation page. Retargeting to Writing tool#Pens is also good, but I lean towards targeting the Pen article, since it emphasizes the 'old' from the search and has more images which may be more helpful at a glance. ― Synpath 22:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pen#Historic, providing a wider overview of other "[o]ld style pen"s. Silcox (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:34, 3 August 2023 (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).

SearXNG[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 Refine to Searx#SearXNG fork. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While related, this is not mentioned at the target. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This was added by the redirect's creator back in October 2021, but was then removed in this edit by TocMan in June 2022, due to concerns with notability. Pinged editor for some possible input. CycloneYoris talk! 08:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It has been 10 days and there has been no response from the creator or the pinged user. Jay 💬 05:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: searx.space is maintained by the SearXNG team since the beginning.
If the SearXNG page redirects to searx, it would be nice to mention SearXNG in the searx page since the searx project itself mentions SearXNG : https://github.com/searx/searx/ Dalf73 (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can frame the sentence and provide a reliable source, and add it to the talk page of Searx, with a request to add to it to the article, someone will add it, or I can too. You have edited Searx before, but since you have a COI with SearXNG, adding it yourself directly will be problematic. Jay 💬 16:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 20:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SearXNG is mentioned in SearX readme. Some articles are also starting to pop out about it. But, not explaining the difference between the two repos. Added some info. Greatder (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and refine to Searx#SearXNG fork, where it is now mentioned. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:11, 23 August 2023 (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).

"Helge Ingstad" collision[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 10#"Helge Ingstad" collision

"Will Hastie"[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. CSD G7 Liz Read! Talk! 06:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a helpful search term as title conventions don't include quotation marks. Delete per WP:UNNATURAL. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please delete. I made a mistake and forgot to ask someone to delete it for me. There's a Will Hastie redirection that has been done properly. My apologies for the error. Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2023 (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).

F-1[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 – WP:SNOW close. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Formula 1. This is one of the most suggested targets of F1 and F-1. 176.33.244.8 (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: F1 is commonly used to mean Formula One, but F-1 is more ambiguous. In my research it refers to a number of things, but many of them are not Formula One, but are instead F-1 visas or the Mitsbushi F-1 fighter jet. TartarTorte 19:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep yes there are some uses like F-1 (nuclear reactor) and Rocketdyne F-1 (the original target) so it seems better to keep the redirect with the hyphen pointing to the DAB as Formula 1 doesn't appear to be known with the hyphen much. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2023 (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).

Catastrophic climate change[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 Climate crisis. signed, Rosguill talk 22:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those all should point to the same article. But which one? 93.72.49.123 (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2023 (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).

B I G B A N G 0 3[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 22:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 15:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - seems to have been a placeholder for the k-pop band BigBang (South Korean band)'s third, uh, release (I'm not sure what a "single album" is). The band's name does seem to be occasionally rendered in all caps, but never in all caps with this particular spacing. The title breaks the pageviews tool so can't see if it's in use, but since the article hasn't been at this title in 14 years, I doubt it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per probably 5-10 guidelines, the MOS, aesthetics and common sense.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:45, 3 August 2023 (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).

Volyn Crime[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. signed, Rosguill talk 22:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted. It's an inflammatory/POV redirect added by a now-blocked WP:SPA. The only article that linked to the redirect was the redirection target itself (which has been fixed). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'm unsure how this can be considered inflammatory. The article uses the term "crime(s)" countless times to refer to the massacres, and gives "Volyn tragedy" as an alternate name (in case Volyn was the issue). There is no requirement that redirects be neutral (see WP:RNEUTRAL and note I'm not suggesting this is actually neutral or not) or be linked to (as they could be a plausible search term). Looking online this definitely seems to be a term for this, see for example [3], [4] (possibly a translation from Polish), [5]. A7V2 (talk) 00:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per A7V2. Volyn massacre also redirects to the same target. Unsure what is inflammatory/POV. Is it the uppercase 'C' which appears to give the event a title? Jay 💬 17:11, 10 August 2023 (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).

Nintendo game watch[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 💬 17:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can only find Game & Watch when searching it. Suggestion: Retarget to Game & Watch. 176.33.242.229 (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The target article regards Nelsonic's line of "Game Watch" products, ten of which were licensed by Nintendo and have nothing to do with their "Game & Watch" products, so the redirect is entirely valid. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | contributions) 20:24, 8 August 2023 (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).

Latvia in the Eurovision Choir of the Year 2017[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 22:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-articles to articles which have gone through AfD/RfD and been deleted due to WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV issues (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgium in Eurovision Choir and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 25#Austria in Eurovision Choir). No logical reason to continue to host these articles when the others have already been deleted. The article titles are not particularly useful search terms, and the coverage of each country's participation at the current target articles is minimal. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unlikely for these topics to ever turn into their own articles. The redirect terms themselves are sufficiently long enough that it is unlikely that they would be typed to aid in navigating to the desired topic. Grk1011 (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2023 (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).

Austria in the Eurovision Choir of the Year[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 14:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requested; clean-up of alternative titles for redirects which have already been deleted (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 25#Austria in Eurovision Choir). Sims2aholic8 (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unlikely for these topics to ever turn into their own articles. The redirect terms themselves are sufficiently long enough that it is unlikely that they would be typed to aid in navigating to the desired topic. Grk1011 (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2023 (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).

Jimmy Finkelstein[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 04:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finkelstein has run both The Messenger (website) and The Hill (newspaper), and he's mentioned in both articles. I believe that this redirect should be deleted in line with WP:REDYES; he's probably notable, and leaving a redlink to encourage article creation is better than leaving a suboptimal redirect pointing only to his most recent venture. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:36, 3 August 2023 (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/2023_August_3&oldid=1171943589"