Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 25, 2023.

Mr. Precision[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 12#Mr. Precision

Protoculture (DJ)[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. Consensus is to delete, possibly with an aim to later create an article rather than a redirect. However, participation in the discussion was minimal, so this is a WP:SOFTDELETE, and the redirect can be restored on request. Though, it would be preferred if an article could be created with sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. SilkTork (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entries involving this music artist were removed from Armada Music and Perfecto Records as per WP:LISTPEOPLE. As a result, no suitable target can be found. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bands and musical ensembles signed to a record label should fall under WP:CSC 3 as a short, verifiable complete list, and so the entries on those pages can be restored. If the artist has released albums on both those labels, he likely meets WP:MUSIC and the link shouldn't be a redirect at all, but rather an article. Chubbles (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Chubbles as notable, and for article creation. Jay 💬 19:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Danish America[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 5#Danish America

Lucky Girl syndrome[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. Redirect has been refined to a newly created section of the article in question. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither "lucky" nor "girl" are mentioned at the target article. While the subject might share similarities with ongoing Tiktok trends (as suggested by the creation's edit summary), this is by no means an absolute 1:1, and without any discussion of Lucky Girl at the target article, this redirect's usefulness is questionable. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See here for hits on the name. Perhaps we can add some reference to the Lucky Girl name to the article INSTEAD of deleting the redirect. Rp2006 (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing with the Ghits; it's very likely a term that exists with coverage. The problem is that, with the way I'm reading the article and the way I'm seeing it discussed elsewhere online, these are two separate topics entirely. It doesn't seem appropriate to shoe-horn a syndrome about being a Lucky Girl into the current article just to justify the redirect.
Online I found a good correlation that "Lucky Girl Syndrome is simply a phrase that tries to turn negative thinking around through manifestation techniques and exploration of the idea of the 'law of attraction.'" I feel that, given these distinct subject matters, it would be more appropriate to have a standalone article on this topic that makes reference and links to the law of attraction, rather than equalizing it via a section. It's especially the case as the law is not based on "luck", being a "syndrome" with symptoms, or tied to any form of "femininity". My perspective is that if there was any content about this syndrome on Wikipedia, which there is not, it would be better-off split, and definitely not as a redirect-without-mention. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK.. I am going to add info on this to the Law of attraction (New Thought) article and you all can let me know if this justifies leaving the redirect. Alternatively, when I'm done, you can vote on extracting what I will be adding there as a brand new article. Let me know your thoughts. Rp2006 (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thoughts? Rp2006 (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Content has been added to the target article to support the redirect. Multiple sources on the fad equate it to manifesting and law of attraction/assumption. Example: "Lucky Girl Syndrome is simply a phrase that tries to turn negative thinking around through manifestation techniques and exploration of the idea of the “law of attraction.”[1] and (Dr. Carolyne Keenan) "says Lucky Girl Syndrome is based on an idea known as the law of assumption, which states that you can make real what you imagine for yourself."[2] I think it's too similar to Law of attraction (New Thought) to fork into a different article; "lucky girl syndrome" is just the latest iteration of the concept. Schazjmd (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Schazjmd's comments above. And I really can't see the reasoning behind Utopes's claim that "these are two separate topics entirely", when so many sources point out that they are, at most, minor variations on the same subject. Of course, neither of these terms has a rigorous, universally agreed definition so we could go around in circles forever with discussions about "I think it is this (or not this)" - that is why we rely on sources instead. And the sources seem pretty clear to me.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I have changed the redirect so it now points to the new, specific section of the target article.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After doing follow-up research on this issue and adding the the Lucky girl syndrome material to the Law of Attraction page, I am more convinced than when I created the redirect in question that the redirect is valid and should be kept as is. Rp2006 (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

ABCDEFGHIJKlMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[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. Speedy CSD R3. Jay 💬 08:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirects, no one is going to type the entire alphabet in uppercase except for one letter to get to the article. — mw (talk) (contribs) 20:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Seed Money[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 5#Seed Money

Template:Cit paper[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 00:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word "cite" can and should be easily spelled out, and keeps editors more liable for their edits doing so. If there is a mistake in the format while creating a citation, it gets shown during the preview. This was also never intended as a shortcut for "cite journal", and the retarget happened as a result of a Templates for discussion outcome, where an editor had created a set of different citation templates, and used this name to avoid conflict. Delete similar to the recently concluded RfD for Template:Cit book, and another for Template:Cit web. Jay 💬 15:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Brockley tube station[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, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a tube station and never has been. Always been a National Rail/London Overground station. Going to nominate all redirects between Brockley tube station and West Croydon tube station as the former East London Line ran between Shoreditch and New Cross Gate so any tube station redirects between those stations are plausible, beyond that, implausible. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Honor Oak Park tube station[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, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a tube station and never has been. Always been a National Rail/London Overground station. Going to nominate all redirects between Brockley tube station and West Croydon tube station as the former East London Line ran between Shoreditch and New Cross Gate so any tube station redirects between those stations are plausible, beyond that, implausible. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Forest Hill tube station[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, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a tube station and never has been. Always been a National Rail/London Overground station. Going to nominate all redirects between Brockley tube station and West Croydon tube station as the former East London Line ran between Shoreditch and New Cross Gate so any tube station redirects between those stations are plausible, beyond that, implausible. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Sydenham tube station[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 14:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a tube station and never has been. Always been a National Rail/London Overground station. Going to nominate all redirects between Brockley tube station and West Croydon tube station as the former East London Line ran between Shoreditch and New Cross Gate so any tube station redirects between those stations are plausible, beyond that, implausible. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Crystal Palace tube station[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 14:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a tube station and never has been. Always been a National Rail/London Overground station. Going to nominate all redirects between Brockley tube station and West Croydon tube station as the former East London Line ran between Shoreditch and New Cross Gate so any tube station redirects between those stations are plausible, beyond that, implausible. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Penge West tube station[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 14:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a tube station and never has been. Always been a National Rail/London Overground station. Going to nominate all redirects between Brockley tube station and West Croydon tube station as the former East London Line ran between Shoreditch and New Cross Gate so any tube station redirects between those stations are plausible, beyond that, implausible. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Norwood Junction tube station[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 14:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a tube station and never has been. Always been a National Rail/London Overground station. Going to nominate all redirects between Brockley tube station and West Croydon tube station as the former East London Line ran between Shoreditch and New Cross Gate so any tube station redirects between those stations are plausible, beyond that, implausible. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

West Croydon tube station[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 14:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a tube station and never has been. Always been a National Rail/London Overground station. Going to nominate all redirects between Brockley tube station and West Croydon tube station as the former East London Line ran between Shoreditch and New Cross Gate so any tube station redirects between those stations are plausible, beyond that, implausible. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

The Beast (car)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 1#The Beast (car)

Test seat[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 without prejudice to recreation as a redirect to the current target if relevant content is added there. signed, Rosguill talk 14:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Target term not mentioned in the article at all. Was deleted per an AfD back in 2012. Either redelete as the term is not mentioned at all in the article, or the topic can have its own section on the page, but not all rides have test seats so I'm leaning more towards redeleting. 1033Forest (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I expected this title to be highly ambiguous, but in practice it isn't with the amusement ride concept being the only relevant thing in the top four pages of results that got more than one hit. Of those that were unrelated, one hit was a seat used for testing, thee test drives of SEAT vehicles and all the rest being co-locations. Thryduulf (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You do make a good point, in that case, I am considering suggesting a disambiguation for this one considering test seats are used in more than just amusement rides, but I'll leave this open to further discussion. 1033Forest (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 02:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Also notified of this discussion at the target talk.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no mention on enwiki. But if mentioned in amusement park in the future, a redirect with a similar title may be recreated. This was the image (now used in the French wiki) used in the deleted version of the article. Jay 💬 06:44, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Centaur (chess)[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 Centaur (chess) to Advanced chess and Centaur (fairy chess piece) to List of fairy chess pieces. Jay 💬 06:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of "centaur" at the target, but there is at Advanced chess. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The proposed retargeting is reasonable. The fact that "centaur" is not mentioned at the current target is a result of the recent split (last month, by Mychemicalromanceisrealemo) that cleaved the enormous table off into its own list article -- I wouldn't be surprised if there were other redirects pointing to this section that should be corrected to point to the new standalone list. Relevant past AfD discussion is here. --JBL (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’ve bundled the avoided double redirect Centaur (fairy chess piece) into this discussion. FYI JayBeeEll, I’ve gone through the remaining redirects to Fairy chess piece and retargeted the ones with a broken anchor link to the relevant entry of List of fairy chess pieces (hopefully without making any mistakes!). Best, user:A smart kittenmeow 21:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, A smart kitten. Your edits all look good to me. In my opinion, the version with the disambiguator "fairy chess piece" certainly should be pointed at the list article (or deleted I suppose), it's only Centaur (chess) where there's really a question about which meaning is intended. --JBL (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Participants have agreed on retargeting the first redirect, but there isn't any agreement yet on what to do with the second one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:30, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Retarget Centaur (chess) to Advanced chess or List of fairy chess pieces?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Letsbuyit.com[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 💬 19:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page that this redirect leads to (Kim Dotcom) contains very little and insignificant information on the subject. The only use of this link is on the Kim Dotcom article itself, so it's pretty much not used at all. It'd be better off as a red link than a redirect only used on a page which takes the reader back around to that same page again. — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, mentioned at target, redirect plausible. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 12:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SouthParkFan. I've now removed the circular redirect which was present at the target. CycloneYoris talk! 08:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris: Hmm, I looked at the link removal you did, and it's interesting, it uses the {{ill}} template, which was meant to provide a link to the article on the German Wikipedia, with how it was set up. But since the link exists as a redirect here, the de.wp link was not provided. However, according to that template's documentation, if there is a redirect for the term in English Wikipedia, both the redirected (blue) link and interlanguage link(s) are displayed. So it should have still shown the de.wp link, I'm guessing the template is bugged out.
Anyways, that was going to be my second plan with this redirect, remove the link to it on the article. I've got other ideas to improve it, such as adding an anchor on the page and changing the target to that anchor, and adding it to the appropriate categories.
Question: should we add the interlanguage link back, except force it to display the de.wp link using the |display=1 parameter? — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AP 499D25: I also noticed the formatting was unusual, but couldn't understand why it didn't display the link correctly. I guess adding it back would be fine, as long as it isn't circular, I would not object to that. CycloneYoris talk! 09:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried it out with the display=1 parameter added, and it adds both the circular link as well as the little [de] link next to it. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the circular redirect should be left out per WP:SELFRED, and it shouldn't have been added to the article in the first place. Adding back the [de] link, however, seems fine. CycloneYoris talk! 20:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I have added a small [de] link but without the circular enwiki link. Had to use some manual formatting as the interlanguage link template doesn't let you do that.
Can someone close this thread as keep now? It's been 8 days and there's only been opposition and no support to the deletion proposal here. You can consider me to have withdrawn this RfD, for all intents and purposes. — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Tamati Williams (rugby union)[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 11:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This redirect is no longer linked to at all, and was a misspelling of the target's name "Tamati" instead of "Tamaiti"). PatricKiwi (talk) 06:15, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given that Tamati is a far more common name than Tamaiti, would this fall under the category of common misspellings and be something that would be still useful for people searching? Turnagra (talk) 20:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But anyone searching for "Tamati Williams" (instead of "Tamaiti Williams") will end up at this page (for a soccer player), which has a hatnote at the top that will lead them to the correct page. They could not end up at this redirect (because its name has "(rugby union)" at the end). Because nothing links to this redirect anymore, there's no reason for it to exist. PatricKiwi (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Non-existent London Underground station redirects[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 💬 19:46, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Completely implausible redirects. None of these stations are London Underground stations and never have been. Pkbwcgs (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all: possibly with the exception of Shoreditch, which should be retargeted to Shoreditch tube station, the old ELL station pre-Overground when it actually was on the Tube. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, regarding Shoreditch High Street Underground station, I wouldn't be opposed to moving it to Shoreditch Underground station without leaving a redirect which doesn't currently exist and retargeting it to Shoreditch tube station. That seems sensible. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom --Lenticel (talk) 08:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add R from incorrect name Some people might not know these are not Underground stations. SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 12:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Average of 0-2 viewings in the past year, they are not useful at all to anyone. Pkbwcgs (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and others. Implausible and useless. CycloneYoris talk! 22:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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_December_25&oldid=1195142322"