Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 4, 2023.

DC Circuit[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 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The lowercase DC circuit and whether it should be a DAB or also pointing here, as brought up by Ketiltrout, can be handled at requested moves, because it involves a page move. Clear consensus exists for retargeting the uppercase DC Circuit, and a hatnote will be put in place. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest that this be retargeted back to its original target, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Anyone using the uppercase C is not looking for Direct current (WP:DIFFCAPS), and the current appeals court is the primary topic over the historical circuit court, the latter of which may be reached via a hatnote. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit per above and DIFFCAPS. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:43, 10 July 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).

Sum 41's sixth studio album[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 20:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Red. doesn't exist for any other of the band's albums (or any other band's albums for that matter), meaning a similar red. would have to exist for EVERY album article; WP:PANDORA. In addition, it's very unlikely someone would look for 13 Voices with "Sum 41's 6th Studio Album". Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 19:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - This was created as an article (in 2009, 7 years before the release of the current target), presumably actually about Screaming Bloody Murder (the fifth studio album), as it mentions the success of what is their 4th album (Underclass Hero), but at the time the article said it was the fifth ([5]). Ultimately this is a leftover of a bad BLAR by Timmeh 14 years ago where proper deletion procedures should have been used, but I don't see that any benefit comes from deleting this harmless redirect. A7V2 (talk) 02:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per above as harmless, currently correct (regardless of why it was initially created), and PANDORA doesn't apply in this special case. Jay 💬 05:50, 12 July 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).

Linkin Park's fifth studio album[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/default to keep. (non-admin closure) feminist🇭🇰🇺🇦 (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Red. doesn't exist for any other of the band's albums (or any other band's albums for that matter), meaning a similar red. would have to exist for EVERY album article; WP:PANDORA. In addition, it's very unlikely someone would look for Living Things (Linkin Park album) with "Linkin Park's 5th Studio Album". Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 17:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I was notified of this discussion because I believe I was the one who finally moved this article to its final article title back in the day and this redirect was auto-created afterwards. I wanted it deleted as early as 2014, but I was outvoted back then. Now or then, I don't think it was particularly likely search term. Certainly not now though - prior to this nom, its been averaging zero page views per day this month. Its simply not being used. Sergecross73 msg me 17:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no need for this. Was there ever a contest in which the fans got to vote on a name for it? A similar redirect exists for Five for Fighting's Slice album, the reason being that when the article was created, there was enough info to cover his 5th studio album, but no name had been announced as he held a vote in which the fans could vote on its title and whichever one won, would be chosen. Slice won, and so Five for Fighting's fifth studio album was moved to Slice (album) with a redirect appearing on the former. Much like the Linkin Park album, no one is going to explicitly search for Five for Fighting's fifth studio album. Both should be removed imo. Moline1 (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an unambiguous {{R from move}}. Not getting any use is not in itself a reason to delete. May be currently useless, but it also harmless, and given that the article was originally at this title, there is always the chance of breaking external links with deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the purpose of a redirect if not for it to be used? And so what if some links are broken? It's a multiplatinum album that's been out for almost a decade - people will easily know how to fix it. Not that I think there'd be much of that to begin with. Writing something like "Linkin Park's fifth studio album" is not common or any sort of standard. The music content area generally would write that sentiment as "Linkin Park's fifth studio album Living Things." Sergecross73 msg me 20:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:R#SUPPRESS: "Not breaking links helps everyone". If we accept that this will break links (a bad thing), there must be a reason to do so, but in this case there isn't one. A7V2 (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't accept that though. My stance is that I don't believe it's breaking links, because editors don't write prose with links like this. Why would someone's first mention of the album be a link to it without using its name? Sergecross73 msg me 19:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Links made outside Wikipedia, not internal links. J947 † edits 03:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't stress enough the implausibility of anyone anywhere linking to this redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 12:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's evidence that it's actually occurred. Don't go shifting the goalposts now. J947 † edits 04:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your link isn't working for me, but regardless, literally zero mainspace articles that use this redirect on Wikipedia at least. Sergecross73 msg me 00:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mdewman6. No benefit comes from deleting, only potential harm due to this being the result of a page move. A7V2 (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It was only at the prior title for a brief period almost a decade ago because an overzealous editor created the article prematurely before it had a name. There's nothing worth preserving here. It both conceptually, and in practice, is functionally useless. Sergecross73 msg me 14:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unused ≠ should be deleted. By rights it's an unhelpful redirect – but why must it be deleted? Two backlinks, and it being a possible (read: improbable) search term far outweigh the harm it causes. J947 † edits 08:21, 2 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 21:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per J947's link. People don't go about adding random wikipedia links to blogs and discussion forums, but this is one case where this link was being discussed in a forum, and it's still around after a decade, regardless of whether anyone goes through those discussions. Jay 💬 15:03, 15 July 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).

Capital of Switzerland[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. I'll note that Key of G Minor's arguments have been ignored as a blocked sock. -- Tavix (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Capital of Switzerland isn't exclusively Bern, Bern is the administrative capital, whereas Lausanne is the judicial capital. I propose either deleting it or disambiguating it. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 13:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate since it's a plausible search term. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 15:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Switzerland#Federal City: This probably best covers the topic of Switzerland's (lack of) Capital TartarTorte 16:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per TartarTorte. That section explains that no city in Switzerland has the official status either of capital or of Federal City while also listing all the unofficial federal cities. That extra context seems more helpful than a disambiguation page that simply lists cities that might loosely (or mistakenly) be regarded as Switzerland's capital. – Scyrme (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Current target says Bern is the de facto capital of Switzerland. Googling "capital of switzerland" inevitably leads to dozens of sources stating Bern is the capital, including from the official Swiss broadcaster and the CIA. Retargeting would probably astonish most readers. A hatnote can be added pointing to the section noted by TartarTorte. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Astonish who? https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Capital_of_Switzerland The page averaged 14 views this month. Most of them have been me trying to get to this discussion. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 20:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirects are cheap, and, if someone finds them useful, they're useful. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the purpose of a redirect if not for it to be used? Writing something like "Capital of Switzerland" is not common or any sort of standard, and if it was, it would be piped. In addition, while yes, dozens of sources will pop up saying that Bern is the capital, Bern is right there on the search engine. It's the third result, so there's no need to open a new tab. Also, in accordance with WP:COSTLY#Some unneeded redirects, Bern can can easily be found with a search. It's semi-common knowledge already that Bern is the capital of Switzerland. The redirect is untrue and, to be frank, utterly useless. Sincerely, Key of G Minor. Tools: (talk, contribs) 00:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is also a pretty valid solution. Switzerland isn't so much of a South Africa scenario where there are three capitals, but one where there is no official capital but Bern is largely treated as such. While the highest court is in Lausanne, it has not generally been referred to as the Judicial Capital of Switzerland in the same way that Bloemfontein is in South Africa. TartarTorte 20:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe that nations had capital cities centuries before the idea of stating in a constitution or a law that such-and-such city is The Official Capital Of X came about. Bern is the center of governmental administration for Switzerland, which under the ordinary definition of the word makes Bern its capital. And in this case, there was an official pronouncment. Per [6], "Am 28. November 1848 wählten der National- und Ständerat die Stadt Bern als Bundessitz der Schweiz, sie wird jedoch nicht Haupt- sondern eben Bundesstadt genannt" ("On 28 November 1848, the lower and upper houses of the Federal Assembly selected Bern as the "Bundessitz" [federal seat] of Switzerland, it was however called the federal seat and not the Hauptstadt [capital]"). But, [:wikt:tomayto,_tomahto#English|tomayto, tomahto]: It is the official designated seat of the country's government. That's what "capital" means whether they use that word or another one. If Toyota started referring to all of its cars as "automobiles" in all of its English-language media, nobody would be arguing that the vehicles in question aren't cars.
Meanwhile, in cases where the judiciary happens to be located elsewhere—the connotation of "capital", in its ordinary sense, is the place out of which the government, the political entity are run. The judiciary doesn't run the government. Though some countries appear to have dubbed a separate place where their judiciary is based as the "judiciary capital" (I'm assuming—or has the naming of Pretoria as South Africa's "judiciary capital" never been more than a popular designation?), it really isn't a capital. Largoplazo (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Presidentman, and rcat the redirect with an appropriate tag, I cannot decide which. Hatnoting is optional for the reason I'm not able to imagine what it will say. Federal city is already linked at the first sentence of the target. The information about capitals is not really conspicuous at Switzerland#Federal City, so I would agree with the astonishment. Disambiguation is a NO because there is nothing at Lausanne of it being a judicial capital. Jay 💬 15:39, 15 July 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).

Run Wild[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. I have made a disambiguation page at the target using Jay's suggestions. (non-admin closure) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Run Wild" is the name of some random obscure song off of this 1980s album. This should either be a DAB page as their are a few songs and albums with this title. Cherrell410 (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cherrell410: Since you're the one who proposed it, maybe you should make it into a disambiguation page...? Also, calling a song off an album that sold 12 million copies worldwide "random [and] obscure" is a bit funny. Ss112 07:42, 5 July 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).

Tia Lorentzen[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 20:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No mention; I'm unable to determine why this redirects here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 21:16, 4 July 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).

OneRepublic's second album[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 20:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this exist? I clicked on this thinking that it was some onerepublic lore, but no, it's some dumb redirect. Cherrell410 (talk) 21:14, 4 July 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).

Black Table[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 💬 18:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Table

There is no use of Black Table in Table Mountain, the target of this redirect, only of Back Table. This redirect has only been viewed 11 times in the first half of 2023. There is a draft, Draft:Black Table in review, concerning a novel, that is, an unrelated topic. The novel draft is not ready for article space, but might be ready for article space in the near future, and review has called attention to this useless redirect. The alternative to deleting this redirect when the novel is accepted would be including a hatnote in the article about the novel, but that would be a link to a misspelled version of the name of the geographic feature. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 4 July 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).

Anisochromis straussi[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 💬 11:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect (referring to a species of fish, which is listed on Anisochromis) is almost unrelated to the target. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to encourage article creation (I oppose retargetting to Anisochromis as there is no specific information there). This redirect is so misleading as to be actively disruptive. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 13:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Confusing redirect. Almost absent from literature and collections – possible ephemeral species. Invasive Spices (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above and perhaps WP:REDYES. A7V2 (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above: the target is almost completely unrelated to the search term. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:45, 7 July 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).

Digmaan[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 07:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible WP:RLOTE from Tagalog, not mentioned in target. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 07:11, 4 July 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).

Male unemployment[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 Unemployment#Gender and age. This is consistent with the "refine" !votes that suggested pointing to an anchor that now corresponds to this section heading. signed, Rosguill talk 20:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is not specifically mentioned in the target article in a way where redirects such as these would be considered incredibly helpful; readers may be searching around the article looking for specific information about the subject to a point where they might just give up. In addition, the linked section does not exist. Of all these redirects, Male unemployment is a {{R from merge}}, but the only location in the target article where it is clear content has been merged is at Unemployment#21st century, But even then, the reader has to go about halfway through the section to find any of the merged content ... And even then, that portion of contact is not specifically for the subjects of these redirects. I understand that there's probably going to be a push to retain the Murch material for attribution purposes, but as redirects, these redirects are not necessarily helpful search terms. All in all, as search terms, the redirects should all be deleted; however, the edit history in Male unemployment may need to be moved elsewhere to a title that's a reasonable search term. Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: This subject is specifically mentioned in this section of the target article. Should the redirects be retargeted to that section? Jarble (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine/keep per Jarble. Search terms seem plausible. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ...But refine where? The passage is in the middle of a section, so if the option is to redirect it to the section, it could be misleading since the reader would have to scroll down to find the subject which they are attempting to locate. New subsection header, maybe? (I think an anchor may be confusing in this case.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you click on the link provided by Jarble, it takes you to the relevant content. I see no confusion here. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per Jarble and Presidentman, though I agree a subheader needs to be added, as the lack of a proper title makes it confusing. CycloneYoris talk! 01:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that the comments to refine tend weakish, the number of redirects under discussion that refer to slightly different topics, and how information on gendered unemployment can be found throughout the article, I think this merits an opportunity for some strengthening of consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 † edits 03:35, 4 July 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).

Wikipedia:NO![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 Wikipedia:NO. ✗plicit 07:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why someone would go to WP:NO (which is in fact a disambiguation page) to find the Norway wikiproject; it's the country code for Norway. I find it highly unlikely that anyone would visit this redirect. Page info says only one person — probably me — has visited this redirect in the past 30 days, while WP:NO has had 45 people visit it within the past 30 days. Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 03:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Wikipedia:NO as a suitable retargeting option; it doesn't violate any of WP:R#DELETE (unless you want to claim it violates WP:R#D8, which I'd contest). It does only get about half a view per month, and the only incoming wikilinks are related to this RFD, so there's no real usage here and I wouldn't object to deletion, but I don't think there's a policy-backed reason for deletion. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget to Wikipedia:NO because of WP:CHEAP and the lack of a good reason to delete. However, I am not opposed to deletion because of its lack of usefulness. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 09:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to WP:NO, as a disambiguation page. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  01:16, 11 July 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).

Personal leave[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 11#Personal leave

Strich[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. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 02:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not explained at target. Maybe intended as a misspelling of Stritch, which is explained there, but that hardly seems helpful. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:55, 4 July 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).

2000 Senior Bowl[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 03:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all – these redirects are misleading and don't serve a beneficial navigational purpose. They all go back to the parent article even though they should be standalone articles for an annual, historical college football bowl game. SportsGuy789 (talk) 00:39, 4 July 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_July_4&oldid=1166816665"