Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 31, 2023.

Being beautiful in spirit[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 7#Being beautiful in spirit

The Idol, Vol. 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 moot. One of the pages is now an article, and the other (correctly) redirects to it. signed, Rosguill talk 21:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These two point at different pages, both having a very mild amount of info on the subject. Which one should this be retargeted to? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 20:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly about one over the other. I'd say The Idol (TV series) is more helpful to readers until a standalone article is created (which seems likely). No need to delete either page, especially if The Idol Vol. 1 is likely to be resurrected. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:16, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Idol Vol. 1 has been resurrected. I've redirected The Idol, Vol. 1 for now. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as moot. There has been edit warring, multiple move requests after this RfD was started, and removal of the RfD tags. I have added back the RfD tags. So, if closed, The Idol Vol. 1 will be the standalone article and The Idol, Vol. 1 redirecting to it, while the move request discussion continues. Jay 💬 15:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we close this discussion and remove the banners? ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:34, 9 June 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).

Villa de Santiago Chazumba[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! 23:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The correct Spanish full name is es:Municipio de Santiago Chazumba. In fact, there is no comparable redirect on es.wiki (see es:Villa de Santiago Chazumba so it seems like an unlikely search term. Pichpich (talk) 20:22, 31 May 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).

XSXS[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! 23:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous term, Google provides results for an album and a mobile app before the new Xbox. Also, no hits at WP:VG/SE, although that isn't as important. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Not ambiguous with anything currently on Wikipedia. While seemingly rarely used, it is a plausible search demonstrating a few pageviews a day. WP:CHEAP applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not ambiguous with anything currently on Wikipedia, but I doubt it is the first thing someone expects to see from that acronym, since it isn't even on the first page of Google as Xbox. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's an argument you can make that it would be a massive surprise, like if "Cleopatra" were redirected to the Xbox. It's a plausible acronym to refer to the system, as "XSX" is already common and this just tacks on an "S". It may not properly direct everyone typing it in, but with one or two views that's not really that important. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are no useful search results on Wikipedia for XSXS other than the current target that I can find, at this time. If, in the future, XSXS the album or mobile app are mentioned or have articles, they can either take over this redirect or this can become a disambiguation page. Skynxnex (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This acronym does not appear in any significant way on web searches regarding Xbox. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations clearly says not to use acronyms we have made up ourselvess. [1] gets me about 22,000 web hits and [2] gets about 142,000,000. PS5 is a legitimate abbreviation for Playstation 5 but XSXS is a completely manufactured acronym. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not ambiguous with anything currently, useful redirect as templates related to video games (rightly or wrongly) have used this abbreviation for more than 3 years. Also per DIYeditor, as 22,000 hits, while not "millions" like PS5, clearly shows the acronym is used in the wild, if not widely so. The search clearly shows usage by individuals on social media sites, and in the context where this acronym is most used (Video game review boxes), no one is likely to be confused or caught off guard. -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    22,000 is an infinitesimal number of uses, and I would guess many of them were inspired by WP:CITOGENESIS from Wikipedia. The few hits for XSXS in the google search are not high quality. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not writing a FAC or trying to prove WP:N though, so. -- ferret (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From the MOS Use sourceable abbreviations - sourceable implies to me good sources, not a few random tweets, comments and articles from fourth tier random gaming sites. —DIYeditor (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The MoS applies to articles, not redirects. J947 † edits 22:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's not currently hurting anyone by existing. Happy to review if and when another potential use for the namespace arrives. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 13:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ambiguity is not a reason for deleting but for disambiguating, but as noted above, it's not ambiguous with anything else on Wikipedia. Regardless of the quality of the sources, the mere existence of more than 20,000 relevant Google hits demonstrates that people are using this string to refer to the subject of this article; plausibility only cares about the searcher, not the reason for the search. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 2 June 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).

Strikz[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 23:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strikz is a run-of-the-mill family entertainment center in Texas. It's not mentioned in the target Family entertainment center, nor should it be obviously. I also can't imagine this being a likely search term. Pichpich (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not mentioned in target, and for good reason. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As said above, mention is not justified, and it doesn't look like there's been any attempt to add mention anyway. A7V2 (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also a bit of a stretch to be a typo of Strike --Lenticel (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fieari (talk) 04:31, 1 June 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).

Layers of Fears[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! 23:03, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like someone to delete this page because the second sequel to Layers of Fear will have the same title as the aforementioned first game's title. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meaningless rationale. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Retarget to the sequels section of the article and mention Layers of Fears. There is no need to delete to make way for a non-existent, non-notable article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now since there are refs in the article about Layers of Fears. --Lenticel (talk) 00:03, 2 June 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).

Al Corniche[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 23:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This Arabic term refers to any corniche, a type of road, and it's really too generic a term for even a useful dab page. Roads and neighborhoods and publications with that name are mentioned tangentially on various articles, and Google shows many more uses that we never mention. As background: this page was created as an article that duplicated Deira Corniche by a now-indef-blocked user, tagged for speedy deletion by Alexandermcnabb, and then turned into a redirect by IP user 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A110:AD2E:239:F333. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Being my original intention- 'Al Corniche' is a loan word from English (and in English from French and in French from Italian) literally, 'the corniche' and every seaside town and city in the Arab world has a corniche. There's nothing to say that Deira's corniche should be the target for a redirect any more than Dammam's corniche or Beirut's. And, what's more, pure and simple WP:DICDEF... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This had 96 incoming links, mainly from transclusion of {{Neighborhoods in Dubai}} where I have piped the redirect link to Deira Corniche. It may be deleted now. Jay 💬 18:17, 7 June 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).

February 6 earthquake[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. Editors remain divided between disambiguation, keeping as-is, or retargeting to February 6, and failed to cohere on a consensus as to whether there is a primary topic. signed, Rosguill talk 21:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiples earthquakes that could fit the definition February 6 earthquake, including the 2012 Negros earthquake the 2016 southern Taiwan earthquake and the 1973 Luhuo earthquake, each of which have hundreds of casualties. WP:RDELETE#1 may apply here, as there are many different earthquakes that a user can search up that fit this definition. The Night Watch (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:XY. 141Pr {contribs} 18:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC) (see comment below).[reply]
  • Different Idea: Maybe instead of deleting it, we could turn it into a disambiguation page. Quake1234 (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not opposed to deletion, but I would like to see consideration of Quake1234's proposal of a dab page. Estar8806 (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify I agree that a dab makes more sense than straight-up deletion NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 20:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. A cursory check at pageviews of the four February 6 earthquakes shows that this one receives 99.6% of them. It stands to reason there exists a primary topic here. Furthermore, a reader searching up the specific term "February 6 earthquake" is more likely to be looking for an earthquake that occurred this year than any other, as it has a date-based disambiguator without the year specified. J947 † edits 21:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that WP:RECENTISM may apply to this argument, although the target article is nonetheless the most prominent for its casualties and damage. At the very least, the article should be Dabified or retargeted to February 6. The Night Watch (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed: the reader is recentist, the search term is recentist, and the redirect is recentist. I don't know why that's a problem. The redirect's target can be changed later, but for now it's a slam dunk. J947 † edits 23:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to February 6 as that lists all the notable earthquakes. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify (first choice) or keep. Pichpich (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify RD title could refer to multiple destructive earthquakes Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabify per above, striked my above vote for deletion as I now think dabbing is more plausible here. 141Pr {contribs} 17:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. It's useful for helping readers finding various earthquakes that occurred on this day. Readers are recentist, yes: a big reason for having an encyclopedia is to educate the reader about previously unknown topics, including the 6 February earthquakes that occurred in other years. Nyttend (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to February 6 per AngusWOOF. I really don't like the precedent of establishing DABs titled "[X date] earthquake]." Are we going to end up having one for every single day of the year? If so, what's the point of the main article for each day? Redirecting to that day seems like a fine solution - it gets the reader links to any notable earthquakes that happened on that day. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Presidentman, I think these pages wouldn't be as common as you're guessing. I just reviewed every day from March 1 to March 31 for earthquakes and got the following results:
Extended content
    • Out of those thirty-one days, five could have a disambiguation page, ten could have a redirect to a particular earthquake (since it's the only one on that date), and sixteen couldn't have anything at all, given the lack of an earthquake article on that date. Extrapolate to the full year, and that's about sixty disambiguation pages, one hundred twenty redirects, and one hundred eighty-six redlinks. Is that a problematic situation in your mind, or something you'd accept? Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Still doesn't solve the problem that we already have an article fulfilling the same function. WP:REDUNDANTFORK applies here IMO. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Presidentman, in my mind, the problem is that February 6 doesn't have an earthquakes section, and I don't find the redirect particularly useful when there are just four earthquakes amid dozens of entries. Of course, the fewer the earthquakes, the greater this problem in my mind. Moreover, I can imagine analogous redirects being equally useful: February 6 battle (two articles), February 17 airplane crash (two articles), etc. Further splitting up the date pages by topics would be unhelpful — there are heaps of ways to divide them — and I don't see any other way to make topics easily findable if we have multiple "day topic" redirects, and it seems beneficial to me to have bluelinks for lots of "day topic" titles. Finally, in my mind, WP:REDUNDANTFORK is meant for actual articles with different topics (e.g. one article for February 6 and another for 6 February) or little disambiguation pages where there's no benefit to separate entries (e.g. John Smith (politician) ==> John Smith#Politicians), but not to pages like this where a disambiguation page would serve a very different purpose from the date page. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates; just as it can help to have all three types of page for a group of articles, because they work differently, I can see having both types of page (disambiguation and date) cover earthquakes for a certain day, because again they're structured differently. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      "splitting up the date pages by topics would be unhelpful" This is exactly my point why DAB isn't a good solution here. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      To the contrary — disambiguation would allow us to concentrate the earthquake references without splitting up the date pages. If we want to have anything on this topic, either we have disambiguation pages and we leave the date pages alone, or we redirect to the date pages and split them up into little sections, or we redirect to the date pages and do nothing to them. #1 is harmless and useful; #2 damages the date pages; and #3 confuses the users trying to find earthquakes. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, we have established that it is theoretically ambiguous because other earthquakes have occurred on this date, but I fail to see that it is actually ambiguous (ie: are there sources that use "February 6 earthquake" as a name for the other ones?) Either way, I am comfortable calling the Turkey-Syria earthquake the primary topic because this is easily the topic that would most often be sought by searching using this term (cf: J947's argument). -- Tavix (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I find Tavix's argument most compelling that the search term is not ACTUALLY ambiguous in that no one who uses the term is referring to any of the other earthquakes. If that changes, we can readdress this question at that time. That said, I most strenuously oppose deletion, but would not strenuously object to a disambiguation page for this or any other day-earthquake combination that warrants it, even if that were to establish a precedent for a DAB for every date in the distant future... it clearly would NOT warrant such a thing today. Fieari (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everyone? A quick Google search finds sources like [3] and [4], where "february 6 earthquake" refers to one of the others. This is an encyclopedia, not a recent-news aggregator. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 2 June 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).

Srk Zayn[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 close. Its now an article and has been proded (non-admin closure). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No apparent relevance to target article. not mentioned · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:51, 31 May 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).

Isaac Newton (in depth, 2/3)[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. ✗plicit 14:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

strange redirect, and it's anyway to a redirected page Artem.G (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently this redirect was created because there used to be an article at this title, but then it was moved to The writing of Principia Mathematica and then Writing of Principia Mathematica; when the last was redirected per its AfD, the others, which were redirects from page moves, were automatically retargeted as well. Since this redirect is just from a page move, delete per nom as confusing (the title makes one think that the target would discuss Isaac Newton's life at two thirds of the way in). Duckmather (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing --Lenticel (talk) 01:34, 4 June 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).

Isaac Newton/Authoring Principia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 7#Isaac Newton/Authoring Principia

Blessed virgin Mary[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 Mary, mother of Jesus. Jay 💬 11:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should redirect to Mary, mother of Jesus as does Blessed Virgin Mary and Blessed virgin mary.JohnmgKing (talk) 11:02, 31 May 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).

Tenzing Norgay Trainor (actor)[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 Tenzing Norgay#Personal life and death. Jay 💬 11:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is a duplicate of Tenzing Norgay Trainor (without using disambiguation) that redirects to Tenzing Norgay. 112.204.197.139 (talk) 10:25, 31 May 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).

Numeric (data type)[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 Data type#Numeric types. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Floating-point numbers are not the only numeric data types. Instead, this should redirect to Data type#Numeric types, which talks about the various numeric data types. Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/data-types/decimal-and-numeric-transact-sql?view=sql-server-ver16
  2. ^ https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-intro.html#FOOT10
  • Change into a disambiguation page. Good points were raised by Vincent and Randi. Given that the term is ambiguous, I think we should change the redirect into a disambiguation page listing entries to all the mentioned targets. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    AFAIK, disambiguation pages are used for terms that are similar (i.e. they look the same in writing) but have completely different meanings. Here, on the contrary, the various targets would share common properties (they all concern numeric data types) and are named very differently. So I don't think a disambiguation page would be correct. Moreover, I suppose that it wouldn't be much different from the Data type#Numeric types section. Alternatively, have a page titled "Numeric data type", which would be the main page for the Data type#Numeric types section (but it would need to be written and large enough). — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I don't share your concerns here. On a disambiguation page we could have entries for all the above mentioned similar looking terms, regardless if they differ only slightly semantically, or a lot. And a disambiguation page can even have a "See also" section, where we could list terms which are not looking similar at all but are related.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect has a disambiguator, ruling it out as a search term. If there is interest in making a disambiguation page, it would need to be located at Numeric, which redirects to Number right now. Disambiguation entries could instead be made at Number (disambiguation), since Number has a hatnote linking there right now. --Bsherr (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "This redirect has a disambiguator, ruling it out as a search term" - where do you get this from? There is no such policy and there are thousands of such redirects. Searchers do indeed add disambiguators as they become familiar with how articles are titled on wikipedia. See also Template:R from unnecessary disambiguation. A7V2 (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:39, 31 May 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_May_31&oldid=1159365011"