Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 16, 2020.

Changèd[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#Changèd

Ĉeĥoslovakio[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 04:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another Esperanto redirect by Soumya-8974. WP:RLOE. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Polujo[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 04:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto?! 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look at my comment before saying this. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Википедию[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. Pretty sure it's accusative form of the feminine Википедия, not dative, but deletion is justified nevertheless. signed, Rosguill talk 04:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling of the nominative; it is the dative accusative form but I don't think declined foreign language forms are accepted as redirects. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ikipediaway[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 03:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary word in Pig Latin. WP:PANDORA. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep due to it being used at the article. I have no clue how the existence of this redirect would encourage the creation of plenty more just like it, nor why that would be a bad thing if so. -- Tavix (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just a random word that's used to illustrate a point, no connection between the redirect and the target's topic. – Uanfala (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no reason to keep this as an arbitrary example of Pig Latin – no evidence of significant or meaningful usage. Additionally, if we call Pig Latin a "language" (though strictly speaking it is not a real language), we could arguably invoke WP:FORRED as well. ComplexRational (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Potentially confusing, a reader searching for this term might also be looking for Wikipedia. Not a very active user (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although Pig Latin is not a true language, the same principles as set out in WP:Redirects in languages other than English apply here. TJRC (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsensical. Cabayi (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above "delete"-!votes. –Austronesier (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Alle Rechte vorbehalten[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 03:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RLOE: What does the topic have to do with German? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a fixed legal phrase and the exact equivalent of the target article's title "All rights reserved" in another language (German). The exact wording is relevant, and may not necessarily be achieved by machine translation. The redirect exists to help readers running into this phrase in publications, usage licenses, or printed on products of German origin so they will be directed to the relevant information in English. While this is the English Wikipedia, we implement such foreign language redirects either if there is a direct connection of the target with the language, or occasionally when it could be particularly important for users to bridge language barriers without hassle, f.e. in the case of the names of illnesses and emergency conditions, some institutions, some legal terms, some phone numbers, some food, some very important works etc. Also, when an article is about a particular idiomatic phrase in English, it is often interesting for readers to learn about the equivalent phrases in other languages. Such redirects should be tagged with {{R from foreign language}} like this one.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No !vote from me yet, but I'm skeptical that "Alle Rechte vorbehalten" is used for any legal effect. It's more likely simply a German translation of "All rights reserved." Bear in mind that the reservation-of-rights legend comes from the 1910 Pan-American Copyright Convention (Buenos Aires Convention), a multilateral treaty among nations of North and South America, none of which are German-speaking countries. In fact, the only languages spoken among the signatories are English (US), Portuguese (Brazil) and Spanish (all other countries). The suggestion that "Alle Rechte vorbehalten" is a fixed legal phrase is pretty dubious. TJRC (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that the phrase was derived from the English phrase and can be tracked down to the 1910 Buenos Aires Convention. By fixed legal phrase I didn't mean to imply that it is legally binding (it isn't anymore), but this doesn't change the fact that this particular phrasing was used for decades (and is still often seen today).
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think you've missed my point. The phrase "all rights reserved" was never operative apart from by parties to the Buenos Aires Convention. It is not that the phrase is "can be tracked down to" the convention. It is that that was the treaty that made it operative at all. And no German-speaking country was ever party to that convention. There is no evidence at all that the German phrase has been used to preserve rights under the Convention, and the use of the phase to preserve rights under the Convention is the subject of the article.
Even if it is shown that some publications use the German phrase for some other purpose, that is unrelated to the subject of the article. More specifically, it looks like your assertions that "this is a fixed legal phrase" and "the exact wording is relevant" are not correct. Based on this, now taking the position Delete, below. TJRC (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTGOOGLETRANSLATE aka WP:RFFL. This is one of those common words of phrases, and as TJRC pointed out, has no historical connection with the creation of the phrase. Hog Farm (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I discuss above, the arguments put forward by the redirect's creator for its creation and retention are not valid; the wording has no significance justifying redirect to the article in question, and this falls squarely within Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English: "redirects in languages other than English that point to topics that are not especially associated with that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be kept." TJRC (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Arithmetique[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 03:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFOREIGN, nothing particularly French (even misspelled) about arithmetic. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think this is just plausible enough a misspelling by analogy with "technical" / "technique"', "critic" / "critique" etc. Deryck C. 16:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Neo Patwa[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. -- Tavix (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A recently created redirect to a list without mention. The list can't be expanded with relevant content as its inclusion criteria rule out entries without wikipedia articles. – Uanfala (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no mention at either page as of this writing. I would think it would make sense to include in the list before it's added to the main article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD's relisting comment. signed, Rosguill talk 03:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dave Brown (rugby league winger)[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 Dave Brown (rugby league, born 1940). TheSandDoctor Talk 00:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like the subject of the redirect's target ever played the winger position, and it doesn't look like there are any other subjects listed at Dave Brown the disambiguator "rugby league winger" could apply to. Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Dave Brown (rugby league, born 1940). The history of this redirect is very tangled, but ultimately, this is the only rugby league player named Dave Brown we describe who was a winger. It's easy to miss since he seems to have been a centre more often, but he won a major championship playing wing, so that's good enough for me. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD, with whose analysis I agree.
In the 1913 article, I was entertained by "On the boat trip over one of his teammates, unable to stand the sight of Brown's hairpiece any longer, tossed it out one of the ship's portholes". Narky Blert (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

TORCH (search)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#TORCH (search)

St Fort[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 converted to an article. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "St Fort" or for that matter even just "fort" at the target. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 21:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Saint-Fort, France; but writing that as St Fort would be doubly wrong. Narky Blert (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect was created because of the red link for St Fort at Newburgh railway station and the area's mention at Nisbet Balfour. St Fort Hill is noted on the OS Pathfinder map, rising immediately to the south of Newport, with the St Fort home farm at the foot of its southern slopes. Sandford House (St Fort is indeed a late form of Sandforde etc.) is around 1.5 km further south near the junction of the B946 and the A92. The Pathfinder map can be accessed via Streetmap - Maps and directions for the whole of Great Britain. Details of the area are given in Glasgow University's Fife Place-name Data site at St Fort and Ploughlands Of St Fort. St Fort railway station no longer functions but is situated where the railway line passes close to the hotel.[1] The name has no connection with a fort or fortifications and Newport is in Fife so the "St Fort, Newport" and "St Fort, Fifeshire" found in your search @Narky Blert: are one and the same. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So Keep. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mutt Lunker, seems reasonable enough to me. signed, Rosguill talk 23:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Forgan (Fife) or St Fort railway station Street Map only shows "St Fort Home Farm" today but indeed St Fort railway station has an article. It (at least the station) seems to be/have been in Forgan parish according to Vision of Britain, older maps (select 19th century) show "St Fort House" but no place called "St Fort". Its usual to redirect a name to the broadest meaning but we don't seem to have much evidence of just "St Fort" other than the placename cites (Google Maps does show it though but what names they show appears to not be incredibly reliable) above so maybe a redirect to the station might make more sense. The census locality that I based Category:Newport-on-Tay on (now called "Newport-on-Tay (/ Wormit)") doesn't include St Fort which appears to roughly correspond to the former burgh but its clear that St Fort isn't part of the town or census locality so shouldn't redirect there. There is List of listed buildings in Newport-On-Tay, Fife so its possible now Newport-on-Tay is a separate parish but none of those coordinates show anything at St Fort so if it is its unlikely to be in Newport-on-Tay parish anyway. Scottish CPs do appear to have limited recognition today but the CP does seem like the best target barring the station its self. If ambiguity is a problem perhaps this could be moved to St Fort, Fife and a DAB page created at the base name but I don't think XY applies since this appears to be due to unrelated subjects sharing this name. @Mutt Lunker: do you think it might make sense to add content to Forgan (Fife) with the placename sources you have listed? I know someone who knows Fife well so I could also ask them if they know much about this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good suggestion to retarget to Forgan. Newport is also in Forgan[2] but St Fort is an adjacent rural area rather than truly being a constituent of the former. The link at Nisbet Balfour should continue to land here; Newburgh railway station is best changed to land at the railway station's article. Yes, it had occurred to me that there might be almost enough St Fort material to repurpose this as a stub but a paragraph or so at the Forgan article is probably a better solution. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mutt Lunker: apparently "St Fort" is just a farm according to that person. I'd also note that railway stations appear to actually be named without "railway station" (the OS names them without the suffix) but since most require disambiguation and its likely common usage we always add it to the article titles. So if we don't target Forgan then the station makes sense but definitely not delete @Rosguill: (though I understand you appear OK with keeping it per you're previous comment), see also this for example. Perhaps if this is closed as target station it could also note that it can target the parish if info is later added. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per my posts above and the references therein, that person's information is thus incomplete. It is an area, divided historically between a varying number of tenures, which includes, per the Pathfinder map, a named hill, the home farm and, under the older spelling of Sandford, a former hotel in the Arts and Crafts style, now apparently converted in hoilday lets, as well as the former station and railway junctions. There was also a large country house of the name, to the east of the home farm, demolished in the 1950s.[3] Mutt Lunker (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No point in redirecting to Forgan - that article is a mere stub, and present-day Forgan is no more significant a settlement than St Fort. The postal address is St Fort, Newport-on-Tay, which is probably why the redirect goes there. --86.173.33.228 (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Royal mail postcode finder would confirm that the farm, hotel and station house's addresses are all given as St Fort, Newport-on-Tay. For what it's worth, Forgan is the parish, rather than a settlement per se. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Being part of the address isn't the same thing as being in somewhere, see DD postcode area#Coverage. Post towns can include many smaller settlements and even other towns, for example Hadleigh's post town is Ipswich despite being 9.5 miles from it! Since we can redirect to an entity (the parish) that St Fort is in, it doesn't really make sense to redirect it to something its merely near (the town). Also if information was added about St Fort its likely we could say that its (or at least things named St Fort X) are in the parish but at most we could probably only mention St Fort being near Newport even if we did include content on St Fort which would be awkward anyway. I still maintain that the town is not the appropriate target. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is no more correct to say St Fort is in Forgan than it is to say it is in Newport. Forgan is a distinct and separate settlement. The fact that the parish of Forgan once covered the whole area is irrelevant, since parishes are no longer in use in Scotland, except for a few statistical purposes. This is not the place to discuss the article on Forgan, but really it would benefit from being rewritten to focus primarily on the current settlement and not the historical parish. And in any case, shouldn't it be called Forgan, Fife, rather than Forgan (Fife), to be consistent with other similar articles? Of course the real solution to the St Fort issue, rather than discussing where it should redirect, would be for someone to create a stub about the place itself, so that no redirect is needed. --86.173.33.228 (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? Although parishes largely no longer function in Scotland they don't appear to not at all so it is somewhat correct to say St Fort is in Forgan while its not at all correct to say St Fort is in Newport. I have questioned redirecting things to Scottish parishes before due to their limited existence but its still better than redirecting to something that its not in at all. And yes per WP:UKPLACE the parish should be comma disambiguated. If we do create an article for St Fort indeed this would be moot but its not clear if its notable enough for one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per above, there is no settlement of Forgan, current or otherwise. It is a parish only. Why do you think otherwise? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I know the area well. Here's a picture of the village hall. There's also a petrol station (possibly now closed), a stove shop, chapel and cemetery, golf resort and new housing estate, as well as a scattering of older houses. --86.173.33.228 (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A cursory look at the links you give shows that you clearly do not. They all even include maps showing their locations, pretty widely spaced apart in a broad rural location in the parish and none of them in some supposed focused settlement of Forgan. The latter link for Drumoig is, unsurprisingly for locations at Drumoig. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:00, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a scattered rural settlement, not a focussed village, but that's not unusual in this area. Compare for example Dunino, for which the article covers the settlement as well as the parish. I think most readers looking at an article on Forgan would expect to see information on the place as it is today, where people live and work, rather than some obscure and obsolete ecclesiastical entity. But let's not argue about that, we're supposed to be discussing St Fort here. --86.128.200.49 (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC) (previously 86.173.33.228)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Contributors, Ewan Crawford. "St Fort - RAILSCOT". www.railscot.co.uk. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  2. ^ "Fife Place-name Data :: Newport-on-tay". fife-placenames.glasgow.ac.uk.
  3. ^ "St Fort". Canmore. Retrieved 2020-03-13.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about this, to start a stub and break the impasse:

"St Fort (/sənˈfoʊrt/, /seɪntfoʊrt/, /ˈsɑːnfərd/ or /ˈsɑːnfər/) is a rural area, largely in Forgan parish, Fife. The current form of the name is late eighteenth century, the origin being a sandy ford on the Motray Water.[1][2][3]

St Fort Hill lies immediately to the south of Newport-on-Tay and William Burn’s St Fort House, a large baronial mansion, demolished in 1953, lay on its southern slopes. The Home Farm, to its west, survives.[4]

Further south, the area was formerly served by St Fort railway station, on the Edinburgh–Aberdeen line.[5] The triangular St Fort junctions, connecting the now-defunct Newburgh and North Fife Railway, lay to the station’s south-east.

Baillie Scott’s Arts and Crafts style Sandford House Hotel, taking the earlier form of the area's name, lies immediately to the station's west, just into Kilmany parish.[6][1][2] Its restoration as a residence and holiday cottages was documented in the BBC television series Restoration Home.[7][8][9]"

References

  1. ^ a b "Fife Place-name Data :: St Fort". fife-placenames.glasgow.ac.uk.
  2. ^ a b "Fife Place-name Data :: Ploughlands Of St Fort". fife-placenames.glasgow.ac.uk.
  3. ^ "Fife Place-name Data :: Naughton". fife-placenames.glasgow.ac.uk.
  4. ^ "St Fort | Canmore". canmore.org.uk.
  5. ^ Contributors, Ewan Crawford. "St Fort - RAILSCOT". www.railscot.co.uk. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  6. ^ "Sandford House near Newport on Tay, from hotel to haven". www.scotsman.com.
  7. ^ "History". Sandford Country Cottages.
  8. ^ "BBC Two - Restoration Home, Series 2, Sandford House". BBC.
  9. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VhidDfAPkQ
Yes Mutt Lunker good suggestion, thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks good. Thanks for starting this. --86.128.200.49 (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC) (previously 86.173.33.228)[reply]
I've created the stub. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all and glad we've resolved this. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to article (changing !vote). Good stub. Narky Blert (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Generation Beta[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. -- Tavix (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Beta" is not mentioned in the target article. I would suggest deletion unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 20:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Enwiki has nothing about "Generation Beta". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have nothing about this hypothetical demographic cohort. Generation Alpha is not even done being born yet. Nerd271 (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect for now. It should definitely link somewhere, as it's the upcoming generation is beginning to be discussed. For example: Until it was converted into an article, "Generation Alpha" redirected to the previous Generation Z for years (etc.). Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not mentioned in target article, WP:CRYSTAL. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ohnoitsjamie; the fact that it “is beginning to be discussed” does in no way mean it should link somewhere where it isn't. Also, deleting would motivate article creation. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

8-5[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#8-5

Half-island[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 redirect to wikt:half-island. -- Tavix (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any sources supporting this {{R from synonym}} – namely that "half-island" is a synonym of peninsula. It is not mentioned at the target and also inconsistent with Wiktionary (wikt:half-island). Unless sources or a suitable alternative target is found, I suggest deletion. ComplexRational (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary - we have {{Wiktionary redirect}} just for this. Wiktionary handles the etymology from "half-island" or "almost-island" to peninsula, but our article does not. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary - come to think of it, I have never heard anyone use it naturally to mean a peninsula. GaɱingFørFuɲ365 23:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment I did not initially consider a simple redirect to Wiktionary; that seems reasonable to me. ComplexRational (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Half-island looks like a translation of German wikt:Halbinsel. Narky Blert (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Morrell Park Elementary/Middle School[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Morrell Park Elementary/Middle School

Lakarian City[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Lakarian City

Redirects created by PrinceStingySpoilero[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. [Implausible redirects.] ... discospinster talk 01:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


These range in utility from names the subjects are not generally known by, through to minor but unused modifications, and names that are simply made up. I think that all of these should be deleted, but other editors might know more about why these are useful. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. All of these are made up, and some of them sound like plausible typos or misnomers until you read how specific names are used. For example Billy Idol's full name is William Michael Albert Broad, but he is never referred to in the article as William Idol or William Michael Albert Idol or something else that would make the redirect a plausible misnomer. OcelotCreeper (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Citizenship Amendment Act protests in CAA protests in National Capital Territory of Delhi[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Citizenship Amendment Act protests in CAA protests in National Capital Territory of Delhi

Alfred Mercury[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. [unnecessary redirects] ... discospinster talk 01:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie is not short for Alfred, and "Alfred" isn't mentioned anywhere on the page. However, I'm not 100% sold on deletion. I just don't see how this is a useful redirect, as Freddie Mercury has never been called "Alfred". Utopes (talk / cont) 17:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not apparently related to target, and no further information available. The creator seems to have a habit of creating inappropriate redirects, some of which I'm going to add. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:37, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not related to Freddie Mercury in any way. ... discospinster talk 01:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pokemon day[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 03:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The day that is Pokemon Day is not discussed on the target page. There are references to such day throughout Wikipedia, but I'm not sure any of such pages are good targets for this redirect. Utopes (talk / cont) 16:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I think there were also similar redirects nominated in the past (and I think I was the nominator), but I can't find them at the moment. Steel1943 (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Encyclopedia of silliness[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 03:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find Uncyclopedia to be mentioned under this phrase. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Uncyclopedia is an encyclopedia of silliness. It is mentioned on the WP:BJAODN. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:17, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A Google search brings up this redirect and a copy of the BJAODN page on a WP mirror. Seems like this is an obscure or novel synonym for the target (RFD Delete #8). Hog Farm (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This appears to be a WP:INVOLVED relist without explanation. I don't see clear consensus yet, but another editor should look over this. ComplexRational (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's unclear about the consensus? WP:RGUIDE says If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion, the default result is delete. If there is discussion consisting only of comments and supporting votes, then obviously the consensus is delete. See also WP:SILENT. Paradoctor (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think 1234qwer1234qwer4 relisted out of an abundance of caution; since they are the nom, it's better form to leave it open and relist than to close consistently with their own position. It might have been better just to wait and let someone else make that call, but this strikes me as a case where an editor is going out of their way to ensure fairness, even against their own position. TJRC (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reason to believe this is a likely search term. TJRC (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely for anyone to search this up. Kevindongyt (talk 10:47pm, March 19 2020 —Preceding undated comment added 22:47, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

EISP[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) Steel1943 (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous redirect, as pointed out on the Miscellaneous Village Pump. (I'm a new user - am I doing this right?) Catgirllover4ever (talk) 06:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate
Paradoctor (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDisambiguate as per Paradoctor (see below) Perhaps I can add a bit of clarity here. EISP is an ambiguous term needing a redirect to the schools which use those initials. The term 'Exercise-induced sexual pleasure' got attention from scholars and the media around the first half of the 2010s as you can see here by referring to what was in popular parlance a 'coregasm'. The wiki-article on Coregasm which I wrote got merged into the wiki-article on Orgasm, but the section got whittled down; evidently many of the contributors to the Orgasm article did not think that it was a valid term, that it was pop culture nonsense; nevertheless there is still discussion in the Orgasm article (hard to find because the Table of Contents is set to only the top levels). Bottom line: the term should point to this section of the Orgasm article Orgasm#Females#Exercise-induced here which is under the second section Females, subsection Achieving Orgasm, subsection entitled 'Exercise-induced'. So I hope that fellow Wikipedians find this exercise of possibly redirecting the redirect to be thoroughly stimulating.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
a) The section does not mention / define the term, so redirecting there is pointless.
b) Even if it did mention the term, it is not clear that it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term. See Pageviews.
Paradoctor (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added the full term Exercise-induced sexual pleasure to the Exercise-induced section of the Orgasm article. While I agree it's not the most common usage, it does crop up in academic research such as here, which is better than if there was a redirect for WISP (Wikipedia-induced...)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Got anything countering b) the pageviews data? Paradoctor (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. Frankly I am not that committed to either inclusion or deletion of the redirect -- in the broader scheme of things, we're in deckchairs territory, shuffling them about.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, you realize these are not the only options? Cf. my vote. Paradoctor (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update changing to Disambiguate as per Paradoctor (I favor keeping link from Exercise-induced sexual pleasure to the appropriate section of the Orgasm page but frankly I have no strong opinion either way on this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking whether this is possible, or do you want someone to do it? If the latter: I'm just waiting for this discussion to be closed. Paradoctor (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a ping to Soumyabrata, who may be unaware of the Paradoctor's question above. --CiaPan (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drafted below the redirect and RFD notices. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate I was going to retarget it myself, but the Paradoctor's proposal is much better, so I support it now. --CiaPan (talk) 11:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate and Close as moot; Ivanvector (kudos unto them) has already added the disambiguation page text; it is no longer a Redirect for discussion, so I think we're done here. TJRC (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Intelligent Technology and Electronics[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. -- Tavix (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, I don't see any indication that this is actually an alternative name for Intel. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 23:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this story says it's "Integrated Electronics". That, along with Xpert Engine On, makes two bogus-sounding Intel-related redirects from the same account; is somebody trolling? Guy Harris (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to think that this one could be an honest mistake, but Xpert Engine On seems like a bit of a stretch. signed, Rosguill talk 02:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 03:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Гольдфарб, Вениамин Иосифович[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn (WP:WITHDRAW) and speedy retarget to Veniamin Iosifovich Goldfarb. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there is an appropriate local page to retarget this to. Sending readers to non-English content is not helpful. Additionally, the plain soft redirect template is not used in the mainspace. Precedents: Mohamed Chabani|, Saint Michel Boulevard, and Bonne Nuit les Petits. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Enkyklopaideia[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 03:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing particularly Greek in an encyclopedia as an entity (etymological relations are irrelevant). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – this is a romanization of the Greek word whence the word "encyclopedia". --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Chances are low that someone knows the etymology of "encyclopedia", but not its spelling. –Austronesier (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 02:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Espanolo[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 03:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-Esperanto for Spanish. No relation with the portmanteau Spanglish. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 15:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cabayi: the "A" prefix only applies to articles, so it cannot apply to any redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tavix, that'll teach me not to be economical with the typing... It's a neologism which means nothing to anybody but its creator. A web search returns this discussion as the only matching result. Cabayi (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Stabbery (Shrek)[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 03:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wasn't able to find anything on this alleged Stabbery character on Bing except results on this page and blank page on Shrekopedia. Could this possibly be someone's assumption about the name of a minor character? Regards, SONIC678 03:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I got two Shrek wikis on Google. Literally nothing to indicate that the name Stabbery has been assigned in the minds of more than one person. Hog Farm (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Portugese india[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Portugese india

Shak-spere[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) feminist (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for a hyphen here. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The spelling of Shakespeare's name varied widely during his life and beyond. The man himself signed it as Shakspere on at least one occasion, and his name has been hyphenated in various forms. Most results I'm seeing on the web seem to be from books where the name is just broken over two lines of text, though. I don't feel strongly enough to say keep or delete; just wanted to share this info. --BDD (talk) 23:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although Shakespeare signed his name in many different ways (you may be able to guess the spelling he didn't ever use), this looks like a misunderstood hyphenated line break. Narky Blert (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD. I encourage people to create as many spellings of Shakespeare as possible. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

How to pronounce English[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. signed, Rosguill talk 03:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unreasonable search term. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, that link is about English spelling, not English phonology –Austronesier (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if a reader wants information on "how to pronounce English" they will find it at the target article. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector and since WP:PANDORA has been invoked. -- Tavix (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no justification to add a "how to" prefix redirect for articles in Wikipedia. The presence of other such redirects is not a justification, any more than having unreferenced material in an article is an invitation to add more unreferenced material. Bad ideas should be fixed rather than used as justification for further bad ideas. TJRC (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not just that other such redirects exist. It's that they have weathered community scrutiny in the form of deletion discussions such as this. If there's an inherent problem with beginning a redirect with how to... then it might help to remark on what contributors of those other discussions missed, rather than just say "there's no justification" (which is either a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 20:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As much as I don't care for WP:PANDORA being invoked either, that's not the issue I see with this redirect. Does this redirect refer to words in the English language or how to pronounce the word "English"? Keeping this redirect existing is allowing a combination of a vague redirect and a possible WP:NOTDICT violation to remain. Steel1943 (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that makes any sense. If Wikipedia is, indeed, not a dictionary, then our redirects should reflect that we are presuming users are not using it as one. We should not tailor the user experience around the belief that they have mistakenly come to Wikipedia to look up the pronunciation of individual words and that means that we should not read "how to pronounce English" as "how to pronounce English" or interpret ambiguity here (or at pronunciation of English, which would technically have the same ambiguity you're talking about). Not only is this theoretically and philosophically consistent with WP:NOTDICT, but it's a strain on credulity that someone would come to Wikipedia to look how to pronounce the word English in the first place. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In a nutshell, I'm stating that the redirect is vague and shouldn't exist at all. Also, pertaining to "... If Wikipedia is, indeed, not a dictionary...": Wikipedia's sister project, Wiktionary, is a dictionary, and dictionaries are the preferred source for breaking down word pronunciation. And regarding the rest of the above statement, if you see any other dictionary-ish redirects like this one that may be problematic, feel free to nominate them here as well: Trying to state all of that in reference to the nominated redirect at hand is a borderline straw man, and rather sounds like a proposal for some sort of new policy. Steel1943 (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your argument. I'm saying it doesn't make any sense because it doesn't hold water. The ambiguity you're so concerned about is a non-issue. The interpretation that goes against WP:NOTDICT is both unlikely and not one we should concern ourselves with if we are to adhere to this policy. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 02:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pronunciation of X[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. signed, Rosguill talk 03:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly specific search term. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if a reader wants to find information on the pronunciation of X, they'll find it at the target. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector. Valid redirect name, can help reverse lookup. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hiromi Fujii[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 03:49, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:XY. There is a notable athlete of that name, see incoming links. There is also a very likely notable architect[2][3], and an apparently non-notable baseball player. Not the same as the target, see Talk:Hiromu Fujii#Fixing this page. Paradoctor (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_16&oldid=947295128"