Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 11

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

November 11

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 11, 2019.

Television app

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 21#Television app

Acid storm

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. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too easily confused with acid rain. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The overwhelming primary topic for this is the current target. The next most common use is an EP by Nakadia about which we have no information (the orphaned article contains no discography or similar), which would be worth a hatnote if there was some content to point to. After that come two different EPs, both by artists who don't have articles here. I'm not seeing any actual confusion with acid rain at all. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The acid storm here is apparently an entity in the Transformers fictional universe. The target article mentions it a couple of times, without however defining it in any way, so readers who would like to find out what it is – the ostensible target audience of this redirect – are left none the wiser. The job should be left to the search engine, especially given the potential for confusion with acid rain. – Uanfala (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Acid Storm, which is sufficiently defined by the target list. More neutral on the uncapitalised variant, but I'm not convinced by the "confusion" argument. PC78 (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if kept, hatnote to Acid rain AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget the first to Acid rain; Keep the second for now, with a hatnote on the list page per AngusWOOF; or,
Retarget both to Acid rain (disambiguation), and add the list as a See also reference, per AngusWOOF above. Doug Mehus T·C 16:08, 18 November 2019 (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.

Draft:슘슘

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per

WP:FORRED UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2019 (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.

Redirects with "langauge"

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 all. This discussion was surprising to me in several ways. It's surprising to see a nomination with so many redirects that is contested but doesn't result in a
WP:RTYPO). Nevertheless, XfDs are only bound by precedent inasmuch as participating editors want them to be. On procedural and policy grounds, the keep votes were valid, but there is no other realistic outcome of this discussion. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Intentionally created
Created in error

Typo made when creating a duplicate article:

Typo made during move or initial creation of article:

Typo made when creating redirect (that is, the corresponding "correct" redirect did not exist at the time of creation of this redirect):

These are all the 45 redirects that feature the mistyped "langauge". That's quite a plausible typo (I do it all the time), but this very plausibility paradoxically makes the redirects actually harmful. The trouble is, one or another of these 45 redirects will inevitably show up in the search results if you make this typo while looking for any of the 15,000 or so language articles that don't have the corresponding redirect, while the article you are actually looking for will not be there in the results. Say a reader makes this typo when looking for the Hattic language. They'll see a single article in the search results – Hittite language (and it's there because of the redirect Hittite langauge). If the reader is not aware of the fact that Hittite and Hattic are two very different languages, they might be misled into believing that it was in fact Hittite they were looking for. This potential for confusion is tempered somewhat by the "Did you mean ...." text displayed above the search results, but that can be easy to miss and it doesn't work in all cases (just try searching for "Javanese langauge" and see why there'll be no way to get to Javanese language from there).
The solution is to either delete these 45 redirects (which is what I'm proposing), or to undertake to create and maintain similar redirects for each title with "language" in it (there are likely well over 20,000 of these, so that would be a tall order).
A procedural note: this is a preliminary nomination. If it looks like consensus for deletion is likely to emerge, then I ask that the discussion be relisted for another week, so that I can notify the creators, tag the individual redirects, and scrutinise them individually (for incoming links, useful history, etc). – Uanfala (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bakumpai, Aragonese, Cushitic, Turka, Kosli, Assamese-Bengali, Abujmaria, English langauge spelling reform [edit summary says it was unintentional], List of Marathi-langauge authors [ibid], List of Nepali-langauge authors [ibid], Mandi [ibid], Teso [ibid]
  • The following were created as rd's to a different name, and so are also likely to have been unintentional typos. E.g. for 'Hindi langauge', they likely intended to create 'Hindi language' as a rd to 'Hindi', or saw a red link and made a rd out of it, not noticing it was a typo:
Hindi, Ashkenazi, Native, Pakistani Langauges, Dart, Lemko, Natural langauge generator, Klamath-Modoc, Assessment of Basic Langauge and Learning Skills [also for diff in caps], Less commonly taught langauges [ibid], CLI [ibid]
  • Everything with capitalized "Langauge". E.g., we have Arabic Langauge, but not Arabic langauge. If the l.c. isn't worth rd, is there any point to the capitalized form?
Arabic, Mazandarani, Pakistani, CLI,
  • French (langauge) -- we don't put 'language' in parentheses, and readers aren't likely to search for it that way, so how is this the least bit useful? And we don't even have French langauge.
French, Pascal, Java, C, CS-4,
  • Others with two changes: 'Langauge codes' (typo + plural)
  • How many of the remainder are actually worthwhile? We've gotten along just fine for over a decade without Arabic or French, Spanish or Portuguese, Italian or German, Russian or Greek, so we really need Japanese and Korean, Malay, Thai and Chinese? Do we think people looking up Asian languages are more likely to make typos than people looking up European languages? Maybe keep English just because we're WP-en. — kwami (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, and I suggest renominating in smaller groups instead of relisting the discussion. I would differentiate between at least a few distinct types/formats. The usefulness of Foo langauge → Foo or Foo language redirects is debatable, but I lean toward deletion per
    WP:RDAB. Foo langauge → Bar or Bar language should be deleted as implausible. And, finally, longer titles should be deleted given the usefulness of a redirect that accounts for one possible error decreases with the length of the title (e.g., List of Foo-langauge authors. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete all. Redirects are not intended to deprecate the Search function, as Black Falcon said above. Airbornemihir (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the typo's been fixed on Glottolog, it's unlikely anyone would try to find 'Yogyakarta Sign Langauge' anymore, so I wouldn't object if it were deleted as well. — kwami (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. This kind of typo makes it harder for editors to use correct spelling in their articles. A redlink lets me know if I accidentally type
    talk, contribs) 22:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment has anyone gone through and checked how often these are used? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF, I've had a look at the stats for the redirects that were deliberately created as typos (not that many of them), and the most viewed one was English langauge (310 last year), followed by Thai langauge (58); the rest were an order of magnitude smaller. I haven't checked all yet. – Uanfala (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC) Oh look, Arabic Langauge received close to 1,800 views last year, that's highly unusual! – Uanfala (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Uanfala, Keep some English, Arabic, and Thai ones should be keepers. The others where they are used in a long phrase that isn't associated with a specific language should be removed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF, I've just examined the remainder of the 19 intentionally created redirects, and the ones with significant pageviews for last year were Hindi langauge (1816), Chinese langauge (195), Korean langauge (180), Native langauge (109), Japanese langauge (92),Indo-European langauges (36), Malay langauge (34), Langauge acquisition (31). Of course, I don't personally believe these to be high (except for Arabic, Hindi and English, they're well under one view per day), and – given the high number of searches blocked by each of those redirects and the fact that they are largely redundant to what the search engine does – I don't think there can be usage stats high enough to warrant keeping. – Uanfala (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several of the redirects in this discussion were not tagged until today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per the above. There is value in identifying, via redlink, editor typos in article wikilinks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per
    R from typo}}) and an aid for accidental linking. It makes duplicate articles less likely; this is a hard mistake to notice (as others above have said) and an editor may see the redlink and may not realize it's an error, instead they think it's a nonexistent article and create a stub that takes more time to resolve. These don't deprecate the search function, we know exactly where a reader who types this wants to be taken; showing them a list of articles they obviously didn't want is pointless at best and hostile design at worst. The status quo is fine. (edit conflict) Wug·a·po·des​ 19:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Khowar language right at the top (you can see an example from a similar search: [1]). in sum, these redirects achieve the saving of a single click for those readers who make the typo when seaching for these 45 articles, while returning completely the wrong results for readers who make the typo while searching for probably several thousand other articles. – Uanfala (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
You've chosen one out of dozens where the redirect and target mismatch. This is not the case for:
English langauge → English language
Hindi langauge → Hindi
Arabic Langauge → Arabic
French (langauge) → French language
Japanese langauge → Japanese language
Java (programming langauge) → Java (programming language)
Chinese langauge → Chinese language
Malay langauge → Malay language
Pascal (programming langauge) → Pascal (programming language)
C (programming langauge) → C (programming language)
Thai langauge → Thai language
Langauge codes → Language code
Pakistani Langauges → Languages of Pakistan
Dart programming langauge → Dart (programming language)
Langauge acquisition → Language acquisition
AWK Programming Langauge → AWK
Hittite langauge → Hittite language
Korean langauge → Korean language
Indo-European langauges → Indo-European languages
Aragonese langauge → Aragonese language
Endangered langauge → Endangered language
Lemko langauge → Lemkos
Natural langauge generator → Natural-language generation
English langauge spelling reform → English-language spelling reform
Pearson Langauge Assessments → Pearson Language Tests
Cushitic langauges → Cushitic languages
List of Marathi-langauge authors → List of Marathi-language authors
Assessment of Basic Langauge and Learning Skills → Assessment of basic language and learning skills
Turka langauge → Turka language
List of Nepali-langauge authors → List of Nepali-language authors
CLI Langauges → List of CLI languages
CS-4 (programming langauge) → CS-4 (programming language)
Bakumpai langauge → Bakumpai language
Teso langauge → Teso language
Less commonly taught langauges → Less Commonly Taught Languages
So I don't find your counter example particularly compelling. If that were the only one up for deletion, I would agree, but the literal bulk (I removed less than 10 entries) of your nomination is cases where it is completely unambiguous what is being referred to. It's hostile design to know exactly where readers want to be taken and then intentionally not take them there. It's not even clear that the results for "Khowar langauge" are because of the redirect; go look at the search results for "Hattic langauge" which you bring up in the original nomination. The first result is Hattic language despite there being no such redirect. Two examples of "making searches harder" have been given and one isn't even correct. We have over 36,000 redirects from misspellings including a number following "cheif" conventions after a 2016 RfD found no consensus to delete. I've yet to see any convincing deletion rationale that justifies not taking readers where we know they want to go. Wug·a·po·des​ 06:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't why I'm having such a hard time getting you to grasp the point of this nomination, Wugapodes. Let me try again. Let's take Hindi langauge, it redirects to Hindi. If you search for "Hindi langauge" it will take you straight where you want, that's right. But let's see what happens if you search for say "Kumaoni langauge". In the search results there's only one article: Hindi, that's because it mentions Kumaoni and because it's the target of a redirect with "langauge" (that's all that matters, it's irrelevant how similar or different the title of the redirect is to the article title). You'll get the same unhelpful result if you make the typo when searching for any of the 170 or so other languages that are mentioned (in the text or in the navboxes) of Hindi. Just try any. As for Hattic, the redirect Hittite langauge was recently taggged for RfD, so it doesn't affect the search results; the results you've seen is precisely what you'll get if the redirect is deleted. Now I've removed the rfd tag, so if you click on your own "Hattic" link above, you'll see what I've been describing.
Now, I'm not advocating against redirects from misspellings, in fact I create such redirects all the time. But for phrases like "X language" it makese sense to create such redirects for misspelling of X (lesser-known term so more likely to be misspelt and less likely to be recognised by the search engine), rather than for the generic word "langauge" (already handled fine by the search engine, the redirect would obstruct related search results). – Uanfala (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If these are problems that are occuring in practice rather than the abstract, then make the redirect. If you make redirects from misspellings all the time, I don't understand why you're so opposed to doing so in this case. We do not have a limit on the number of redirects we're allowed to have, and as I continue to say, if we know exactly where a reader wants to be taken, we should take them there. As other have said discussing these topics in the abstract is pointless because the options are either take readers where they clearly want to go or don't take readers where they clearly want to go. You're suggesting we bulk delete useful redirects because we don't have enough redirects which makes no sense. There are lots of useful redirects that we should have that we don't, that doesn't make other redirects less useful. If you are having an actual problem, create the redirect; that's why many of these exist in the first place and why usefulness is listed at
WP:RDEL. If you're concerned about pandora's box this is a worse precedent to set because editors will keep creating redirects from misspellings and we'll keep sending them to RfD. See the section above PANDORA, Wikipedia:Redirects are costly#Sending redirects to RFD is costly: "You can reduce this burden by...not sending redirects to RFD, unless there is a serious problem that can't be solved any other way (e.g., WP:BLP violations). This includes not listing redirects for deletion that you think are "unnecessary", or which could be solved through other methods". There's a clear alternative solution here: create the redirects you need rather than putting us in the situation of playing perpetual whackamole because people will keep creating redirects from misspellings that they find useful. Wug·a·po·des​ 17:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
These redirects create a problem for searches, and it's a lot easier to solve this problem by deleting these 45 redirects than by creating (and looking after!) the several tens of thousands redirects for each title with "language". – Uanfala (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Uanfala, it is a lot easier to read through and assess each redirect now. That said, weak keep Hindi langauge, English langauge, and Chinese langauge as those seem to be more commonly used. Pageviews are considerably fewer for most of the others, and this particular typo is less plausible when the redirect is longer (because there are many other equally plausible typos that are similarly unhelpful). Those created in error have since been fixed, so there's no need to keep them around if they would have been eligible for A10 or R3. Hence, delete all the rest as unhelpful; the typo is not heavily searched in more obscure cases, and more clutter is created that makes searching more difficult. I'd even be fine deleting those three I mentioned, but their pageviews might justify keeping them. ComplexRational (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most per nom's reasoning, except Langauge acquisition and Langauge codes, which are not particularly competing with any topic or other language. From UnnamedUser (open talk page) 19:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, yes, these two articles don't get in way as much as the others. But they will still crop up in the search results for any of the few languages mentioned in each (though the potential for misleading readers is small as most of those languages are pretty big and no-one will assume that we don't have an article on, say, German). I'm more concerned about the way Langauge acquisition can obstruct searches for the occasional general linguistic concept, like Language death. – Uanfala (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The immediate issue I have is when looking at the
    WP:SURPRISE result unless one immediately works out this is one of the set Redirects with "langauge" which is obvious from whence one has determined what the issue is perhaps looked at the page source.10:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Neutral: Too much energy expended getting here to make a meaningful !vote.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all we don't need every possible typo as a redirect for articles. Just as
    redirects are cheap, they're just as easy to be re-created. Also, if the nom is the author of the redirects, speedy delete applies. Doug Mehus T·C 15:06, 19 November 2019 (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.

The Blip

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
(non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 16:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

There is no mention of "The Blip" at the current target; even if it is the actual name of a plot point of the film, a reader following this redirect will find no useful information. I propose retargeting to the disambiguation page Blip, due to the low utility of the current target and the high possibility that a reader may be looking for some other meaning of this phrase. signed, Rosguill talk 01:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page Blip links to The Blip and says it is "a fictional event in the Marvel Cinematic Universe termed in Spider-Man: Far From Home". I'd say that it could either be redirected to Blip or to Spider-Man: Far From Home#Plot, the latter actually mentions "the Blip", although links to it. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be ok with redirecting to Spider-Man: Far From Home. Based on the fact that The Blip has a higher per-day pageview count than Blip, it may be the case that the Marvel Blip is actually the primary topic here (although a disambiguating hatnote may be in order). signed, Rosguill talk 02:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to
wp:primarytopic-based reasoning, but I'm not sure the page view count of The Blip establishes the primary topic to be a subtopic of Spider-Man: Far From Home. Airbornemihir (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I have no issue with "The Blip" redirecting to Spider-Man: Far From Home, since that is the movie where it is named and largely referenced. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Retarget to Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Three. Mysticair667537 (talk) 06:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be any mention of The Blip at that target, though. signed, Rosguill talk 21:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2019 (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.

Nicholas Clark (cyclist)

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. --BDD (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a DAB page with no relevant entry; called in

WP:NCYCLING. I propose deletion, to encourage article creation if he does. Narky Blert (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2019 (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.

Radio-tellurium

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 21#Radio-tellurium

Rambo V: The Savage Hunt

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
(non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 16:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Created before film actually existed and with different title used. Target article never discusses this proposed name. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is discussed in detail by
    talk) 10:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

References

  1. ^ Cotter, Padraig (January 29, 2019). "Rambo vs. Predator? Rambo V Was Originally Going To Be A Monster Movie". Screen Rant. Retrieved November 11, 2019.
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.

Political scientist

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 retarget to
(non-admin closure) AmericanAir88(talk) 18:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Political scientist redirects to List of political scientists. Both of these are alternative capitalizations of the same term and therefore should redirect to the same article. From UnnamedUser (open talk page) 04:04, 11 November 2019 (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.

Club records

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to redirect this very general title to this specific club's list of records and stats. I can't think of a suitable retarget - the phrase seems too broad to me - but I'm happy to withdraw if someone who's had more coffee than me comes up with something. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:29, 11 November 2019 (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.

"Disciples of Christ church"

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely formatted title. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be a title of a song or a quote. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 05:49, 19 November 2019 (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.

Christian - Mormon

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly formatted, potentially ambiguous. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:29, 11 November 2019 (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/2019_November_11&oldid=927460790"