Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 6

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

March 6

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 6, 2023.

Sacraments of the Living

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 14#Sacraments of the Living

Sacraments ()

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. Salvio giuliano 23:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Useless, unhelpful redirect. I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 23:02, 6 March 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
).

YOU-CAN-SPAM Act of 2003

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 15#YOU-CAN-SPAM Act of 2003

P. antiquus

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. Salvio giuliano 23:42, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous redirect, could also refer to taxa like

Palaeoloxodon antiquus among others. I think it should just be deleted without creating a disambiguation page. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete. While there's technically a valid reason to DAB, it seems unlikely that anyone would actually search this. An anonymous username, not my real name 22:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate – it's a plausible search term, because names of species are often abbreviated this way. A Google Books search for "P. antiquus" in quotation marks finds lots of examples. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An unlikely search term, as abbreviated scientific names are always preceded in a document by an unabbreviated name. If there is a dab page, is it going to be restricted to species that have articles on Wikipedia? If somebody does happen to search for "P. antiquus" they may very well be looking for a species that doesn't yet have an article on Wikipedia. C. elegans (disambiguation) is Wikipedia's longest dab page, and an effort was made to create stubs for every species with that abbreviation, but I don't think it has ended up being very helpful to readers, although it does illustrate the folly of having dab pages for species abbreviations. Plantdrew (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is very bad practice to refer to a species in this manner, unless either the full binomial name has already been used in the text, or the text is describing a genus and is listing its member species. Also, as noted already, the term P. antiquus is not unique; there are many genera beginning with the letter P, and there is no prohibition on, say, the name Panthera antiquus being used for a newly-described species of extinct large carnivore. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:31, 7 March 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
).

Leroy Jackson (actor)

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 delete (
(non-admin closure) TartarTorte 15:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm not seeing any evidence that the target subject ever went by "middle name" "last name" in any works, making this redirect a potential

WP:BLP issue. Steel1943 (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I believe he was never known as this per MOS or NOM. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are the redirect's creator, so that means this is
WP:G7 now... Steel1943 (talk) 15:19, 7 March 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
).

"(Raimi-Verse)" as a disambiguator

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 13#"(Raimi-Verse)" as a disambiguator

Phulrraa

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 17#Phulrraa

Tangxi station

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 and disambiguate, respectively.
(non-admin closure) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 22:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Not mentioned in target. Onel5969 TT me 17:58, 6 March 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
).

Na Jom Bwajwo (One More Chance)

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) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 22:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Not mentioned in the target. Onel5969 TT me 17:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a romanization of 나 좀 봐줘 the Korean title. Qatchlist (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the title is "나 좀 봐줘 (One More Chance)" and this would be a romanization of it. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 08:18, 8 March 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
).

List of countries by population denisty

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. Salvio giuliano 23:43, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recently-created implausible typo. This is a contested

WP:R3 speedy deletion (see Talk:List of countries by population denisty); creator asserts that the typo is plausible because they made the mistake themselves. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as creator per prior rationale Atavoidturk (talk) 17:47, 6 March 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
).

Hammer of the Heretics

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) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 22:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

No mention at the target. Therefore, I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This appears to be a fairly common alternative name, but often without the 'the': [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The page gets sporadic traffic, but people do use it (Page views). I would thus suggest keeping it, but also creating a twin redirect at
    talk) 22:12, 6 March 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
).

The massacre of the Cathars

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) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 22:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The "The" makes this redirect quite unhelpful. Veverve (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: How does the "the" make it unhelpful? This seems like a perfectly plausible search term, and the page receives steady traffic. ([6])
    talk) 22:31, 9 March 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
).

Tom Cruise IV

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 delete. CSD G7 Liz Read! Talk! 19:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect not needed, I regret making the redirect a lot. Tom Cruise is his stage name. Suggest deleting. ErceÇamurOfficial (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: In the future, you can tag the page with {{
    WP:G7 for more info. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:05, 6 March 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
).

List of terms for white people in non-Western cultures

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. After two relists, delete has a clear majority, no other proposal has support beyond its initial suggestion, and I don't see a policy-based reason to discount the arguments for deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently originally a separate list before becoming a redirect. Not sure who would be searching this or whether the target list would satisfy them (of the minority of terms that refer to white people, most originate in Western countries). An anonymous username, not my real name 00:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • If nobody can find a more appropriate target then delete it without prejudice to later recreation as something more useful. Not all terms for white people in non-Western cultures are slurs and most of the slurs on the target page aren't even terms for white people in non-Western cultures so the redirect is completely unhelpful to anybody looking for that. Maybe it should be turned back into an actual article? There is potentially a legitimate subject here. DanielRigal (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not all terms for white-people in non-Western cultures is a slur. Delete to encourage article creation(if it is notable).
talk) 07:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeking consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 12:48, 6 March 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
).

Eclipse of God

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. After two relists, while there's still some uncertainty being expressed, there is no real opposition to deletion. signed, Rosguill talk 21:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was previously an article about a theological opinion related to Death of God theology. However, there is no mention of this concept at the target, nor anywhere else on Wikipedia. Therefore, I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that the target for the redirects was God is dead, and the nom changed the target to the current one 4 minutes before the nomination. Jay 💬 10:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, because as the article stated, before being turned into a redirect, that the concept is a variant of the Death of God theology. Veverve (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to the observation noted above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a difficult one. According to the former article, it is actually quite distinct from theothanatology, due to supposing that God has merely withdrawn and the possibility of his return; in this respect, it reminds me most of Jainism. That said, the original article appears to have been entirely OR, and a Google search only returns book titles, so I have my doubts this is actually a distinct strand of theology. Maybe it would be best to restore and AfD? On the other hand, I would not object to simply deleting the redirects as originally proposed. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:14, 9 March 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
).

Cercaria (trematode)

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) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 22:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

An

WP:XY situation with the disambiguator. A cercaria is a larval stage of a trematode; Cercaria (genus) is a particular genus of trematodes. Plantdrew (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to
    talk) 22:17, 6 March 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
).

Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 15#Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible

Template:Fag

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. Legoktm (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Unneeded and only had a few transclusions, which I replaced. Obviously, it's intended as an initialism for

Template:FAG is a little more obvious that it's an abbreviation. MClay1 (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Contradictory to what the above commentor said, everyone can see the usage of this link which at best is ambiguous to what exactly it's meant for. Links should be clear and should not require editors to go through hoops to understand what is meant by them. This isn't a good shortcut (though to be fair, most ones here are awful and lazy). Gonnym (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting way to describe the situation ("Contradictory to what the above commentor said...") given there was no mention by me or the nominator above of any potential ambiguity, or lack thereof. I should perhaps clarify what I meant by the danger of breaking links: if this is deleted, then in old versions of articles which used this shortcut there will be an error and a redlink to this. If kept, then all that will be seen is the wikitext (since the template will still work), and given the existence of the redirect it wouldn't take someone long to figure out what it is for. I don't foresee anyone adding it to any new articles. It would perhaps be helpful if there was some kind of Template:R from depreciated shortcut that could be added to such redirects. I don't agree that this is ambiguous. Firstly, it has (to my knowledge) only been used for one purpose, and ambiguity within internal redirects such as these is to me determined by intended actual usage, not theoretical usage. Secondly, I can't see anyone using it any more. Thirdly, I don't see anything else this could refer to, and you haven't given anything as would normally be expected of someone arguing a redirect is ambiguous. A7V2 (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And fourthly, anything this could be ambiguous with would surely also be a grounds to delete
Template:FAG, but this has not been advocated here. A7V2 (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
anything this could be ambiguous with would surely also be a grounds to delete Template:FAG I would be fine with this as well. I support your nomination. Gonnym (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:46, 6 March 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
).

Old timers disease

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) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 22:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]


Retarget to eggcorn, where this variant is discussed and to which it used to point before being unilaterally retargeted. An anonymous username, not my real name 20:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have bundled in another 7 nearly identical redirects, all of which currently target Alzheimer's disease. Some previously targeted Eggcorn, some did not. A7V2 (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's a relatively common eggcorn and I'm not sure that another target, such as eggcorn, would suit people better as this is probably what they want when searching for this term. TartarTorte 14:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep all or retarget to Eggcorn?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 14:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 07:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Per TartarTorte. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep targeted to Alzheimer's disease. I think the most likely scenario is someone searching for that because they either don't know the correct name or they don't know the intended meaning of the eggcorn. Arriving instead at Eggcorn would be confusing. MClay1 (talk) 11:51, 7 March 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
).

Darling (2014 film)

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. Salvio giuliano 23:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was the result of a page move, but either redirection should have been suppressed, or the resulting redirect should have been tagged G6. This redirect is incorrect as a search term and has negative value. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:07, 6 March 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
).

Pathaan

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, retarget to
Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Currently targets Pashtuns, but there is a new Indian movie called Pathaan (film) that might also be a reasonable target. A user attempted a copy-paste move to this page, so I'm bringing the redirect up here for discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as comments are very divided and I don't want to close this as no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pathan. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:34, 22 March 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
).

Zarathustra (fictional philosopher)

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) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 11:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The Zarathustra present in Nietzche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra is not a philosopher. I propose deletion. Veverve (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete although some hermits were philosophers they are not synonymous --Lenticel (talk) 12:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fictional Zarathustra does philosophise, albeit in his inimitable way, so I don't think most readers would find such a qualification as wrong (philosophy doesn't have to be understood strictly as a bookish scholarly pursuit). The redirect seems perfectly plausible and unambiguous, so I believe it should be kept. – Uanfala (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Uanfala. Plausible that someone might think that the title "character" of a philosophy book might be a fictional philosopher. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Uanfala, keep – I really don't see what's wrong with describing him as a philosopher at all. J947 † edits 08:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, in Nietzche's book he is simply a hermit or poet, not a philosopher. Veverve (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is my view that if his role as a character is to discourse on philosophy, then he is definitely a philosopher. This is in much the same way that Zoroaster himself is regarded as a philosopher, in my opinion. J947 † edits 20:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, being a wise person or coach, or to provide some life advice, does not mean you are a philosopher. Veverve (talk) 10:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right so I'm struggling here. In a work of philosophical fiction written by a philosopher about a character based upon a famous philosopher embroiled in philosophical thoughts, is it inconceivable that this character could well be referred to as a philosopher? J947 † edits 09:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timothytyy (talk) 06:04, 6 March 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
).

Historical Russian religion

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) {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 03:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Retarget to Religion in Russia#History. An anonymous username, not my real name 03:31, 6 March 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
).

Template:Pin

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 Template:Pin section. Pinging TartarTorte who volunteered to help clean up incoming links if this was the discussion's outcome. signed, Rosguill talk 19:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo of {{

ping}} (I assume), {{Pin section}} is a much better target. {{ping|ClydeFranklin}} (t/c) 01:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Retarget to {{Pin section}}. I was attempting to see if this 'cut would work for section pins, but apparently not... Silikonz💬 18:35, 16 March 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_March_6&oldid=1146407021"