Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 11

January 11

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 11, 2021.

The One and Only (Plankeye album)

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. I'm also going to refine it to "Plankeye#Discography" and tag it with {{R to section}} as proposed. (non-admin closure) Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The One and Only (Plankeye album) → Plankeye (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not a likely search term and the article was recently created. No need for this redirect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly refine to #Discography. Pankeye released an album called The One and Only so it would seem that this is a perfectly plausible search term that is pointing at the correct location, given that the album doesn't immediately seem notable. Thryduulf (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as a redirect with history. Geschichte (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Harmless, correct, and not ambiguous. There's a Plankeye album with this title. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably redirect to Plankeye#Discography. Unlike "[artist's nth album]" this redirect actually has a specific name, and thus it is reasonable to keep. HĐ (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Refine to Plankeye#Discography per above. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2021 (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.

Global nation

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 17:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global nation → World government (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Global nation should be removed or given a disambiguation page, as it is also the name of a Filipino news website [globalnation.inquirer.net] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaporwaveboyfriend (talk • contribs) 22:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed nomination properly formatted. --BDD (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Judging from Google Books, this phrase is mostly used to mean either or both of "a nation with members located all over the globe" (e.g. Irish people in Ireland plus the Irish diaspora) or "a nation whose members came from all over the globe" (i.e. a nation which accepted lots of immigrants). I only see a few using it in the sense of "a nation consisting of everyone on the globe" (i.e. global citizenship, transnationalism or similar concepts). And none of the relevant articles use this phrase anyway. So we don't have any appropriate targets for the general concept. If there were to be a dab page for the proper noun usages, it should be located at Global Nation, but there's very little which meets WP:DABMENTION. The news website is cited a lot but it's not mentioned at Philippine Daily Inquirer, and I don't think it's worth it to have a dab page just for the two songs (mentioned at Deborah Mollison and Global (Todd Rundgren album). 61.239.39.90 (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term 'global nation' can have multiple meanings, I have found the song with the same name and a radio program dedicated to immigrants. There's no indication why it should lead to world government. I agree with the previous comment - we don't have an article dedicated to the concept, so for now deleting would be a good option. Less Unless (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to DAB page per above. StayC, BAE173 and music fans [ My contributions | talk to me ] 14:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A draft disambiguation page could help form consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems like it could have multiple meanings, and it doesn't seem to me like something people would search on. - Dyork (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2021 (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.

Manoel Peterson

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. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manoel Peterson → Botev Plovdiv (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Redirect to a football club, for a person not named in the target article. He was named in the article at the time this redirect was created in 2007, but not being an expert on European football I have no idea whether or not playing for that club is an "inherent" notability freebie or not -- but if it is, then it should be deleted so that a proper article can be created, and if it isn't, then he's not permanently notable enough to retain a redirect long after his name has been removed. Further, within the last 24 hours somebody tried to make this go away by replacing the redirect with the template that's applied to user talk pages to inform them of a proposed speedy deletion -- but that's not the process for actually making a page go away, this is. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Delete to encourage article creation, as he may be notable. No point having redirect when not mentioned anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is not standard to have player's names redirect to the club they once played for, on the basis that most players play for multiple clubs... Giant Snowman 22:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per GiantSnowman, doesn't even make sense to have a player redirect to his club. He would have to be super famously attached to that club and by that time there would be enough notable sources and coverage to build an article on him. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 22:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the reasons mentioned above. - Dyork (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2021 (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.

Agonistes

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 19#Agonistes

Template:WikiProject Electrical Engineering/importance

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. Unused, no participants have come up with a reason it is useful to keep it. ~ mazca ^talk 12:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WikiProject Electrical Engineering/importance → Template:WikiProject Electrical engineering/importance (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

No transclusions and unused. Part of an incomplete move. Magioladitis (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move target to Template:WikiProject Electrical Engineering/Importance as this would be the correct name for the targeted template. 2603:9001:6502:4734:CFB:70BB:F75:ADE2 (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is the incorrect name, if you look at the WikiProject's main page. Sentence case is customary for WikiProject names. — Goszei (talk) 05:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is Template:WikiProject Electrical engineering/importance maybe this needs fixing to capital I too? Magioladitis (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, serves no useful purpose. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:49, 16 January 2021 (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 McNary

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 Article created at redirect location. Closing as moot. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dave McNary → Variety (magazine) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Not mentioned at the target. An internet search does establish that McNary worked for Variety, but there's no information at the target, it seems unlikely that it would be DUE to add a mention about a reporter in the article, and he may possibly be notable in his own right. Delete to encourage article creation. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: An article on McNary has been created. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2021 (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.

Second franklin

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. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second franklin → Battle of Franklin (1864) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This phrase is not mentioned at the target, and a Google Scholar search does not suggest that it is primarily associated with this battle I think that deletion is probably the way to go here. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not mentioned on target page, and a quick web search for 'second franklin' doesn't bring up any mention of the target page and instead brings up other topics. I don't think a redirect is needed. - Dyork (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This might make sense as a {{R from other capitalization}} if Second Franklin existed as a shorthand alternative name (analogous to Second Manassas, for example) but I don't think that's the case here. Note though that Second Battle of Franklin exists and properly targets the same page. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - While it's not uncommon for battles with a First/Second to have the battle left out, such as Second Manassas, my attempts to find usage of this term brings up much for other things, and no use for this target. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:20, 13 January 2021 (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.

Gatorbait

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 'Gator Bait. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gatorbait → Florida Gators (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

"Gator bait" was a chant/cheer occasionally used at University of Florida football games that has since been discontinued due to a disturbing historical interpretation. Don't think it was a proper redirect in the first place, but it definitely doesn't make much sense now. Zeng8r (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC) Addendum: FYI, the page was changed from a non-notable one sentence stub into a redirect by a permanently banned user way back in 2005. Zeng8r (talk) 03:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of ethnic slurs#A, where the term has an entry. It might be a good idea to put an anchor in the table so the redirect can point directly at the relevant entry. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeting as suggested is probably the best short-term solution, though I think at this point we could have an article, either about the phrase generally or about the sports chant specifically (which would still make reference to the slur). --BDD (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little research on this topic and while I don't think there's enough material for a full article, I created a section of an existing article which could be used as a target: Stereotypes of African Americans § Alligator bait. AnonQuixote (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to 'Gator Bait (a film, Gator Bait already redirects there) and add a hatnote there to Stereotypes of African Americans#Alligator bait. Thryduulf (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

REtarget to 'Gator Bait, and add to the hatnote for the cheer and to alligator feeding. -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 04:57, 12 January 2021 (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.

List of Template:Skyline Conference (1938-1962) football standings

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 21:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Template:Skyline Conference (1938-1962) football standings → List of Skyline Conference (1938–1962) football standings (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Namespace prefix in the wrong place, so why would anybody bother to type it there? JsfasdF252 (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, absolutely implausible typo. Checking the history, it was created by a bot. The bot probably created it off of someone else's typo Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 22:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't see anyone searching for this. No reason for the redirect. - Dyork (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is debris from my old typo. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Identical discussion occurring in parallel re -/– (hyphen vs endash) at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 12. Hyphen is auto-generated, endash is "master". UW Dawgs (talk) 07:24, 12 January 2021 (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.

Marriage in the Republic of Ireland

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 procedural close - the redirect has been overwritten by an article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage in the Republic of Ireland → Marriage in England and Wales (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

delete not really relevant, but shouldnt be moved to Marriage in England and Wales — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathisaninevitability,soifearitnot-1234 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete, not relevent, no suitable target. Bogger (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I initially redirected to History of marriage in Great Britain and Ireland, subjected to blank & redirect several months ago.[1] (t · c) buidhe 15:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Target is now about England and Wales only, so ROI redirect is pointless and misleading. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've now drafted a stub. (t · c) buidhe 21:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with reasons listed above. - Dyork (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Close: redirect converted to article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2021 (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.

Environmental groups

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 List of environmental organizations. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental groups → Radical environmentalism (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

This currently redirects to Radical environmentalism which has a hatnote: '"Environmental groups" redirects here. For other environmental groups not associated with radical environmentalism, see List of environmental organizations.' It think it would be better to retarget to List of environmental organizations and remove that hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. Definitely makes more sense to be pointing to "List of environmental organizations" than to "radical environmentalism"!!! - Dyork (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. Definitely a more appropriate target. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per above. Nothing about the phrase "Environmental groups" specifically suggests Radical environmentalism. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. Jusdafax (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2021 (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.

Derndingle

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 21:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Derndingle → Dingle (disambiguation) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

A redirect to a DAB page with no mention. It appears to be an obscure location or type of location in Middle-Earth; see Ents of Fangorn. Delete. Narky Blert (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to allow uninhibited Search (for the 3 mentions of this word). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Shhh (t · c) buidhe 21:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obscure Middle-earth cruft, no one good target. I thought we got all of these last year. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:22, 13 January 2021 (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.

Bimeasurable

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 18#Bimeasurable

Cafe Voltaire

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 21:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cafe Voltaire → Cabaret Voltaire (Zurich) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Compare Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 2 and delete for the same reason as Café Voltaire. The target mentions neither "cafe" nor "café". Narky Blert (talk) 12:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cafe not used in article and secondary sources don't seem to use it either. Mujinga (talk) 11:28, 12 January 2021 (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.

It's Only TV

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 18#It's Only TV

Buenaventura language

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 18#Buenaventura language

Lady Gaga's Telephone

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. Though it's clearly a subjective judgement where reasonable editors differ, a clear majority of participants consider this ambiguous, implausible, and generally not a helpful redirect. ~ mazca ^talk 12:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga's Telephone → Telephone (song) (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Another case of nonsense redirect... Telephone (song) is already an informative article, and it is hardly possible that anyone interested in the song has to search for "Lady Gaga's Telephone". I'd consider deleting this redirect. HĐ (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep this is definitely not nonsense, given that it is an alternative formulation for the title of the target. However it isn't a common formulation and is potentially ambiguous with a physical telephone belonging to Lady Gaga. On balance though the fact that it is ultimately harmless lands me at keep as there is no real benefit to deletion given than an article on a specific person's physical phone is exceedingly unlikely. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harmless, yet, but beneficial, no. It won't make it easier for readers to navigate (see my rationale for other redirects listed below). HĐ (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plausible. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

95 clicks over six years (From 2015 to 2021) is not very plausible to me.. HĐ (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a plausible search term. It's more likely that if someone were to search that way, they would go to the subject's article and search for the noun in there, not use the complete phrase. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Don't see this as a plausible search term - Dyork (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As an ambiguous, implausible search term. Gets basically no page views, 95 in 6 years is within the range where they could all be bots. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2021 (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.

Lady Gaga's third studio album

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 18#Lady Gaga's third studio album

Taylor swift's 2011 tour

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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor swift's 2011 tour → Speak Now World Tour (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Pretty sure anyone who wants to know about Taylor Swift's tour can go to the page Taylor Swift without searching for this... I'd consider deleting this redirect. HĐ (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as unambiguous, correct and harmless. Why should someone be forced to scroll nearly to the bottom of the long main article and then load a second page when we can take them directly where they want to go? Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: Honestly there are more a few ways to successfully search for this article, such as through the album article Speak Now or through the comprehensive list List of Taylor Swift live performances. As I explained in the discussion for an album below, this kind of redirects is created as a response to a newly announced project, and would cease to exist once the project happened. If this should be kept, that we'd probably as well create the format "[Artist]'s [year] concert tour" for every and each tour article, which is rather cumbersome and make it harder to navigate rather than actually helping readers. A quick glance at the statistics and you will see. HĐ (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep harmless and potentially useful. (t · c) buidhe 16:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Possible common search term. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that "Taylor swift" is incorrectly capitalized, but the stats show that this redirect receives exactly 11 clicks for a duration of 90 days. Look at the redirect's history and we'll see it was created before this event happened, and has barely received any further attention ever since. Like I said, it is not potentially helpful (from what the stats say), and having this kind of redirects would make it rather cumbersome than actually useful. HĐ (talk) 11:43, 12 January 2021 (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.

Maroon 5's sixth studio album

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 18#Maroon 5's sixth studio album

Maroon 5's Third Studio album

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 18#Maroon 5's Third Studio album