Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 19

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

September 19

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 19, 2022.

Narrowing (computer science)

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Narrowing (computer science)

Anglican Orthodox Southern Episcopal Church

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 14:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of this name being used to designate thos organisation. I could not find a RS saying this organisation uses this name.
Therefore, this redirect should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more attempt because of the hesitation to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:27, 19 September 2022 (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.

Orconectes hartfieldi

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 restored article and moved to Faxonius hartfieldi. Even though participants are split between deleting and restoring, they all agree on the fact that an article at the Faxonius title should exist. So, that's why I decided to go ahead and restored the stub that already existed at the previous title, without prejudice to nominating at AfD if deemed necessary. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 23:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Faxonius hartfieldi was moved from genus Orconectes to Faxonius in 2017. Also the redirect page contains Categories which is just weird. As the redirect will take users to the wrong genus, it should be deleted. Then, hopefully the red link will prompt somebody into creating a species page that can contain the required Categories 86.17.100.205 (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Either retarget to Faxonius or soft delete until a Faxonius sp. article is made so that we retarget to that article instead.. The genus was only relatively recently changed, so the old binomial name remains a plausible search term. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 14:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another attempt at retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:26, 19 September 2022 (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.

Orconectes australis

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 restored articles. Without prejudice to nominating at AfD if needed. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 10:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally acepted practice that non-fossil taxa should generally be redlinked to encourage article creation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar In this case, we can use the {{ill}} templates to link to matching articles in French and Portuguese, respectively. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These have a history as articles, but were turned into redirects. They were stubs no inline citations, but the respective French and Portuguese articles are stubs with no inline citations (and no information beyond what was in the English articles). I don't see any point to linking foreign language articles when the English article could just be restored. Plantdrew (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore articles without prejudice to Afd if anyone desires. According to the edit history these were merged into the current target, but while their redirection coincided with a big addition of content to the target, no content other than maybe a reference was really copied over, so these were really blank and redirects. As with the nom, I have come to understand that general practice is to avoid redirecting species names to the respective genus articles in order to encourage article creation, so let's return these to stubs so they may be expanded, or deleted if there is later consensus that these stubs merit it. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2022 (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.

Prime Minister of Guatemala

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Prime Minister of Guatemala

Bronn-Char (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 27#Bronn-Char (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

Impact of Brexit

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 Brexit#Impact. ✗plicit 14:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this is from a move and therefore gets a ton of page views (especially because it is linked to from certain places), but this is a WP:SURPRISE to me. I was expecting an article about how Brexit has impacted the UK, not how Brexit was predicted to have impacted the UK. I would love if there were an appropriate place to retarget to, but otherwise this should be deleted under WP:REDYES to encourage article creation. TartarTorte 13:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget, now that we have a section on Brexit's actual impacts. However, the hatnote should not be replaced because the link between "Impact of Brexit" and Brexit's predicted impact is too unintuitive to warrant a hatnote. A link to Predicted impact of Brexit can be integrated, however, if it is not already done. Thanks, NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2022 (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.

Todd Phelps

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 MCU disambiguator, delete full name. There's only been participation from one editor other than the nominator, but their suggestions appear to address the nominator's concerns. signed, Rosguill talk 16:54, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at redirect target, and not a notable character (only appeared in a small role in one TV episode, and not expected to appear again). InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:01, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Draft:Foster (2023 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 restore page. ✗plicit 14:29, 26 September 2022 (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.

NPGP

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26#NPGP

Two-way selection system

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this phrase in the target article. The redirect was created in 2011 a few minutes after the original article was created (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two-way_selection_system&oldid=441118250) - the topic is one of many student concerns that eventually led to the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. The phrase is not notable - for example Google search "Two-way selection system" has only 1,250 results, with no mention of China in the top ten results. DarylKayes (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2022 (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.

Even more "upcoming" no longer "upcoming"

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. It is clear at this point that there is a consensus to delete "upcoming" redirects where there is no project by that name that is upcoming. Relisting has only solidified this consensus, and there is no reasonable prospect that further discussion will yield a different outcome. BD2412 T 02:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another 105 of these. Per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30#More "upcoming" no longer "upcoming", Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Target subjects no longer "upcoming", etc. These redirects have no significant edit history other than redirections, and do/should not have any incoming links from the "article" space. Steel1943 (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete, I don't mind. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is in regards to Sister (upcoming film) unless specified otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that both Sister (upcoming film) and Sister (Upcoming film) should be deleted. The film eventually came out under the name Music (2021 film), and the name had been changed before production. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Page views alone should not be the deciding factor in deletion discussions. These redirects are inherently inaccurate and misleading to readers, and it has been the long-standing consensus to delete these redirects regardless of page views and closeness to release date. FYI, Pinocchio came out four days ago, so of course you're going to see views in the past 30 days. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These redirects are not inherently misleading - indeed they are the exact opposite in many cases and being incorrect is not a justification to delete a redirect - we even have {{R from incorrect name}} that explains their utility. The purpose of redirects is to help people find the content they are looking for, and large numbers of page views are the most objective evidence that they are doing that it is possible. We routinely keep {{R from move}} redirects and being moved only four days ago is an extremely strong reason to keep. Consensus can, and evidently should change if it is has previously been used to justify actively harming the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: per Thrydullf, without prejudice to smaller renoms. I think that there is probably a difference between something like Black and Blue (upcoming film) which hasn't been upcoming for about 3 years, whereas Pinocchio (upcoming film) is no longer upcoming as of a few days ago. TartarTorte 13:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support assessment by Thryduulf for the keeps and deletes and reassess. I'd probably go one step further and wonder if the nominator be restricted from making these bulk nominations — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hilarious! Hasn't been a problem until the above WP:TRAINWRECK-causing comment. Plus I whole heartedly disagree about keeping these due to page views: no incoming links = me more page views, and consensus has agreed time and time again that once these are no longer "upcoming", the "upcoming" redirects get deleted. If anything, the fact that I have to do so many bulk nominations proves the fact that there's several problematic redirects with this issue that need to get removed. Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    no incoming links = [no] more page views is a nice theory but it completely ignores how the world actually works. We can control incoming links from current revisions of pages on the English Wikipedia, we have no control over links elsewhere and incoming links from external sites are almost certainly driving the long-tail of views on many of these redirects which almost certainly haven't had internal links other than these redirects pointing to them for months (and the redirects with essential zero views demonstrate that the redirects themselves don't cause the views). We also have no control over things like people's memories and bookmarks. If you don't want a bulk nomination to end as a trainwreck then do a proper WP:BEFORE and verify that there are no factors, such as wildly differing page views, that mean someone would plausibly have different opinions about different redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My responses: Links to old revisions on third party sites are not our problem, people bookmarking old revisions should know better, etc. and a bunch of stuff that has already been said before to a point where everyone is beating a dead horse. All of these claims about users and computers are a bunch of theoretical red herrings that result from lack of users maintaining their own computer's settings whereas this nomination is to fix Wikipedia at the source. But, no matter, I'm going to take a nice, long break, and let you all sort this out and try your best to dispute previous consensuses and precedence until your fingers get numb from typing to prove finding that golden WP:CCC in a haystack can be accomplished. I'm done. Steel1943 (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thryduulf, this is getting out of hand. If you won't support the CSD proposal, at least consider acknowledging the consensus from innumerable discussions in the past that page views are irrelevant. Besides, even with your massive comment above consensus is still leaning on deleting, so it's clear your points are not persuasive to most editors. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @InfiniteNexus: Consensus is not binding, and especially not ones that run directly contrary to the basic principles of redirects - namely that they exist to help people find the content they are looking for. I get that you are unhappy that people don't agree with you about your proposal at WT:CSD (which almost everyone agrees fails 2-3 of the four requirements) but that's not relevant here.
    @Steel1943: Links on other sites are not to "old revisions" they are made to the title of the article that is current at the time the link is made and they are not theoretical concerns - the page view stats prove that. And is not webmasters (the people who can fix links) that are the main issue (although they can't fix them if they can't find the new article) it's the readers of those sites who cannot. It is our responsibility to avoid breaking links unnecessarily, and deleting redirects that are not in use is not fixing Wikipedia at source it is breaking Wikipedia for downstream users for no benefit to ourselves. Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Current revision", "old revision", whatever ... it's still a link to a revision rather than the live article. Still disagree with the "...avoid breaking links..." comment for reasons I already stated, but whatever. Any who, my ability to discuss semantics has been totally exhausted. Good day. Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I just noticed the repeat accusation that I failed to do a "proper WP:BEFORE" in the previous comment, I'll address it again with the same point I made in my previous statement: I checked the edit histories and the incoming links prior to the nomination; that was all the WP:BEFORE necessary, considering page views are irrelevant for the reasons already stated in all the other previously linked nominations. Steel1943 (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We need to establish some speedy deletion standard for stuff like this already, many if not all of these spaces might be needed again eventually.★Trekker (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that, then read the WP:NEWCSD requirements and craft a proposal at WT:CSD that meets all four of them. Nothing anybody has suggested so far has done anything other than clearly failed objective and/or uncontestable and commenters are strongly divided about whether it is frequent enough. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all – Highly unlikely that these will be needed or used. If found that some are needed, creating one on a need basis is easy. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've shown above that many of these are both used and needed. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except the ones that have been shown to have a significant amount of views. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 18:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: They all are general housekeeping as they are no longer "upcoming". The "upcoming" is misleading now. — YoungForever(talk) 18:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Except, for reasons repeatedly explained, they aren't actually misleading and inconveniencing literally thousands of readers is not "housekeeping". Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree to disagree, if they have premiered/released, they are not "upcoming" anymore. — YoungForever(talk) 19:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed they aren't upcoming anymore, but that only explains why they will at some point cease to be useful redirects (hence why many of these can be safely deleted) but that point doesn't arrive the moment the page is moved. In most cases they remain good and necessary redirects for somewhere between a couple of weeks and a few months, but the above list shows that the whole range is between about a week and a couple of years. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and I also support the CSD proposal. -- Tavix (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thryduulf's assessment above. I don't see a compelling reason to delete potentially (or actually) useful redirects just because they are incorrect, which is not a reason to delete. A7V2 (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thryduulf assessment per above; if a reader doesn't read enough of the first sentence to ascertain that the film is not upcoming, they almost certainly haven't read the article anyway. I do agree with deleting the ones that do not involve old links, as they are faintly misleading. J947 † edits 23:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I'm not sympathetic to the view that deletion breaks external links (and I also support the CSD proposal). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That deletion breaks any external links that are extant is unarguable fact, disagreement is over whether that is something we should care about. Personally I cannot understand how anyone can in good faith argue that we shouldn't care about our readers, but people apparently do. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Personally I cannot understand how anyone can in good faith argue that we shouldn't care about our readers, but people apparently do." Same here, but editors have differing opinions about how to go about this. For example, whereas you believe the deletion of these redirects causes harm, I believe the existence of these redirects causes harm. All of this has been explained above by both sides, but I think I've said enough to hopefully avoid this discussion going into a tangent of their opinions of Wikipedia as a whole since this discussion will end up being about the closer's assessment of the arguments instead of how passionate any editors are regarding their sides of the argument. Steel1943 (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that none of the delete !voters have responded to Thryduulf's argument earlier than These redirects are not inherently misleading - indeed they are the exact opposite in many cases and being incorrect is not a justification to delete a redirect - we even have {{R from incorrect name}} that explains their utility. (which would be equally valid if I replaced the word "misleading" with "harmful"), and in fact many of them amount to little more than pure votes. In the absense of any refutation to that argument, it seems clear that Thryduulf's assessment' is preferable to deletion.
    Finally, a few general responses to the discussion above: this is not a WP:TRAINWRECK, as the discussion is splitting cleanly between two outcomes despite the large number of redirects nominated. Nor is it correct to accuse Steel1943 of failing to do a proper WP:BEFORE; the point of BEFORE by my understanding is that people should make an effort to discover information that could convince them the page should no longer be deleted before starting a deletion discussion; since Steel1943 evidently thinks page views are irrelevant (regardless of whether you agree with them) they do not constitute that kind of information and there was no obligation to look at them. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 05:56, 19 September 2022 (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.

Unreal Tournament (upcoming video game)

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. BD2412 T 02:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the subject of the redirect's target was cancelled, meaning the disambiguator or the redirect is erroneous to a point where it is not helpful. Also, a related redirect, Unreal Tournament (cancelled video game), exists and targets the same target. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no longer useful. --Lenticel (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 242 hits in the last 30 days shows that this is very much still useful, longer term stats show almost no slowing down over the entire year so deletion would be actively harmful to many readers. The target explains that the video game is no longer upcoming so there is nothing misleading here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The page views were most likely caused by incoming links from the "article" namespace, which have now all been bypassed. Steel1943 (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If your crystal ball is working perfectly then in a month or so after this RfD is kept the evidence will show it is no longer needed and can be deleted having harmed nobody in the meanwhile. If, as is actually more likely, views are coming from a variety of sources then the stats will show that and we will learn that we were correct not to be hasty and avoided unnecessarily harming the project by needlessly inconveniencing readers. Either way, there is absolutely no need engage in speculation or guesswork. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My crystal ball never worked, so I threw it away. Instead, I go by what has happened in every other discussion like this, also known as "precedence". Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Which as you should know has absolutely no influence over what will happen in the future. Just because we got it wrong in the past doesn't mean we will continue to get it wrong in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There comes a point in like everything, Wikipedia included, where there's enough evidence to validate something happening again. With the years of previous nominations, I think the point has been made strong enough where these repeat conversations are akin to ... beating a dead horse. But alas, this place has to be a place of controversy, so let's aim for WP:CCC since it's fun, apparently. Steel1943 (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No this is not "fun", it is however important to attempt to prevent harming the encyclopaedia where it is possible to do so. When consensus regarding these redirects applies the same as consensus regarding every other type of redirect everyone will benefit and nobody will be harmed. Until that time I will continue doing what I can to prevent editors harming readers. Thryduulf (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "...I will continue doing what I can to prevent editors harming readers." Same here, except we have different ideas of what "harm[s] readers": Whereas you believe the removal of these redirects harms readers, I believe keeping these redirects harms readers. But either way, with all due respect, I'm trying to avoid having this discussion go into WP:BLUDGEONING territory, so I'm most likely going to end this conversation here. Steel1943 (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a proposal for a new speedy deletion criterion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Formerly untitled/upcoming media which apply to these kinds of redirects. Input is welcome, thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943's crystal ball. -- Tavix (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:00, 19 September 2022 (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.
edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 26#Upcoming film redirects targeting subject related to director or actor

Virginie-Occidentale

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 00:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no special affinity between the French language and West Virginia. TartarTorte 00:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_September_19&oldid=1112757747"