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 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 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, Rosguilltalk 20:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-space redirect from portal to main article space, seems highly unlikely Ravensfire (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not useful to potentially imply the existence of a portal. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 20:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a helpful redirect - readers looking for a portal will most likely not be helped by being redirected to the article, and readers looking for an article are extremely unlikely to be searching in portal space. As above this may also cause issues relating to implying the existence of a non-existent portal 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes I removed the speedy, but there's lots of things that are obvious deletes without being speediable, besides which bringing these here as they are made is relatively painless. Anyway, I could see a possible use case for this kind of XNR where portal is in the title of the target and they may even be required in certain {{R restricted}} situations as with Portal:No Escape, but I don't see how this or indeed most other XNRs of this form will be helpful for reader navigation, and they could potentially be harmful, see WP:PANDORA. 119.59.121.171 (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per most of the above, but explicitly not WP:PANDORA which is factually incorrect nonsense (redirects are always evaluated on their own merits and the existence or otherwise of one redirect neither alters that nor influences whether another redirect should or should not be created or kept). Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 6 March 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.
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 / disambiguate (by moving State farm (disambiguation) over the base title). Discussion after the relist just further entrenched the impasse here. No one supports the status quo, but participants are split on which of two reasonable courses to pursue instead. When the split is between retargeting or deletion, it's an easier call, since we're encouraged to find alternatives to deletion—see WP:NCRET. But there's no case for deletion here—what's a closer to do? I see disambiguation as the more "neutral" option, though this new status quo is one that the community may well want to alter through the WP:RM process. I recommend waiting a few months to see how page views under the new arrangement compare to those cited in this discussion. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I propose changing the primary topic for state farm to State Farm. Having it redirect to Sovkhoz just seems bizarre to me. As a criteria, Sovkhoz received 2,255 pageviews (30 days) and the insurance company received 16,580 pageviews (30 days). I propose changing the redirect to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_FarmAntoineHound (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: couldn't we make this a disambiguation page? E.g. State farm may refer to: State FarmorSovkhoz?WhoAteMyButter (📨│📝) 05:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see who has made this comment but there is already a disambiguation page that lists many different state farm variants. AntoineHound (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Anyone putting "State farm" in the search box is almost certainly looking for the insurance company. "State farms" or "State-owned farm" should go to Sovkhoz. I'm also not a huge fan of distinguishing topics by capitalization unless absolutely necessary. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 06:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per nom. It's quite rare that different capitalisations of the same word should target different articles, and the insurance company is the clear primary topic here. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoState Farm. If the reader is not looking for the insurance company, the State Farm article has a friendly hatnote at the top to help them find what they are looking for. The insurance company is definitely the primary topic. ―NK1406talk•contribs 23:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move State farm (disambiguation) to this title. Seems like the most logical thing to do here, given that the current target isn't the primary topic and we already have a dab page for this redirect. Hog FarmTalk 22:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MoveState farm (disambiguation)toState farm per Hog Farm. Probably better for WP:RM, but I think we can reach consensus here given that the issue is disambiguation. I think there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the lower case form (see WP:DIFFCAPS), so a disambiguation page seems appropriate under this title. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It's pretty clear that the status quo has fallen out of favor, but there's as yet no consensus between retargeting State farm or moving State farm (disambiguation)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 18:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've allready voted above, but since there are now two outcomes being discussed I thought I'd expand my reasoning for retargeting a bit more. First of all looking at the page views of the articles on the dab page in the last 30 days:
Over the same period this redirect got 300 page views and DAB page got 109. Looking at the page views it appears to me that the insurance company is the primary topic here, geting 5 times the page views of Prison farm and 6 times the page views of Sovkhoz. When I do a google search for "state farm" every single result in the first 5 pages is related to the insurance company or the stadiums they sponsor. I therefore think this should target State Farm, which should be hatnoted to the DAB page. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well said, I concur with this assessment. AntoineHound (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RetargettoState Farm per 86.23.109.101. It's not clear that readers looking for the topic of "state-owned farm" would type in "state farm". feminist (talk) 02:17, 11 March 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 former United States presidents who ran for office after leaving the presidency[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 article. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore articletothis revision. Either that or add the information to some other article. Drdpw redirected the article in 2016 with the edit summary Redirecting page to a section of the List of Presidents of the United States article that contains this information; care was taken to ensure that no information was lost during the process. What was left of the information was removed by Ivar the Boneful, pointing in his edit summary to an article that as far as I can tell has never existed. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 02:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think a freestanding article is a better option, as we would be addressing efforts with varying levels of success, from giving up early in the process to becoming the nominee of their own or another party. BD2412T 02:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 18:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Restore article per BDD and the general WP:BLAR principle. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 6 March 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.
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 disambiguate. signed, Rosguilltalk 20:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well done for finding David Harold Byrd: actually that article would make a good target. Unfortunately the other 2 entries at the draft dab aren't mentioned in their targets. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both are common meanings that it's trivial to verify in a basic search online. – Uanfala (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disambig per Uanfala. All the entries on the draft dab page are plausible targets for people searching for this phrase so we should help them find what they are looking for. Deletion on a technicality of dab page formatting would be harmful to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 6 March 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.
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, Rosguilltalk 20:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Although categorised as {{R from drug trade name}}, it is not mentioned at the target, and "dichronic" is more likely to be a misspelling of "dichroic" or "diachronic" (see The dictionary definition of dichronic at Wiktionary), and is therefore ambiguous and should be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, directs non-misspelling readers to the unambiguously correct target. —Kusma (t·c) 09:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be one of several synonyms for the drug. A hatnote at 'Diclofenac' can point to Diachronic (disambiguation) or other helpful page. Cnilep (talk) 06:03, 6 March 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.
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. Provided justification is adequate, withdrawing my nomination. signed, Rosguilltalk 20:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned as an alternative spelling at the target. A Google Scholar search suggests that this is much more common as a surname than as an alternative name for an Egyptian god. Delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to identify a serpent goddess Rannut, who appears very frequently and as an important goddess in an old (?) book Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World (1907) by Gerald Massey, with a goddess presented in contemporary references, especially including The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt (2003, reprinted 2018) by Richard H. Wilkinson. In Wilkinson's book, a list of serpent deities presented (pp. 220-228) is: Apophis, Mehen, Merestseger, Renenutet, Wadjet, Wepset, Weret-Hekau, and Yam.
And Goddesses in World Mythology (1993) by Martha Ann, Dorothy Myers reads: (bold by me)
page 91
Rannut See Renenet, Renenutet.
page 91
Renenet
Agriculture; Mother and Guardian; Hunting and Wild Animals; Heaven and Hell
Lion goddess of the harvest and divine nurse who suckled the pharaohs. She nourishes newborns and sometimes determines their fortune. She also suckles the souls of the dead and is called the earth itself. Renenet is also said to be a name for Isis and identified with Shait. See also Rannu, Renen, Renenutet. Alternate forms: Ramuit, Ranen, Raninit, Ranno, Rannut, Ranuit, Renenit, Renen-utet, Rennute, Renuntet, Renute, Thermuthis. [Baumgartner 1984; Budge 1989; Cooper 1876; Durdin-Robertson 1975; Leach 1972; Leach 1992; Stone 1979]
page 92
Renenutet
Agriculture; Mother and Guardian; Reptiles
Serpent goddess of the harvest and wine. Daughter of Saosis. She wears the horns and solar disk of Hathorand is a goddess of nursing. Some say she is also lion-headed. See also Ernutet, Renenet. Alternate forms: Rannu, Rannut, Remute, Renen-utet. [Leach 1972; Leach 1992]
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 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 per G3 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are alternative names for their targets, delete unless a justification can be provided. N.b. that I let Vladimir Andropov stand, as Vladimir Andropov was Yuri Andropov's father's name and there is some content about him at the article (not to mention that a non-Russian speaker may misidentify "Vladimirovich" as "Vladimir"). signed, Rosguilltalk 17:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G3 as vandalism. Not real names for the subjects of the articles. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:13, 3 March 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.
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.
Author requests deletion of redirect (criteria G7); I created this article under an implausibly misspelled name in 2006, and immediately moved it to the correctly-spelled name. Tom Radulovich (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom Radulovich: for future reference you can just place {{G7}} on pages you think should be speedily deleted under that criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 6 March 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.
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, Rosguilltalk 20:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Proposing this redirect be deleted, since there is no 2012 character under the name of Sarah Sugden – she was introduced to Emmerdale in 2005. – DarkGlow (contribs • talk) 15:27, 3 March 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.
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, Rosguilltalk 20:06, 10 March 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.
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 disambiguate. Looks like this has already been done. Let me know if any further assistance is needed. --BDD (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this needs to be a DAB page, as it apparently has different meanings in different countries. Still to research further, but as far as I know, in Commonwealth countries it is used in connection with library services, rather than a commercial broker. Needs investigation and discussion, at least. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Later comment. I'll need to come back to this later (no time now), but I just want to add that I have since discovered the DAB page Information Services. IMO this one should probably be moved to the lower case title, and its options expanded, once I have added some more to relevant pages (relating to libraries, IT departments and probably a few others). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the dab page at Information Services and then swap the two capitalisations so the article as at the lowercase title. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Thryduulf. I had come to more or less the same conclusion myself, and think that I've now completed the work necessary to effect this change. There are still left-over links to the DAB page, but they can be sorted over time. Would you mind having a look to check that the technical aspects are correct, please? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't got time to look in any detail now, but you really should not have changed the redirect before this discussion was closed and you should ideally revert it to how it was when the discussion was opened. If you haven't followed the instructions at WP:SWAP (I haven't checked) then there is likely to be other mess that needs cleaning up. Thryduulf (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having spent a lot of my day on trying to untangle a mess of related terms, have also found problems with Information broker (see talk). I'm too tired to think further on this, but I'm thinking that maybe this needs a DAB page too. I created a redirect from Information services (IT), as this was a commonly used term, especially relating to industry type, although variously applied to IT-related services. There should probably be an article of this name and an article with another qualifier relating to libraries, but I cannot put my hand up to create these now. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:06, 8 March 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.
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, Rosguilltalk 20:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unused template shortcut, not particularly clear in what it refers to. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the template will become clearer if it's compared to Template:Aa, which redirects to Template:RM top. It's a clever pair of template redirects, but you'd expect they would work in a wider range of contexts than the niche discussion venue of RMs. However, we don't know if the redirect is used – before the March 2020 merge of its previous target into {{Archive bottom}}, it was used by substing rather than transcluding, and it appears such usage may have continued. – Uanfala (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps retargeting to {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} would make more sense? The rfd should make substitutions break so anyone using this shortcut should know to come here. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The rfd tag doesn't display on transclusions or substitutions, so people attempting to use it won't notice. Frankly, I'd be surprised if this pair of redirects is used by anyone other than their creator (from whom we haven't heard yet), but we can't know for sure. – Uanfala (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete on these, unless someone comes up with a justification to keep them. Highly ambiguous names that aren't really connected to the target template. Although the idea clearly was first and last letters of the alphabet I can't help but feel that these shorthand redirects could be put to better use. WP:ZZ targets WP:Wikibreak and WP:AA is a DAB page, maybe they would have some associated templates that might be better targets? 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:18, 3 March 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.
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, Rosguilltalk 20:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unused redirect in template-space from a 2008 move - this title for the template should not be used, as it's not immediately clear in what it refers to, and not in line with other template names - and therefore the redirect deleted. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with reason for deletion above. It's not a plausible, alternate name either. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:18, 4 March 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.
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.
Nominate for deletion, the word "Transcanadian" doesn't appear in the target article and a Google search doesn't show any real link between the two. 162.208.168.92 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Transcanadian" has 2 other uses in enwiki as an adjective not connected to railways, and deletion to facilitate uninhibited Search gives better results. I note that "Transcanadian" is not mentioned at the current target or at Via Rail (as one might expect from the See also entry for "Transcanadian" at TransCanada). I note as well that Transcanadian train and Trans-Canadian train also redirect to the current target, which is OK. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to the DAB page at TransCanada, and expand to cover usage of "TransCanadian". I think "transcanada" and "transcanadian" are ambiguous enough with each other that people searching for one could be looking for results from the other. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the "TransCanada" things have French names of the type (quelque chose transcanadienne), making "transcanadian" an even more natural form of "TransCanada". Retarget as above. —Kusma (t·c) 11:45, 8 March 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.
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. --BDD (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a case of WP:SURPRISE; both internet and Google Scholar results suggest that this is primarily a synonym for "ain't your" or "aren't you". I think that deletion is the appropriate course of action here. signed, Rosguilltalk 16:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The results I see are a mix of "ain't your", "aren't you" and "perineum" so it's not inappropriate, even if not the best, especially as we don't have (and almost certainly shouldn't have) articles for the other two uses. Maybe a soft redirect? Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the redirect nor it's target are a dictionary entry, so that rationale isn't relevant. We commonly redirect alternative names, including slang names, to pages where they are mentioned and/or soft redirect them to Wiktionary if there is an entry there but not here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk! 01:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is very much a surprise: those using Wikipedia while eating their breakfast should avoid clicking on the target. I don't think the whimsical reference from a work of fiction is enough to justify a redirect to this target. As Thryduulf says, there are other uses but there's no real data to show whether or not people are searching Enwiki for it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessarily astonishing. The word refers to other things, and it doesn't seem likely to me that many readers wanting to know about Perineum would use this as a search term (though I could be wrong). While redirects from vernacular or slang terms are not uncommon, I can't imagine anyone searching for this particular term unless they were looking for its meaning, and indeed there is nothing much at Perineum about aintcha beyond a short definition, so the spirit if not the letter of NOTDICT does seem relevant. Cnilep (talk) 00:35, 4 March 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Redirect to deleted page, WP:CSD#G8. —Kusma (t·c) 22:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A new user created Lingerie company but the text was about Belle Lingerie. I moved it to Belle Lingerie. This redirect has nothing to do with Belle Lingerie and should be deleted. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I considered suggesting that list as a target, but it doesn't account for many of the companies in Category:Lingerie retailers. I'm leaning toward delete due to a lack of a good target. - Eureka Lott 05:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This redirect is ambiguous and may cause confusion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:36, 3 March 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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 11#Bone Apple Tea
The dictionary definition of dichronic at Wiktionary), and is therefore ambiguous and should be deleted. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
