Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 7

551:. You still haven't given any evidence that this redirect is likely to lead to anyone creating a bunch of similar redirects, that all or most similar redirects would be bad, or that they would do so in a manner which is more problematic than any other creation of redirects inspired by ones that some editors dislike. You have said that it is potentially harmful, but you haven't given any evidence to support that, and the assertion has been rejected by multiple people - after all it was viewed by 38 people last year none of whom found it problematic enough to mention it anywhere, create a bunch of inappropriate redirects or chop off any editor's head. You may not intend to be putting forward an "I don't like it" argument but it's the only one you are doing which has not been refuted and/or shown to be completely irrelevant. 577:

experienced editor will create (if you disagree, please explain how it differs). I just don't see why anyone could possibly be using this redirect to get to the target, or even the point of keeping this redirect in the first place, keeping it will only eventually encourage people to link it and thus, will send the wrong message that redirects like these are appropriate, I assume the pageviews are from people who have got nothing better to do than waste their time typing random things into the search box. Sorry, I'm not going to change my opinion on redirects like these and am seriously considering suspending my activities relating to RfD if this does not get resolved. -

602:

them. On the other hand I do not think that these redirects should be treated differently to any other redirects - i.e. they should be kept unless there is evidence that it is harmful, misleading or nonsensical - and you've still not managed to provide evidence for any of these in this case. HJ Mitchell and others have explained why they feel it is useful, and frankly it doesn't matter at all why people use a redirect only that they do.

4955: 1000: 4245:(among others), so I really don't think we have to go making "oe" permutations of them. It's difficult to find that these are used in sources. None is linked beyond RfD. They appear on various of Champ's Eubot lists (one on two lists, for some reason) and they get a nugatory 1 hit each in 90 days, each on 1 November 2016. Gsearch gives me precisely 0 results for these exact terms. 418:

number of good redirects, many more that would not have been deleted had anybody else created them, and only a very few that were actually harmful - all on top of other positive contributions to the encyclopaedia. If we end up with another Neelix because of this redirect then the project will overall have strongly benefited overall.

3130:: this seems a very improbable search term. The typical alternatives to a Durchmusterung catalogue names such as "BD+20°307" are "BD+20 307" or "BD +20 307". I.e. a space rather than a degree symbol. Clumping the degree value with the identifier is a bad practice: is it BD+20°307 or BD+2° 0307? I edited the article accordingly. 601:

because someone may link to it in a way that was a BLP violation for example. Our fundamental point of disagreement seems to be that you think redirects which exist for reasons of Wikipedian humour that requires inside knowledge to understand are inherently harmful because someone might misunderstand

379:

Well, if it is not harmful, this is just immature and offensive, people coming across these would think that redirects like these are appropriate in Knowledge (XXG), like I explained in the below discussion, these are just useless, if not offensive and immature like the thousands of redirects created

2051:

The article does not describe any of the other targets as being referred to as "China region", whereas I find it very likely that someone seeing a the term used in an external source coming to Knowledge (XXG) to find out what it is referring to and we should not state that the current meaning is the

623:

In my opinion, I have not seen enough compelling evidence that redirects like these are harmless, what to do with a certain redirect or a certain set of redirects differ every time, which may or may not involve deletion, well, to clarify, I am in favour of any outcome except keeping the redirect "as

460:

You've missed my point completely. Yes Neelix created some redirects that there was consensus were bad, but overall his participation in Knowledge (XXG) was a significant net positive, so in in the extremely unlikely event this redirect results in an editor like him (which theory you have ignored my

1215:

for now. This has been in use for more than five years and it's likely there are editors out there who use it as a shortcut (and we can't tell how often that happens was because the redirect's target, prior to last month's merge, was a template that seems to have been meant to be substituted). I've

576:

harmful as of now, but should someone decide to link it somewhere for whatever reason, it makes it more likely that it may be harmful for editors will think that it is appropriate, it is no more appropriate than those several thousand redirects created by Neelix, for it is not like anything that an

500:

The new pages backlog would only apply if someone were creating many new redirects quickly, which is completely independent of both the suitability of those redirects and the nature of this redirect so is another irrelevant argument. Disregarding that your only other argument is that you don't like

479:

like him, this is just as immature and inappropriate as the Neelix redirects referred to in the ANI thread linked above. Let's say that those redirects still existed, people coming across one of those will think it is okay to create redirects like those, and thus it is potentially harmful, and not

1243:

I had never heard of this until the post at the blocking policy, and I doubt most other admins have either. Why would you use a shortcut to call a template when the appropriate code to generate your reply is already on the page and all you have to do is copy/paste it? That being the case, I don't

624:

is" or retargeting to an equally serious page, retargeting it to an actual humour page I would not mind either. I think the Neelix case is enough evidence, and I do not want to be providing more. I feel like this debate is not going anywhere, and I would rather be editing some articles instead. -

417:

Do you have any actual evidence of this, because it strikes me as extraordinarily unlikley that the existence of a small handful of redirects tht many, possibly most, people find unproblematic at worst would result in anything like that. It's also worth remembering that Neelix made a very large

596:

redirect can be misused. That issue is dealt with as it always has been and always should be - by taking appropriate action (words of advice, topic bans, blocks, bans, etc, depending on the circumstances) against the person misusing the redirect, not by deleting the redirect. We don't delete

521:

8, this is a novel or obscure synonym. To reword my argument, people may come across it and be mislead into thinking the target is a place to behave in an immature and uncivil manner, for it does not give an indication of what the target really is, hence it is potentially harmful, as

352:

and I'm sure there are plenty of other options! ;) Also, can we please trout the nominator for nominating a series of redirects simply on the grounds that they "don't see a use for them"? Surely we have something better to do than debate the merits of project-space redirects?

3107:

valid in this context. I realise that the degree sign is somewhat hard to type, but within this field of astronomy I am not sure people are going to reach for typing "deg" instead, are they? Evidence seems to suggest they just omit it, or replace it with a space. I'll ping

4561:. I'm seeing all sorts of different things in google results for this, one of which is "bros" with the meaning "brothers" but there are so many other possibilities that are not suited to that dab page that a retarget to there will not help most people on this occasion. 2969:- There's a particular historical and social connection between Indian agriculture and the popularization of lemons in world cuisine, as mentioned in the article, and I feel like that creates a special circumstance different to redirects deleted in the past. 4209:(All eubot) Another one for which perhaps the multifarious redirects would be considered plenty without the need for Eubot to create an "oe" variation for each "ö", especially considering that we don't even have obvious English-language redirects such as 546:

Well the chances of someone finding this redirect before being familiar with the target are exceedingly remote, and in terms of informativeness about the purpose of the target if you are unfmailiar with it is no different to

3812:

disambiguation pages have to be, it's solely for linking to other articles. They don't allow for giving the etymology, history, popularity, etc. of a certain name. Splitting name pages allows that content to flourish.

790:

Only two links before this nomination, both of which are relating to an old RfD, I just don't see a use for this. It does not seem to get a lot of usage, and also I don't see why anyone would think of typing this. -

167:

as old and harmless. It got 38 hits last year, so it's not completely implausible for whatever reason. Although it was originally created as a redirect to AN/I it was retargette minutes later to it's present target.

439:

I never denied that Neelix created a number of good redirects, but I am only referring to the initial set of arguablyy childish and inappropriate redirects that Neelix created in the comment above, see the thread

4442:

as alternative spellings, in the first sentence, but not this. A Gsearch brings up a few (not many) Dutch and Flemish uses of this spelling, but not meaning the same thing, and even if they did this cheese from

3803:

In my opinion, any time there's more to say about a certain name than simply "here's a list of people with the name", that's a good indication that the name index should be separate from the disambiguation.

4272:. However I will leave it combined for now (we actually have three articles about Rögnvalds), because really it's the business of back-forming "Roegenvald" from a name variously spelled but, apparently, 307:

That's 38 occasions when someone would have been inconvenienced by the lack of this redirect for no good reason at all. It's also an order of magnitude more than some redirects get, so far from nothing.

501:

it, as you've noted that you can't prove it's harmful in a conventional way in your reply to HJ Mitchell and have apparently conceded that your Neelix analogy doesn't actually stand up to analysis.

441: 2928:

as it's mentioned at the target and this brief mention could conceivably be expanded to something more substantial given that word's relevance to the etymology of the English word "lemon". –

3424: 3384: 3246: 3242: 2888: 734: 4962: 1007: 112: 2009:

and four others is too many for hatnotes. The first paragraph of the current target talks only about the "Greater China region" and makes no indication that "China region" is ambiguous.

4748: 1977: 39: 34: 4221:, I'm presuming this is not a name that is regularly dropped where Norse scholars foregather. Leaving all that aside, the name is attested various ways and R's reflect that, such as 4481:? There's no evidence of a page move, but the picture captions say "Bruss" and it's not used beyond the opening word, one (non-defining) use in the "History" section, and a link to 944:

There can be redirects that aren't listed on the page itself. The page should advertise common, known shortcuts like WP:NOT but need not advertise obscure or rare shortcuts like

3560:. I'm rather surprised this hasn't come up for discussion before; but it would seem if we are going to take it anywhere it is most likely that people are going to want to find 4889: 2042:(mentioned in the third paragraph), and it seems to me that the current article has the broadest scope and is the appropriate place to contextualise the other two topics. – 147:

This has zero links whatsoever, and I think we just get rid of this, this was created in 2008 and I just don't see this as plausible, seriously, who will search for this? -

3587:, the second three minutes later retargeting this redirect to it, and the last the next day fixing a typo ("of" to "if") in the target, and has made none before or since. 3342:- the only thing I can see that's odd about it is the double hyphen, but I find it unlikely anyone would type a double hyphen when a single will do. 1 hit in past 90 days. 1724: 2475: 124: 3312:. It doesn't make sense to replace an em dash with two hyphens like this. The search engine is insensitive to hyphens/en dashes/em dashes, and we manage happilly without 2911:. It's the Hindi word for "lemon". I don't particularly like the policy about removing redirects from foreign-language words, but it's quite probably applicable here. 4276:

that is the trouble, not the surname and affixes. "Roegenvald" generally is used by one Tumblr account (as "roegenvald-r"), and shows up in one genealogy search at

3772:

For short lists of name holders, new sections of Persons with the surname Xxxx or Persons with the given name Xxxx can be added below the main disambiguation list.

1229:

Well, it turns out it's unlikely there are editors who'd be using this as a shortcut to the recently merged template. No opinion on what is to be done with it. –

926:. There's no policy governing which and how many shortcuts should be put in the lead message box, but I assume everybody agrees it shouldn't be more than, say, 4061: 3981: 3316:

or any other redirect to this target. No internal links, 1 hit in 90 days (on 25 November). We deleted another (more complex) one like this, I seem to remember

1078: 4485:

in the "References" which shouldn't be there anyway (Knowledge (XXG) is not a reliable source, and not its own source) and in any case is just a redirect to

3941: 2070:

and it contains contextualised links to the other relevant articles. I understand this is still not optimal and I wouldn't oppose creating a new dab page at

1244:

think we need this and don't believe it is used much, if at all, as a substitute for the normal template and there is little value in redirecting it either.

1220:, where the redirect's likely users are probably found. If we don't receive any further input from there, I'd be happy for it to be deleted or retargeted. – 3365:

mentioned that federal ridings used to get printed with two en dashes, so we should keep them. Feel free to ignore this !vote if that's not the case. ----

2219:

This term refers to clone devices produced in China that imitate products such as iPhones, reasonable search term for it has been used in reliable sources

2140:. Without the term mentioned anywhere on Knowledge (XXG), and with disagreement as to where it should point, I find the delete argument most convincing. -- 811:. Seems to me like a pretty neat shortcut. The negation sign has its key in the British keyboard layout, so for many editors it's not difficult to type. – 3794:. The difference is fundamentally not about size, but scope: a disambiguation page serves different functions from those of an article about a surname. – 4913: 4877: 3285: 962:

Which shortcuts are advertised on a page is entirely a matter for the talk page of that page and independent of whether a redirect is good or otherwise.

2726: 4021: 21: 5059: 5019: 4186: 2737:. There is no problem at all with a user redirecting their user page to their talk page, regardless of what other edits they have or have not made. 265:

per Thryduulf: old and harmless. I do find it a bit strange that there's a sudden push to eliminate humour from Knowledge (XXG)'s project space. —

230:

is a device for beheading people, and that is not the kind of message Knowledge (XXG) should be sending. We can and should be better than this. --

4700: 4141: 17: 4101: 3774:

In this case I think the lists are short enough that merging makes sense, but I wouldn't feel too bad about having a different dab scheme.

1805: 1763: 755: 4795:

for Θ is conceivable, but combining this with the addition of a parenthetical disambiguator makes the whole thing somewhat implausible. –

4731:

don't think that we can transliterate Greek letters used as mathematical symbols in this letter-for-letter way: more commonly, we use the

4278: 3575:

All a bit of a mess, then, to list an artist at the "wrong" name article and is probably not where people want to go. It did indeed go to

2527:

housekeeping. (Disambiguation) should not be capitalized in almost all cases unless there's some weird book or film series by that title?

767: 118: 3089:(eubot). The article calls this "BD+20307" when it doesn't use a degree sign. There are plenty of other redirects to this target such as 3066: 1467:. That's the only entry on the dab page that sees significant usage in the plural, but a hatnote to the dab wouldn't not be out of line. 394:) in late 2015, it just isn't humourous. This may lead them to creating redirects like the Neelix ones. So it is harmful in this way. - 484:

unless the user is autopatrolled. I'm still not convinced that this is a likely or useful redirect, disregarding the Neelix analogy. -

4883: 3371: 2697: 1914: 3109: 349: 5081: 3550:. This is a weird one as it goes to a name article at which the only person listed doesn't have the name "Bjoerk" or "Bjørk" but is 1217: 5069:§10: "the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains no information on the subject." 3348: 3146:

Odd and a highly unusual notation, but it's not actually wrong. The degree symbol in BD numbers does indeed refer to degrees (of

2332: 2326:, a more general topic for a more general concept, since it isn't mentioned at the current target. Stats show a bit of interest. 344:. Fits the naming convention of Knowledge (XXG) as a village (cf. village pump, village stocks). Someone should probably create 291:? That's nothing, there's no harm in deleting the redirect, I just don't see how this could possibly be used, the harm aside. - 4523: 2540: 2262: 1535: 1501: 877:

Completely harmless. These kind of nominations strike me as rather aimed at proving a point than resolving an actual problem. —

1261:. This redirect title is ambiguous and just as long as the correct title. With 0 transclusion count I think we can delete it. 5031: 3150:). I don't see any harm in such redirects to BD articles existing, but I wouldn't encourage generating more of them either. 2661: 3099:

which the article actually uses, strangely), so I don't think it would be missed (not a good enough reason) and if it is a

4920:. The provincial disambiguator is unnecessary. There is no other topic in the world that could compete for primary usage. 4917: 4872: 1521: 4768: 4538: 4312: 3668: 3400: 3171: 2941: 2346: 1965: 1617: 1277: 3524: 2759:

If you prefer to put nothing here, then you can redirect it to your user talk page for the convenience of other editors.

2506: 2174: 1406: 391: 4986: 4838: 4655: 4364: 3894: 3475: 3228: 3017: 2811: 2646: 2469: 2430: 2298: 2220: 2127: 1701: 1353: 1031: 698: 75: 4460: 4411: 2974: 2860: 2281: 1576: 935: 5085: 5006: 4929: 4864: 4799: 4781: 4760: 4675: 4616: 4588: 4570: 4551: 4529: 4498: 4386: 4325: 4303: 4262: 3916: 3855: 3822: 3798: 3781: 3751: 3729: 3716: 3681: 3659: 3630: 3497: 3436: 3413: 3391: 3375: 3353: 3333: 3258: 3189: 3162: 3139: 3121: 3039: 2978: 2959: 2932: 2920: 2902: 2833: 2772: 2746: 2670: 2607: 2586: 2577:

tags links through a (Disambiguation) page (with cap "D") to a DAB page as errors (and IMO is correct in doing so).

2546: 2518: 2450: 2391: 2364: 2337: 2314: 2285: 2268: 2233: 2206: 2149: 2082: 2061: 2046: 2018: 1991: 1956: 1918: 1891: 1843: 1736: 1662: 1635: 1608: 1584: 1541: 1507: 1476: 1444: 1379: 1314: 1295: 1268: 1253: 1233: 1224: 1207: 1186: 1159: 1137: 1118: 1053: 971: 957: 939: 886: 867: 853: 836: 815: 802: 724: 635: 611: 588: 560: 541: 510: 495: 470: 455: 427: 405: 367: 345: 336: 317: 302: 274: 255: 239: 216: 196: 177: 158: 97: 5055: 2375: 2323: 2246: 4055: 3975: 3618: 2458: 1072: 3935: 3695: 3611: 3590:

It gets a steady trickle of hits (24 in 90 days) but that's no guarantee people are being targeted to where they

3565: 3279: 2559: 1863: 1066: 3843: 2567: 911: 548: 3721:

That would go against the current practice of keeping surname articles distinct from disambiguation pages, see

3655:– similarly spelt variants of a name found in closely related cultures are best treated in a single article. – 4129: 4089: 4049: 4015: 4009: 3969: 3929: 3273: 824: 527: 4180: 4044: 3964: 1952:

per Thyduulf and leave a hatnote there pointing to whatever is chosen as the target of the other redirect. –

1061: 4999:

as unopposed, without prejudice against recreation if relevant information is added to a related article.

3924: 3160: 1516:

I'm seeing some usage of pindas as part of Pinda Sweda to refer to herbal bags or balls as used in massage:

1310: 2916: 2721: 863: 832: 4694: 4451:

isn't Germanic and no mention of the letter/diacritic "ö" is made at that article; the only IW link is to

4135: 2970: 2277: 2202: 2075: 2006: 1901: 1856: 1715: 1653:

is the primary topic but with a hatnote to the dab those seeking peanuts and legumes can still find them.

1561: 1461: 931: 194: 4607:

to the see also so I'm not strongly adverse to a retarget there, but it just doesn't feel right to me. --

4095: 4004: 3313: 761: 5077: 5003: 4982: 4834: 4672: 4651: 4585: 4577: 4506: 4360: 4169: 3890: 3778: 3713: 3471: 3224: 3135: 3013: 2807: 2642: 2582: 2514: 2447: 2426: 2123: 1697: 1349: 1265: 1027: 694: 517:

Just think, it is entirely possible for someone to create a whole bunch of similar redirects. Also, per

362: 333: 71: 2755: 2912: 859: 828: 4683: 4448: 4269: 4174: 4124: 3644: 2387: 1249: 953: 882: 844:

per Unafala. It got 141 hits last year which is a pretty decent amount for an unadvertised shortcut.

481: 270: 53:

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 7, 2017.

4581:

as that dab page seems to cover all the plausible destinations of someone searching for this title.

4084: 2501:(housekeeping; no blame): unnecessary capital in the disambiguator; no incoming link. Redirects are 923: 5025: 4860: 4756: 4566: 4517: 4494: 4299: 4258: 3626: 3432: 3329: 3185: 3117: 2955: 2742: 2534: 2256: 2057: 2014: 1887: 1799: 1757: 1658: 1529: 1495: 1472: 1182: 967: 849: 607: 556: 506: 466: 423: 313: 173: 1649:

as it can refer to multiple things there I would suggest adding it to the dab page. I still think

4736: 3580: 3155: 3060: 2603: 2168: 1931:– I don't see the point of retargeting to the dab page, as the two other relevant entries there ( 1400: 1306: 4471: 4405: 4218: 2502: 1517: 919: 915: 4214: 5014: 4796: 4778: 4688: 4548: 4482: 4322: 3795: 3726: 3678: 3656: 3410: 3388: 3366: 3096: 2929: 2691: 2685: 2667: 2198: 2079: 2043: 1953: 1909: 1605: 1230: 1221: 1170: 1125: 927: 812: 252: 187: 4981:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

4833:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

4650:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

4359:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

3889:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

3470:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

3223:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

3151: 3012:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

2806:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

2641:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

2425:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

2122:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

2034:, I can't imagine any of these as ambiguous with "Chinese region". That leaves two articles: 1696:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

1348:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

1026:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

945: 907: 899: 693:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

248: 70:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's

5072: 5000: 4669: 4582: 3775: 3710: 3131: 2578: 2510: 2444: 2157: 1949: 1905: 1879: 1720: 1650: 1554: 1519: 1454: 1367: 1262: 1152: 1111: 444:, there was overwhelming consensus that those redirects were inappropriate and unhelpful. - 385: 374: 354: 330: 4724: 4394: 4250: 3805: 3309: 3103:"novel or obscure synonym" (a perfectly good reason). And I wonder if this substitution is 3100: 2067: 895: 4925: 4740: 3343: 3317: 2383: 2379: 2327: 1245: 1195: 949: 878: 266: 4852: 3739: 3691: 3652: 3607: 3569: 329:

and tag as humour, as with other humorous but potentially offensive WP space redirects.

4856: 4752: 4562: 4511: 4490: 4295: 4254: 3622: 3428: 3325: 3181: 3113: 3054: 2951: 2738: 2528: 2250: 2071: 2053: 2035: 2023: 2010: 1932: 1883: 1875: 1852: 1654: 1523: 1489: 1485: 1468: 1178: 1008:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 17#Knowledge (XXG):HAPPYPLACE

963: 845: 618: 603: 567: 552: 502: 462: 434: 419: 309: 169: 5066: 903: 518: 202: 4382: 3493: 2893: 2763: 2599: 2242: 2224: 2145: 1834: 1793: 1751: 1732: 1435: 1133: 1049: 793: 626: 579: 532: 486: 446: 412: 396: 293: 207: 205:

5 should apply for it makes no sense. So a reason for deletion has been presented. -

149: 93: 3425:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_27#Yukon--Mackenzie_River

3385:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_27#Yukon--Mackenzie_River

4210: 3758: 3362: 2574: 2066:

I agree that it's unlikely to be a primary topic, but it's what comes closest to a

2039: 2000: 1978:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 6#China (cultural region)

1936: 1644: 5043: 4901: 4712: 4423: 4198: 4153: 4113: 4073: 4033: 3993: 3953: 3640: 3536: 3297: 3078: 2872: 2709: 2487: 2186: 1817: 1775: 1418: 1090: 894:

Right now there are four advertised shortcuts on the page itself; the single-word

779: 136: 4744: 3767: 3722: 3518: 3147: 2573:, ever gets written up, we can worry then about any issues which may arise. BTW 2463: 1143: 1102: 381: 279:

Whether this particular one is harmful or not I have yet to consider, but is it

1828:

It is unclear what "region" refers to, this could equally refer to topics like

4921: 4608: 3908: 3847: 3814: 3762: 3743: 3250: 3031: 2854: 2825: 2356: 2306: 2031: 1983: 1829: 1627: 1570: 1371: 1287: 1199: 716: 523: 231: 227: 4294:; the rest (if not the genealogy search) seem to be Knowledge (XXG) scrapes. 2078:

if that section is reorganised so that it lists only the relevant entries. –

461:

request for evidence to support I note) Knowledge (XXG) will have benefited.

4963:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 17#Fox War Channel

2884: 4975:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

4827:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

4644:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

4353:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

3883:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

3464:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

3217:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

3006:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

2800:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

2635:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

2419:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

2116:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

1690:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

1342:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

1020:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

687:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

64:

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects.

4444: 4378: 3839: 3735: 3706: 3648: 3603: 3599: 3584: 3576: 3561: 3557: 3512: 3489: 2302: 2294: 2216: 2141: 1728: 1174: 1129: 1045: 712: 185:, causing no harm and no valid reason for deletion has been presented. – 89: 2889:

Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 11#Nimbu pani

4399: 5098:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

4942:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

4813:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

4630:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

4596:. My search doesn't show anything that's on that disambiguation page. 4339:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

3869:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

3450:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

3203:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2992:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2786:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2621:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2405:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2102:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

1676:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

1597: 1328:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

987:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

673:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

3702: 2162: 2052:

only possible one when I find no evidence for it even being primary.

2027: 1394: 5092: