Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 9

1404:

discretionary range of "Okay, people are using it, but not enough to be clear why". Currently the first one is the second suggestion if I type in "Disputed territories" in the search bar, so that may account for a lot of curious or unintentional clicks. Importantly, this uses disambiguation syntax but doesn't actually disambiguate something. Even to those who advocate "disputed territories" as a term to apply to the West Bank and Gaza, it's not like "Disputed territories" is the proper name of that region; it's a descriptor, not a name, so any disambiguation would have things in the opposite order. So,

3579: 144: 4044: 4025: 3712: 3281: 1547: 882: 863: 415:

redirects when there is actual content, by which I mean prose, probably a paragraph or two. The VAST majority of motorsport season articles have nothing of the sort, unfortunately. And then all we have are a few hundred rarely used redirects in amongst the countless thousands of other redirects which are only really kept as there is no reason to delete, and are potentially useful to someone.

1223: 430:

kept, but they are few and far between and normally only when that is the only thing that could be said about them. However even then the existence of these redirects (where unambiguous and pointing to a page that actually mentions them) would not be causing any actual harm - I wouldn't encourage the creation such redirects but neither would I actively seek them out for deletion.

1263: 272:. The redirect is unambiguous, harmless and takes anybody using it to the most comprehensive coverage we have about this exact topic so it is clearly useful, especially when you consider that it will also help search engines (internal and external) direct people making similar queries to the target article. Deletion would bring no benefits, so this is a very clear keep. 4462: 4422: 187:- I participated in both of the above linked discussions, and I advocated to redirect this article to the season article rather than straight delete in its AfD. While I strongly feel that this, as with almost all rounds of Formula Regional does not meet GNG, that should not stop us helping our readers with redirects. The article 3504: 586: 975: 4141: 1766:

There are various names on Name Disambiguation pages that don't explicitly link anywhere. I did not want it to look like there was a page on the person, because there clearly is not. I apologize for my error in using the double brackets, and just want you to know that my intent is good. Thank you for

1070:

God, this shit again? The month-long ANI thread I was subject to last time was more than enough. It's really fine as a redirect, it's a POS stub that fails GNG, but just AfD the damn thing so people stop edit warring over it. I'll do it myself if I have to. If I never hear the words "Woody Woodpecker

467:

typically kept when they're harmless. I think it sets poor precedent but that is ultimately an unconvincing argument for deletion. As mentioned in the nominator's rationale the redirect probably shouldn't have been created to begin with, but since it has been there is very little policy with which to

2188:

per reasons mentioned above. I would not necessarily get a bot mentioned above but yeah. If you are calling {{Br}} you likely are trying to call the break template.Or this could be turned into a disambiguation page. br also refers to Brazil, so it could disambiguate the different Brazil templates we

1736:

Hi! My goal in creation was not to create a walled garden. I was doing edits related to the City of San Dimas, and wanted to create this link on the disambiguation page. It is not unusual to list people without Knowledge pages, if they are somehow notable, on disambiguation pages for names. Happy to

429:

A7V2 is correct. Redirects are only kept when there is useful information about the subject at the target, and in most cases that means prose (ideally sourced prose). There are limited occasions when redirects taking people to a page that basically says nothing more than "it exists"/"it existed" are

382:

At the bottom is allowing redirects for effectively every motorsport round every held to be created as a redirect, no matter how obscure. If a race is somewhat memorable and remains a point of interest, then sure, redirects are cheap and we should have one. But we shouldn't be creating redirects for

335:

I understand that this is not the topic of discussion but I strongly oppose the suggestion we should create redirects for individual rounds to season articles for low level motorsport series. This is a slippery slope which is entirely unnecessary to go down, and I cannot see what justification would

3241:

I agree that it would be a bad idea to transclude the RfD notice. We've got those notices on redirects because we want to catch the people who use them. That doesn't really work well for templates: an editor may attempt to use the template redirect but still miss the nomination because they haven't

3119:

there, you'll see that the number decreases pretty linearly, down to a quarter of that (136) for pages that use it six times or more. I've previewed what a number of multiple-transclusion pages would look like with the tag on them, and to me it did not seem much of an eyesore, at least no more than

1643: 2291:

The assumption is that the existing usages are not breaking anything. The editors may have once wanted a line break, since the template previously contained one, but Template:Br has been a redirect to Template:Clear since 2015 or before, so any problem usages should have been worked out by now. As

1781:

While I can make a compelling argument to keep this name on the disambiguation page, as is true for various semi-notable (but less than standard for pages) figures, you are correct that the actions I took were in error. I will support this Articles For Deletion action, and thank you again for your

1449:

whereas it may make sense to turn that into a dab page. But I just cannot imagine somebody typing in "Disputed territories (Gaza Strip , Judea and Samaria)" (or West Bank for that matter). It seemingly exists to use in our articles instead of the neutral terms, and in that case it doesnt serve any

195:

about this cancelled round than it does any other round, which is something of an indication of why the other rounds were all deleted. Regardless of how (un)likely someone is to search for this term, what is the benefit of not taking them to somewhere which basically says all there is to say about

2017: 1973: 414:

I'm not sure I agree with this conclusion. Redirects I've nominated in the past for deletion from rounds to seasons were deleted when the only information about them was a listing on a calendar, and what can be extracted from the results tables. I (not wishing to speak for others) would only want

2235:

are overwhelmingly more common shorthand for Brazil in general usage (in my experience). Until I read this entry, I assumed {{Br}} was Brazil-related in some way, rather than a proxy for html. I'm not clear on why anyone would need a template to insert a single html element, but I'd rather see

775: 308:

Notability is only indirectly and marginally relevant to redirects. That the round was cancelled is completely irrelevant to the redirect. There is sourced content about the topic at the target so it is a plausible redirect. If there is sourced content about other rounds then redirects to that

1403:

cited at the target does show someone advocating for Gaza as being "disputed" rather than "occupied". However, politics aside, this is a bad redirect for regular redirect reasons, namely that it's an unlikely search term. Pageviews are 146 and 83 all-time, which in my opinion falls in the

3812: 3377: 1683: 3207:, I'm splitting off this portion from the rest of the RfD, just so people don't look at the thread and think there's been much more discussion of the substantive issue than there has been. So often long threads scare people away even when the discussion is relatively straightforward. 160: 156: 2358:

option, so that would be a good thing to do, just like advertising a TfD through transcluded messages. Only catch is that the message that displays is too large for a template that doesn't display at all. I'm going to look into adding something like the tiny version of

2109:

did not use br tags, but now it does. Each logical step made sense at the time, but nobody appears to have stepped back recently to say "Wait a minute, having a template called 'br' point to a template that supplies div tags instead of br tags makes no sense."

2872:? It seems much much more likely that those editors thought they were adding actual breaks. To confirm this anecdotal impression, I fiddled around quite a bit with some regex searches to gauge how often this template is used immediately after a file, and found 132: 2896:... So I likely need to broaden the regex for more use cases. Improvements welcome. If there's any way to come up with a manual replacement or "smart" bot replacement here, I think that would be preferable. One starting point might be assuming that a 359:

The slippery slope argument implies that there is something undesirable at the bottom, but having redirects from plausible search terms to content directly about those search terms when we don't have or want an article at that title is a Good Thing.

138: 3878:. However the primary topic by far on google is a brand of skincare and beauty products - I don't know whether it's notable (I have no relevant subject knowledge) but it is so prominent that it's worth someone who does know the area looking at. 2292:

for "Br" being ambiguous, Template:BRA has 8,000 transclusions, and Template:Br has 4,000, and their output is wildly different, so I don't think anyone is confused here. Converting to a dab page would be a radical change that I would oppose. –

3519:. It certainly looks like cult-adjacent mumbo jumbo that could plausibly be connected to Happy Science, but it does not appear to actually mention "Happy Science" or other terms related to it. Delete unless a justification can be provided. 3242:

previewed their edit. On the other hand, you'll get disruption to a vast number of readers who have nothing to do with the template. Generally, it's best practice to noinclude the TfD tags for moderately-to-widely used inline templates. –

1751:

Yes but "local civic service" is not a basis for notability and supporting it is not Knowledge's purpose. Intended or no you made a fake link so it would look like there was a page on the person when there is not, and that link must go.

1211: 1217: 1737:

discuss though; I've done more than 5000 Knowledge edits and am not trying to create some kind of trick. Was just using a very unique spelling of a common name, and trying to support more local civic service on Knowledge.

1251: 126: 2458:

from before 2015-06-30, if there are any available, to see what the backlink situation looked like then, and then compare that to the current WhatLinksHere, and hope that the number of false positives (pages where

1257: 4617: 3971:. I'm not convinced Aphrodite is not the primary topic, but I'm not keen on trying to accommodate that search term with more hatnotes at that article, or by mixing the sculptor into all the entries at 1897:

is actually wanting a break. I went ahead and corrected the nine transclusions that Tamzin identified and will now make the change. I will spotcheck a significant group (~50?) to see if anything broke

3581:), I personally would say that the redirect has some merit as a warning to the unwary reader. The article about the cult is arguably the one most closely related to the organization, as opposed to a ' 4728:

Comment: The AfD was of 2008 and is therefore probably no longer very relevant. Generally speaking, if the redirect topic is not mentioned in the target article, the redirect is probably not useful.

3950:

is deemed notable and gets an article, that might have a claim to the primary topic for the redirect, but until that point I would be inclined to retain the current redirect and add a hatnote at

3547:. Though there is this clear connection, it doesn't seem likely someone would search for "Future Science Institute" on its own, and even if they did, the Happy Science article wouldn't help them. 251:- While this is an unlikely search term, and I wouldn't waste my time creating similar redirects, it redirects to the article where information relevant to that term is held, and redirects are 1408:, although I could see keeping something like "Gaza (disputed territory)" as permissibly incorrect/non-neutral... But also don't think it would be a good use of anyone's time to create that. 1490:

rather than the current target. Not trying to go too deep down a what-if rabbit hole here; I just think it's always important to make sure that an RfD doesn't set an overly broad precedent.

1086: 4650: 4051: 4032: 3719: 3288: 1554: 889: 870: 39: 4450: 4410: 1433:, and I dont actually think "disputed territories" itself is an implausible search term, as that is indeed how the Israeli right would define what we (and the world really) call 656:

in the edit summary of another article in the heat of an edit war. And the redlink may have looked bad. This and another edit summary of the time still has (unrelated) redlinks.

34: 4491:

not notable groups, but if people do search for them, we should give them an article on the broader topic. Viable search term with no harm to the project. Redirects are cheap.

3987:

per Uanfala's draft. Although it has only 2 entries, support the idea of using this dab and avoiding the sculptor's hatnote at Aphrodite because of a minor alternate spelling.

2658:

for wiki code in the editing view (mis-highlighting all text in the page after the occurrence of that tag), and so should be avoided. As of April 2019, the rather common form

4456: 4416: 3065:

adding a tag to a whitespace template on 4000 pages, often inside space-constrained table cells, where readers will be very confused about what is even being discussed.

3031: 3492: 929: 286:

My point is not that it isn't useful—most articles that are nominated for deletion are. However it doesn't even come close to meeting GNG, and the prose on it at

2850:

with no change or with an improvement, and that in most cases this was likely the editor's intention. For instance, did someone really intend to put a bunch of

4682:

I would wish the closer relists this RfD instead of closing it today or tomorrow, as the important information of the successful AfD was only brought later.

4589:

you've set up in your reply since I think its obvious to any rationale closer that calling oneself a specific sect is typically evidence of belonging to it.

3498: 3170:. As noted in my edit summary there and in a hidden comment, if this proves disruptive nonetheless, any TPE or sysop has my permission to either upgrade to 2415:

as appropriate, then changing this rdr for any future use (once the change will impact almost no pages). otoh, some of the use cases are bretter suited to

287: 188: 120: 2425:, so someone going through by script and deciding might make sense. It looks like 4000 pages, but I think most of them are in a smaller # of templates. 4649:

Thanks for pointing this AfD out. The AfD of the article was to delete it, not to redirect; therefore, the redirects I nominated should be deleted. See

463:– I personally would like to see it gone since its an unlikely search term and doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose, but on the other hand redirects 4568: 3975:. A separate dab page over what is a relatively little used redirect seems like the least bad option. A draft dab is available below the redirect. – 196:

what they have searched for? I would also support putting redirects for other rounds if brief overviews are provided (which they probably should be).

387:

because they were held. Very few indivudal FREC rounds are going to be a viable search term, in the year they were held let alone 5 or 10 years on.

4775:(and multiple similarly named ones) which will lead them to the same target. No reason to keep a country-based title when there is no article. 1360:, but not bundling that here since it doesn't have the explicit reference to Gaza. Probably better for a separate RfD if you'd like to tag it. 1205: 21: 3516: 4534:

If it's useful to the reader to get an understanding of independent Catholicism, then we should keep it. It is better for the reader to find

3017: 574: 2785:, and I wonder if that has screwed things up, in the sense that the bot (that knows how to read my mind) should change those to <br/: --> 294:, but for consistency, if all other FREC rounds were deleted, then I think this one should too—even more so when it didn't even take place. 963: 1245: 1194: 991:

While I believe the current state is fine, there has been an edit war over this topic for the past two months, so a formal discussion as

4195: 4129: 3823:

I can't find anything on Kypris online that is independent of Knowledge, let alone independent content linking this deity to Aphrodite.

2539:

of the existing redirect, since as discussed it's confusing, but it's not clear to me that the best replacement for it is a redirect to

580: 3178:) or to revert me outright, without discussion. And just going to put this in boldface for anyone coming here from one of these tags: 1631: 969: 17: 1234: 4135: 3959: 2005: 1961: 159:, but this one wasn't nominated with the others because of the cancellation. An AfD was later opened specifically for this article ( 2550:

is shorter and I'm fairly sure it's more common, so I don't see why that template is needed at all. A disambiguation page between

4162: 4117: 3024: 2389:

Comment: can we easily tell whether a given tag was placed before or after the template was changed from using br to using clear?

1637: 1393: 763: 1698:

adding nn person to various places by linking to the disambiguation page through a misspelling. I deleted use of this link from

2965: 2011: 1967: 3835: 3120:

when some high-visibility templates have been TfD'd. If the concern is about confusing readers, one could compromise with an

1383: 1076: 769: 1484:

would potentially be reasonable as a search term that someone who favors that POV might type in, although with a target of

4444: 4404: 3111:, you'll see that only an eighth of the transcluding pages (563) use the template more than once, and if you increase the 2655: 2481:

was later added) is low, but that's the only way (well, not the only way, but the "easiest" way) I can think of to do it.

618: 3955: 3800: 3365: 2028:

This will probably be controversial, but I think it makes sense on the face of it. This template currently redirects to

1671: 1486: 1434: 1089:. Contradictory opinions were expressed regarding the large-scale redirection of non-notable Woody Woodpecker cartoons. 951: 482: 401: 350: 260: 4433: 4393: 3389: 4788: 4761: 4740: 4719: 4691: 4670: 4633: 4598: 4580: 4547: 4529: 4500: 4482: 4385: 4322: 4302: 4268: 4240: 4222: 4203: 4177: 4102: 4000: 3979: 3963: 3915: 3887: 3858: 3839: 3775: 3687: 3666: 3633: 3602: 3530: 3467: 3408: 3340: 3246: 3236: 3219: 3198: 3161: 3144: 3077: 3056: 2986: 2935: 2815: 2681: 2584: 2528: 2493: 2437: 2378: 2324: 2301: 2286: 2262: 2245: 2222: 2198: 2179: 1932: 1914: 1805: 1791: 1776: 1761: 1746: 1729: 1711: 1606: 1517: 1502: 1460: 1420: 1372: 1340: 1317: 1300: 1282: 1186: 1121: 1098: 1080: 1058: 1027: 1006: 936: 838: 821: 803: 786:

The back cover can refer to a back external side of any medium, like a book, an album, a single, or any other. Like

736: 669: 642: 624: 549: 486: 439: 424: 405: 369: 354: 318: 303: 281: 264: 243: 205: 178: 105: 4755: 4748:

per info above by nom and Sandstein. It doesn't help the reader, and is unnecessary if attribution isn't required.

4702: 4627: 4251: 3898: 3806: 3644: 3613: 3486: 3371: 2335: 1677: 4361: 4077: 3745: 3446: 3314: 3182:. (If you want an easy way to spot autoconfirmed-only (and such) material, there's a guide to setting that up in 1850: 1796:

Sorry for jumping to the negative. Don't think the semi-notable case can be made, but recognize your good faith.

1580: 1160: 1072: 915: 708: 525: 79: 2893: 2052:

tag to create a line break. If we were starting from scratch with these names, I think it would be obvious that

1474: 4473:

No mention of this "Independent Catholic Church USA" denomination in the target article. I recommend deletion.

1468: 3582: 3475: 1480: 3555:

The redirect was created as a satellite made by the organization, FSI-SAT was actually granted a flight on a

4438: 4398: 4199: 3972: 3149:

Ah, it didn't occur to me you could show only to autoconf -- that fully addresses my concern. Go for it :)

2868: 2194: 1695: 1438: 1239: 1199: 992: 2267:

If the assumption is being made that all extant uses are actually calling clear, replacing those uses with

4594: 4543: 4496: 4153: 3183: 1112:

per Eviolite. This is the wrong venue for disputes about whether a page should be an article or redirect.

568: 256: 225: 4750: 4644: 4622: 4357: 4073: 3741: 3442: 3310: 1846: 1801: 1757: 1725: 1707: 1699: 1576: 1296: 1156: 1094: 911: 704: 521: 75: 3544: 1625: 4620:, does it need to be maintained for attribution purposes? I'm not sure, and just asking, not !voting. 1291:

Gaza is not a disputed territory even by Israeli definitions (the other is only "disputed" by Israel).

4560: 4218: 1442: 1023: 1002: 557: 299: 174: 55:

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 9, 2022.

3132:.) I'll leave the final determination tagging-wise to someone else, but that's my rationale for it. 1087:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1085#Massive deletion of Woody Woodpecker films

4233: 3883: 2999:

Split off at 03:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC), splitting SJ's comment of 20:38, 9 January 2022 in half.

2760: 2297: 2237: 2218: 2175: 1787: 1772: 1742: 1446: 1117: 957: 817: 799: 435: 365: 314: 277: 3574:

of the cult (all 'researchers' listed on their website are followers, and there are 11 pages that

1614: 4564: 4517: 4380: 4123: 3831: 3628: 3571: 3359: 2980: 2828:

My anecdotal impression, from all the pages I previewed the RfD tag on in my quest to not get de-

2811: 2677: 2524: 2282: 2241: 2190: 1665: 1510: 1453: 1279: 1275: 1065: 1053: 834: 731: 544: 213: 1919:

Update: I went through 55 or so articles and talk pages and I didn't see any issues. I did make

155:

FREC event that was cancelled. All other FREC events were deleted for lack of notability as per

3927:: Yes, this is absolutely a real name for Aphrodite – perhaps most famously used in several of 4713: 4687: 4666: 4590: 4576: 4554: 4539: 4525: 4511: 4492: 4478: 4316: 4262: 4173: 3976: 3909: 3683: 3598: 3243: 3098: 2758:) and as a result, I have been using it in that manner. In particular, when I find <br: --> 157:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/2019 Le Castellet Formula Regional European Championship round

99: 4651:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 24#Validity of Catholic Church Authority

4356:

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

4072:

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

3740:

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

3564: 3441:

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

3309:

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

2665:

causes this incorrect display in some of them, and is thus better avoided for the time being.

1845:

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

1575:

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

1155:

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

910:

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

703:

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

520:

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

161:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/2021 Nürburgring Formula Regional European Championship round

74:

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

4769:. Minimal page views. If readers are indeed searching for the term, we do have the redirect 3590: 3556: 3348: 2862: 1999: 1955: 1797: 1753: 1721: 1717: 1703: 1654: 1313: 1292: 1090: 1867:. There has been some pushback against the idea of using a bot to change every instance of 4516:

Topics of the redirects should be present on the target, otherwise the redirect serves no

4311: 4286: 4214: 4091: 3034:

for my request to lower the redirect's protection level to TPE, although I can do this by

2320: 2203:

The three-letter abbreviation "BRA" is universally used for Brazil, as far as I know. See

1900: 1018: 997: 933: 757: 638: 478: 397: 346: 295: 291: 252: 170: 3939:, both by long-term significance and judging by the fact that over the 2019-2021 period, 3105:

parameter to the template. That said, I still think it would be worth doing. If you look

3083:

So I've merged the changes to the module to make it possible to do this, and have tagged

2774:

with no particular preference for either, but I'm sure I've changed plenty of <br: -->

2130:

Since this redirect is widely used, I propose that a bot be used to change every call to

2038:, which uses div tags to create a break on a page. I think it should redirect instead to 2619:

where this is unsuitable, for example the rare cases where it is necessary to duplicate

2454:

In response to your question: Emphasizing the word "easily", no. You could look through

995:

is necessary to get the involved parties to settle the matter in a constructive manner.

601:. No alternate spellings, pronunciation of "Jana Gana Mana" gives us "Janga Gana Mana". 4731: 4656: 3879: 3760: 3586: 3404: 2958: 2854: 2840: 2800: 2790: 2751: 2722: 2697: 2609: 2600: 2574: 2564: 2543: 2419: 2409: 2399: 2293: 2271: 2256: 2214: 2171: 2164: 2144: 2103: 2093: 2066: 2042: 2032: 1993: 1949: 1881: 1864: 1783: 1768: 1738: 1113: 1109: 1035: 1013: 813: 795: 598: 562: 431: 420: 361: 310: 273: 239: 201: 94: 3545:

amateur satellite produced by the "Future Science Institute, Happy Science University"

4781: 4375: 4295: 4237: 4052:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 16#Fundamental theory (canon law)

3993: 3936: 3875: 3853: 3849: 3827: 3659: 3623: 3567: 3523: 3480: 3333: 3038: 2972: 2829: 2823: 2807: 2763:

due to the unterminated tag, so I not infrequently change them to either <br/: -->

2673: 2520: 2278: 1347: 1179: 1043: 1039: 830: 726: 662: 539: 4683: 4662: 4572: 4521: 4474: 4169: 4096: 3720:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 18#Orthodox Church of Byzantium

3679: 3594: 3461: 3230: 3155: 3071: 2554: 2431: 2360: 2347: 2207: 1594: 1034:

Not the right venue for this - if you'd like to discuss restore the version before

605: 3758:. There seems to be consensus that a two-item DAB is the "least bad option" here. 3543:

has a program about "Future Science", the only specific connection I found was an

1923:

where clear looks a bit better than break, but I don't see that as problematic. --

3391:) which was never produced. Not mentioned at target or anywhere. I would suggest 2759:

in preview mode of articles or talk pages I happen to be editing, that screws up

1720:

was redircted by the same person to the same topic, ought to be deleted as well.

3794: 3767: 3211: 3190: 3167: 3136: 3048: 3004: 2948: 2927: 2917: 2900: 2779: 2768: 2741: 2712: 2509: 2485: 2370: 2154: 2134: 2117: 2079: 2056: 1891: 1871: 1659: 1619: 1494: 1412: 1364: 1332: 1309: 787: 751: 217: 3944: 3585:' article. Such an article is unlikely to be created as it will probably fail 3515:

Not mentioned at the target. Searching online, I found results for...whatever

3129: 2879: 2316: 1924: 1906: 1598: 1466:

Right, I think we generally agree here. All I'm saying is that something like

634: 470: 389: 338: 221: 3935:. I suspect that the current target has a better claim to the redirect than 2923:. Fortunately this one only has 20 transclusions, a lot easier to deal with. 4586: 4278: 4191: 4033:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 18#Orthodox civilization

3951: 3871: 3788: 3400: 2591: 2581: 416: 235: 229: 197: 4563:? Is it because of its name? If so, by the same token this would imply the 3166:

I have made the necessary changes to the module, and put it into effect on

4350:

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

4066:

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

3734:

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

3435:

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

3303:

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

1839:

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

1569:

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

1149:

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

904:

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

697:

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

514:

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

68:

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

4777: 4291: 3989: 3932: 3655: 3329: 2089:

tag, and it was changed over the years via various redirects to point to

1175: 658: 2737:"Broken", in what sense? Seems I have mistakenly assumed for years that 2346:

While there's rough consensus here, the redirect has not been tagged. {{

2252:

4386 transclusions, so probably not feasible to disambiguate unmessily.

871:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 17#Patrick sylvestre

4232:

it is not used anywhere, and would only be appropriate to redirect to "

3540: 3227: 3204: 3152: 3068: 2449: 2428: 1555:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 16#Voluntary agency

4800: