Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 3

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 Procedural close. Wrong venue. A recent RM made by the filing user was closed as "not moved"; see WP:Move review for steps one may take disagreeing with a close of a requested move. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Brainrot → Brain rot  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Brainrot is the most common term and Brain rot must be moved here AutorisedUser673 (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep RfD is not for move requests. -1ctinus📝🗨 19:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close as wrong venue. Please use Wikipedia:Requested moves instead. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 22:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jisan → Forgotten Realms#Religion  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target, but there are Jisan station, Jisan Valley Rock Festival, Numbers_(South_Korean_TV_series)#Jisan_Bank and potentially others. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Al-Qadim. BOZ (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Al-Qadim#Important concepts, where she appears now. Daranios (talk) 06:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Should there at least be a hatnote or something for the potential alternative meanings? 1234qwer1234qwer4 18:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not quite sure what's best in this case. Like for Shaar, I don't believe the fictional deity is more relevant than the real-world appearances of the name, but from the listed examples it is the only instance where the name appears alone without further qualifier or something. So creating a Jisan (disambiguation) could be a solution, but on purely esthecial grounds I am not too keen on adding a hatnote to an article/section which refers "only" to one term within the paragraph. So I would also be fine with making Jisan a disambiguation page and shifting the current one to Jisan (Al-Qadim). Daranios (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fine with moving the edit history as suggested with a retarget and then creating a disambiguation page if necessary. BOZ (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate per the values given -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 04:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the D&D thing the primary topic?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cremastra (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think with no modifiers, the D&D use probably does count as the WP:PTOPIC here, but I would support a hatnote to point to a disambiguation page with all the other uses. Fieari (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the D&D topic is anywhere near primary. It is not prominent in a basic Google search [1], only appearing once. Jisan Station and Jisan Forest appear more times. -- 64.229.88.34 (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: To hopefully make this smooher and achieve consensus, I moved the page history to Jisan (Al-Qadim) and retargeted it to Al-Qadim#Important concepts, and suggest that the remaining Jisan be turned into a disambiguation page. BOZ (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Drafted a dab at the redirect. Jay 💬 12:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Any comments on the drafted disambiguation page, or should a single target be considered?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. The draft looks good. I don't see a primary topic here. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't think a relist was necessary, as there seemed to be general consensus that there is no primary topic (speaking as somebody who does not care too much about the exact outcome now that the disambiguation page exists/has been drafted). 1234qwer1234qwer4 15:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• List of bards → List of oral repositories  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems like an inaccurate redirect? Not all bards are oral repositories as defined by that article, nor does it seem likely to me that all oral repositories can be described as "bards". asilvering (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering I can see where you’re coming from, however this is part of a wider issue with the title. There’s no general term in common use to describe the roles of bards, griots, imusnawen etc. I had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find sources describing them generally as oral repositories. In some cases bard or troubadour is used as a definition for these terms, see here [2] [3] [4] [5]. The page could be moved to List of bards however I think that’d be inappropriate since you’d expect that list to contain a list of individuals who were historically bard, and the bard article does not take into account the broad usage of the term. I think a redirect makes the most sense, since people are very unlikely to Google list of oral repositories, but they might Google list of bards when looking for this, and also like you said there are roles here that are too specific to be termed bard. Kowal2701 (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the point of lots of those listed aren’t necessarily bards, if you were going to make a List of musicians, and found there was insufficient material or the divisions were hard to draw because some musicians play multiple instruments, you’d have List of cellists and List of pianists as redirects. For this reason I think List of oral poets should also be a redirect, and possibly List of oral historians Kowal2701 (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because we just do not seem to have such a comprehensive list. WP:REDYES may apply. Steel1943 (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kowal2701. --Un assiolo (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• See articles such as Ashik, Bhāts, Charan, or Makar which use bard as a general term Kowal2701 (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I might have suggested importing simple:Bard#Well known bards, but it is not even close to the realm of being appropriately sourced (lacks any). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 16:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 Template:R from short name. There was support for creating a new template under this name, however re-targeting to the alternate suggested template as an WP:ATD for now. Jay 💬 17:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:R from patronymic → Template:R from surname  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Patronymics are not surnames, and I don't think the use-cases here are even remotely similar. I'm not sure if there are any naming conventions that would refer to a person by their patronymic only, so the only redirects from patronymics I could imagine would lead to articles about the corresponding names (not people). 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One usecase will be redirects from patronymics that are misinterpreted as surnames, which is something that is, for example, done by many people from Britain and the US with respect to Icelandic names. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For those, I would suggest they point at the relevant given name articles as well. 1234qwer1234qwer4 22:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They would still be redirects from patronymics, I interpreted your nomination to be arguing for the deletion of the redirect for having no valid usecases?

I can think of five possible targets for a redirect from a patronymic

• A single article (when it is unambiguous)
• A surname page (where a single name is used as both a surname and a patronymic by different people)
• A given name page (where a single name is used as both a given name and a patronymic by different people)
• A a combination given name and surname page (when some people use it as a given name and others a surname)
• A patronymic page (when it is used as a patronymic by multiple notable people, but not as any other sort of name)

So I guess either retargetting to {{R from short name}} or making it it's own template would be best. Thryduulf (talk) 04:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The current target is not appropriate in my opinion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in multiple cultures e.g. Icelandic names, they use patronymics instead of surnames. Thus, every "R from surname" for Icelandic name is actually a "R from patronymic". Joseph2302 (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then they aren't "R from surname"s and shouldn't be tagged as such (which is the current result of applying this redirect tag). 1234qwer1234qwer4 16:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try. Keep, delete, retarget to {{R from short name}}, or create a new template?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now. It doesn't have any use and a case for usage has not been made. If something like this is desired down the road, a new RCAT template should be made or a redirect to {{R from short name}}. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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, Rosguill ^talk 13:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Certificat Superieur de Francais → Language education  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Certificat Supérieur de Français → Language education  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. Only seems to occur in a passing mention on the English Wikipedia. 1234qwer1234qwer4 13:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I've merged the version with the diacritic in with this nomination as was likely intended. It was nominated with no rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This seems to be the full name of the "B2" level mentioned at Telc#French The European Language Certificates#French and possibly warrants a mention, but a mention at Français langue étrangère#Diplomas, certifications and examinations may also be due. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Link fixed. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no mention anywhere. Telc is a redirect, so I don't see a Telc#French link or anchor, and unclear where the "B2" level mention is. Could not see it at the TELC dab page as well. Jay 💬 14:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mention is at The European Language Certificates#French, I've updated my comment. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, since a mention was apparently found. Retarget or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does "apparently" mean , relister didn't want to check? Thryduulf was responding to my point about "B2" not being mentioned, not about the redirect term under discussion. I wouldn't mind a retarget to The European Language Certificates#French and tagging as {{R without mention}}. Jay 💬 06:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now due to the lack of mention. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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, retarget, and no consensus in that order. There is no current events portal page for the 1974 date (obviously), so that one is kept by default. Consensus was not reached to keep either of the contemporary dates. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• March 31, 2023 → Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• May 20, 2013 → 2013 Moore tornado  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

• April 4, 1974 → 1974 Super Outbreak  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlikely alternative titles. We don't have redirects for April 27, 2011 or April 3, 1974 which are more important than either and they've received next to no traffic recently. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the April 4, 1974 redirect I just appended to this RfD; I nominated it here because I accidentally created the redirect with the wrong date. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reason for these.Noah, BSBA^Talk 16:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per below. Noah, BSBA^Talk 17:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Tornadoes do not officially receive names so they can be tricky to search. An easy way to distinguish from other tornado outbreaks (especially when multiple outbreaks occur in the same area and/or around the same time) is by using the date. A little bit of poking around shows the tornadoes would be the primary topic for these dates. I would also be in favor of creating redirects for the other two dates mentioned in the nomination. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem here is a simple date is too ambiguous. It could be any event that happened on a specific day. I don't see how it's plausible to redirect days of a year to a tornado outbreak. The fact that these aren't getting traffic shows they arent needed to begin with. Noah, BSBA^Talk 16:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Plenty of primary topics are ambiguous—that's not a problem. Can you make the case for either of these dates that another event could plausibly be significant enough to rival the tornadoes? -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  An event being the most important of any particular day doesn't mean it's the only thing that happened that day. There are very few dates that I would consider worthy enough to be redirected, such as 4 July 1776 for the Signing of the United States Declaration of Independence and 14 August 1945 for the Surrender of Japan, or more recently 7 October 2023 for the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel and 24 February 2022 for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. These are major events that have had significant cultural effects and the dates of which are unlikely to be forgotten in the public eye and which are the clear primary topics for those days. Most people worldwide today don't know that March 31, 2023 had a tornado outbreak, especially a year after the fact, and the same goes for May 20, 2013. They don't have the primary topic advantage my previous examples had, and either way, are receiving little traffic. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nowhere did I say this was the only thing that happened that day, but I do have a solution to the pushback that I'm getting: -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tavix, @Hurricane Noah, @GeorgeMemulous; I need to inform all of you that I just appended a third redirect onto this request. Thank you. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Portal:Current events/2023 March 31 and Portal:Current events/2013 May 20 respectively. Any event that happened on that day notable enough to be covered in a mainspace Wikipedia article should be listed there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep 2013 and 2023 redirects – I have to disagree with GeorgeMemulous and some of the others on this one. I was about to create and tag the 2013 redirect (with an R from date template) when I discovered it was under discussion. I think it and other tornado date redirects can be of use at least for us here at WP:Weather.

  Now that said, if there was something else really notable that occurred on those two dates, then it would be a different story and I’d probably be in favor of deleting or retargeting. But barring that, they’re useful to me, and probably to some of the others on WP:Weather, so I think they should be kept, even if there is a relatively small amount of traffic. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As for the 1974 redirect that I appended onto this discussion; as the nominator of that redirect, I favor deleting it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And FYI @GeorgeMemulous, we actually do have a redirect to both of those dates you listed in your nomination. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am going to append another date redirect to your nomination that I do favor deleting, one I just created and realized that I got the date wrong. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that there is no clear policy when it comes to dates and redirects; redirection to Current Events is a WP:Cross-namespace redirect but either way they're the primary topic for those days. I might take this to the village pump to get some policy to be set in stone with date redirects. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep March 31, 2023 – When I Google"March 31, 2023", majority of the results are the tornado outbreak (i.e. the redirect location). NOAA's webpage on the tornado outbreak (2nd result on Google) is titled "The Tornado Outbreak of March 31, 2023". First result is the outbreak's Wikipedia article. CNN's article for what happened on March 31, 2023 has the top thing being the Trump indictment (obviously not going to be known/associated with that date as a redirect), and the 2nd thing is the tornado outbreak..."A severe weather outbreak could impact nearly 70 million people today from the Mississippi Valley to the Ohio and Tennessee Valleys, meteorologists say." Here is a couple of other RS sources that use the date in association with the outbreak: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. In short, I do not think any other event is going to be known or associated well enough with that event for a redirect ("deletion") to Portal:Current events/2023 March 31 over the tornado outbreak. Unless someone can provide clear counter evidence as to why the outbreak is not the main topic associated with that date, I will remain keep for that redirect. As a fun P.S., the Trump indictment mentioned by CNN as the top story on March 31, 2023, is not even mentioned on Wikipedia's portal of current events for March 31, 2023. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Because the Trump indictment was on March 30th. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or retarget to the current events portal?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to the respective current event pages as a more accurate target that does not significantly hurt the reader who is looking for the tornado article. Note this 2023 discussion with regard to mass-creating date redirects, if there remains some sort of appetite for that. J947 ‡ ^edits 05:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget all to the respective portal pages. My Google search for "March 31, 2023" shows no clear primary topic (the tornado isn't even mentioned until the 2nd-last item). C F A 💬 22:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).

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 2 pages without history; move 2 pages with history.

• Move without redirect to Suikoden characters List of characters in the Suikoden series
• Move without redirect to Suikoden series characters Lists of characters in the Suikoden series
• Delete Lists of Suikoden series characters
• Delete List of recurring characters in the Suikoden series

wbm1058 (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• List of characters in the Suikoden series → Suikoden#Elements  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Lists of characters in the Suikoden series → Suikoden#Elements  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Lists of Suikoden series characters → Suikoden#Elements  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• List of recurring characters in the Suikoden series → Suikoden#Elements  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Target contains no such list(s). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. not present and the first one was entirely unsourced cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 12:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Un assiolo (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The closing admin should take note of some of the comments at #Unmentioned Suikoden characters that may also apply here. If the goal is to preserve history I would be fine with moving to titles without "List of" (i.e characters in the Suikoden series) without leaving a redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per arguments in Unmentioned Suikoden characters discussion (which actually apply more directly to these articles). While I don't think it's particularly necessary, I would have no objection to moving them to "Characters of Suikoden" to preserve merge history if that would be a compromise * Pppery * felt would aid things, as these characters are indeed covered in articles. SnowFire (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Add link to the #Unmentioned Suikoden characters discussion which is mentioned twice in this RfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article contains no list. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete contains no such list. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the ones without history. Move without redirect the ones with history. The alternate title suggested by Pppery does not work because that page has history as well. One title I can think of is Suikoden series characters, which is the previous title of one of the nominated ones. Need one more. Jay 💬 09:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).