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 Anti-Christian Movement where I moved the article. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts ^she/_they^talk/_stalk 16:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Anti-Christian movementAnti-Christian movement → Anti-Christian Movement (China)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• Anti Christian MovementAnti Christian Movement → Anti-Christian Movement (China)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Antichristian movementAntichristian movement → Anti-Christian Movement (China)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

It seems a bit too narrow for this phrase to point to a particular movement in 1920s China. Perhaps retarget to Criticism of Christianity, where Opposition to Christianity currently points, or to Anti-Christian sentiment, where Anti-Christian points. BD2412 T 02:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I've added two more redirects to this discussion. If the first-nominated redirect remains a redirect, the others should be marked as a {{R avoided double redirect}} of it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak move the article over the Anti-Christian movement redirect. Surprisingly the 1920s Chinese movement does seem to be the primary topic for the exact term, neither of the suggested alternatives mention China at all and I'd me mildly surprised to end up at either title after using a search term with "movement" in the title. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thryduulf: I am baffled by the proposition that this obscure target would be the primary topic of such a generic phrase. Is there data behind this? BD2412 T 23:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As I noted, I was surprised that this is the case, but very nearly every hit on the first 3ish pages of search results was related to that topic. I'm guessing maybe there haven't been many actual movements that are/were anti-Christian (as opposed to criticisms, sentiments, philosophies, or movements that were only incidentally or partially anti-Christian, etc)? Certainly there is no List of anti-Christian movements or similarly-named page. Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak move article over redirect per WP:PRECISE. I'm weak because someone may be surprised to find out this topic is exclusive to China. Afterwards, if more articles are created relating to this topic that are not connected exclusively to China, this can be revisited. (If not move, then keep [full, not weak] for the same reasons.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been thinking that a hatnote somewhere would help alleviate any confusion, but there aren't any obvious other targets. Persecution of Christians comes a bit closer than the two in the nomination as (to me at least) both "persecution" and "movement" imply action where the other two suggest more opinions or academic arguments. I wouldn't support targetting the redirect there though as it doesn't mention the current target (and doing so would likely be undue on what is already a long, fairly high level article) and the scope only overlaps rather than matches what I'd expect to find at this title if the Chinese movement wasn't primary. Thryduulf (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thryduulf: There is also, per the nomination, Criticism of Christianity. One can be "anti-Christian" as a philosophy without specifically persecuting Christians. BD2412 T 15:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I explicitly addressed that in the comment you are replying to - "persecution" and "movement" imply action where the other two suggest more opinions or academic arguments, the "other two" being the other two mentioned in the nomination, i.e. Criticism of Christianity and Anti-Christian sentiment. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this focuses on too specific a definition of "movement", which is itself a somewhat ambiguous term. There have been plenty of purely philosophical exercises labeled as "movements" (e.g., the Anti-aging movement, Free-culture movement, Anti-copyright movement). BD2412 T 15:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Those are all examples of clear movements where there is some action taken and/or sought ("eliminating or reversing aging, or reducing the effects of it", "promot[ing] the freedom to distribute and modify the creative works of others in the form of free content", "changing the current [copyright] system") although the latter may be better targetted at Copyright abolition ("a movement to abolish copyright and all subsequent laws made in its support."). They are not the same as general criticism or opposition of, or debates around the topic. If I was using this search term I would not find what I was looking for at either of the two targets mentioned. They'd be fine as see alsos at the end of an article or dab page, but neither is the primary topic and they're borderline for a hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A Google search returns a wide variety of uses of the term "Anti-Christian Movement" to refer to various different things: Freemasonry and the Anti-Christian Movement (1930); Eusebius and the Global War on Christians, which says, "Boko Haram is primarily and fundamentally an anti-Christian movement"; Catholic Encyclopedia > T > Theophilanthropists, which says, "Theophilanthropism was really an anti-Christian movement"; The Cambridge Companion to the Qur'ān, describing "Islam as an anti-Christian movement"; etc. BD2412 T 21:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Move article over redirect. I suggest a hatnote along the lines of This article is about the Chinese political movement. See also Anti-Christian sentiment and Opposition to Christianity. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Steel1943 and BDD: As you haven't specified which redirect, I believe you are agreeing with Thryduulf to move over the article to Anti-Christian movement (lowercase m). But shouldn't the title be the uppercase Anti Christian Movement or Anti-Christian Movement (with hyphen)? Jay 💬 15:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at the article again, it does consistently use a hyphen and uppercase "M", so yes that should be the title. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. If that's wrong, it's a separate issue that can be fixed in time. --BDD (talk) 21:35, 4 March 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 create article. (non-admin closure) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• List of online newspaper archivesList of online newspaper archives → Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 
• List of newspaper archives → Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]

The page, previously an article, was AfDed in 2010 where consensus was heading towards deletion before being boldly projectified. The AfD comments that followed the page move appear to view it as a reasonable outcome. However, I'm not sure whether the resulting cross-namespace redirect is appropriate, as it might misdirect readers (and also has incoming links). Paul_012 (talk) 14:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I've added List of newspaper archives to this discussion. This was created directly as a redirect to the project space page a couple of years after the AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify with Heritage Microfilm, Inc.#NewspaperArchive, Ancestry.com#Newspapers.com, British Newspaper Archive and other relevant articles in Category:Historic newspaper digitization projects. I think having the disambig at the title without "online" is better as there are presumably notable off-line newspaper archives (although I can't immediately find any articles about them). The list can (and should) include a link to the project space page as a hatnote or see also. If consensus is in favour of this solution then the hatnote at Heritage Microfilm, Inc.#NewspaperArchive should be amended to point to it, and it will be worth having a discussion about where the Newspaper Archive redirect should point. Thryduulf (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've started drafting a list article at List of newspaper archives. It's still incomplete even relative to the category, but I'll work more on it tomorrow but expansion and improvement is more than welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was rather ambivalent about creating a new more limited list, but now that it's started there's probably no reason not to go ahead and redirect there. Would it be appropriate to include a cross-namespace see also link to the project page though? --Paul_012 (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If you can think of a suitable wording for a {{self ref}} hatnote then yes. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. Keep Thryduulf's stub of List of newspaper archives and retarget List of online newspaper archives to it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:55, 24 February 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. ^Complex/_Rational 14:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Naicha philippines → Bubble tea  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Seems to be the name of an actual establishment that is not mentioned in article. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 14:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Could have been a rare valid case for A1 speedy deletion before it was redirected. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete considering that "naicha" means "milk tea" in Chinese (which would mean WP:FORRED tends to suggest this should be deleted), and Milk tea does not contain anything about the Philippines. feminist🩸 (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:57, 22 February 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 keep. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Secure TransportSecure Transport → Comparison of TLS implementations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

The primary topic for "secure transport" on google seems to be patient transport, especially for mental health patients while on Wikipedia most of the hits relate to various computer networking cryptography protocals (I don't think they're all TLS, but I'm not sure). Also on google are hits related to the transport of valuables (Armored car (valuables) seems to be where this is covered on Wikipedia) and secure warehousing. I think a disambiguation page might be best here, but I'd like other opinions. Secure transport doesn't currently exist. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nom is a conflation of two separate WP:PRIMARYTOPICs per WP:DIFFCAPS we distinguish between caps, so the two topics here are:
  • The primary topic for "secure transport" sounds plausible per Thryduulf, although there's no mention currently at Patient transport, but a lowercase redirect could be made anyhow. Sounds good.
  • "The primary topic for "Secure Transport" is Apple's Secure Transport, which is correctly listed at the current target Comparison of TLS implementations. No change needed. Widefox; talk 12:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. No to a disambiguation page at this point, as hatnotes aren't even needed yet, and if/when the above lowercase redirect is created then hatnotes on both are enough. Currently the lowercase would not be eligible for an entry in a dab page as there's no WP:DABMENTION. Widefox; talk 16:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 12:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Widefox. Disambiguate with a hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all. No hatnote needed to Patient transport as it has nothing about secure transportion, and the hatnote will be confusing at best. Add a hatnote to Armored car (valuables), which is also the target of Security van. Jay 💬 15:27, 2 March 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. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Tuesday, September 11, 2001 8:46 a.m → September 11 attacks  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Seems confusing, probably either delete or retarget to Flight 11. GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral, probably unlikely for anyone to type out this exact date in this order with this level of accuracy, pinpointed down to the minute of impact (what about 8:45 or 8:47 for those who don't know?), to the point where this likely isn't a good practice to do with redirects. But on the other hand, the specificity present makes it hard to confuse or conflict with anything else, so I'm not sure. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 21:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:RTYPO and MOS:DATECOMMA; missing both a comma after the year and the period at the end of "a.m." PleaseStand (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We do not require people to be familiar with our manual of style before being able to find the article they want to read. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The title already seems to be a relatively unlikely search term (or link target) given how specific it is, and I think the missing punctuation marks (not just one, but two of them) make it even less likely. The guideline that there should be a comma after the year is not specific to Wikipedia; see Comma#Uses in English. Regardless, I don't feel like arguing over this. PleaseStand (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 11:37, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wholly implausable search term. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep entirely harmless and approximately accurate. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely implausible search term. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No possible way for someone to search it up exactly like this and especially in this format (including the day (Tuesday) and the exact time (8:46 a.m.) as well). StaleGuy22AlternateAccount (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The title in this form is highly unlikely be linked to or found with a search, and the pageviews seem to reflect that. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 07:04, 26 February 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 ElWiki and Wiki-site, Delete EditThis and Referata. Jay 💬 13:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• EditThis.info → Wiki hosting service  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• ElWikiElWiki → Wiki hosting service  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Referata → Wiki hosting service  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ]
• Wiki-siteWiki-site → Wiki hosting service  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

These specific wiki farms are not mentioned in the article any more. Here are a few relevant diffs:

• Addition of EditThis.info (both reverted and restored on the day of the article's second AfD nomination)
• Addition of ElWiki, and the prior addition to the Wikibooks page cited in the edit summary
• Addition of Wiki-site
• Removal of EditThis.info, ElWiki, and Wiki-site, and the subsequent revert
• Second removal of ElWiki
• Second removal of EditThis.info and Wiki-Site (one of two section edits, and also note that several reverts back and forth followed, see the article talk page)
• Later addition of EditThis.info
• Later addition of Referata and Wiki-site immediately before those two redirects were created
• Removal of Wiki-site
• Removal of EditThis.info and Referata

Especially as some of the removed content that formed the basis for creating these redirects may have been self-promotional, I propose that they be deleted, with some possible exceptions: Wiki-site could be retargeted to Wiki, and ElWiki to Greek Wikipedia (same target as elwiki). PleaseStand (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• And to elaborate on the "self-promotional" part, the user who added EditThis.info to the Wikipedia article, and then to the Wikibooks page, did indeed claim on his user page that he runs the site. I should probably also note that I made a few changes to the diff links in the nomination; I forgot to include a few of them and described some others incorrectly. PleaseStand (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget/Delete per nom. --timrem (talk) 17:05, 20 February 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. Jay 💬 12:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Governor General of Nazi Germany → Adolf Hitler  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No such title. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I cannot find evidence that Hitler has ever been referred to by this title. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per Presidentman 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per both Cremastra and Presidentman. StaleGuy22AlternateAccount (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above editors' findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above rationale - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 04:28, 22 February 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Toadette ^{(Let's discuss together!)} 12:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Kansas City shooting → 2024 Kansas City shooting  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Double redirect that is also highly ambiguous as there have been other shootings in Kansas City. 172.85.251.42 (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Keep, or retarget to Kansas City massacre, but do NOT delete. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with a hatnote. The current target is clearly the primary topic at the moment. Looking at google results from before the parade the primary topic was Shooting of Ralph Yarl, followed by a shooting at Crown Center mall that doesn't even merit a mention on that article, and then random other gun violence that we don't have articles about. The 1933 massacre doesn't appear in the first 4 pages of google hits. When the news cycle for the 2024 shooting has completely concluded we can look again at what the primary topic is between that and the Ralph Yarl shooting, but at the moment it is speculation to say it will not be the 2024 event. The massacre would be a good entry on a dab page iff there is no primary topic between the 2022 and 2024 events (but only merits a hatnote otherwise) but none of the other articles in Category:Crime in Kansas City, Missouri or Category:Mass shootings in Missouri would justify a place on a dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - Thanks, agreed. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh saying it will be the primary topic is just as much speculation as saying it won’t, so that argument can’t be effectively used. Also, the 1933 massacre not appearing is likely to be WP:RECENTISM, so does need to be considered.50.225.13.170 (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The 2024 event is the primary topic at the moment, it is speculation to say that will change - it is presumed that the status quo will remain the status quo in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Why the 1933 massacre isn't appearing isn't really relevant to the question we're discussing here - all that matters is that it very clearly is not the thing most people are looking for when they use this search term so this redirect shouldn't point there. Thryduulf (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The target is currently subject to a Requested Move discussion (see here). There is some discussion there of moving the article to this redirect (though it's not the main discussion) so I think best to speedy keep this for now to let that discussion run its course first. A7V2 (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - Are you sure? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:38, 23 February 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 WGTM. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• WGTM (AM)WGTM (AM) → WGTM (Spindale, North Carolina)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

In this topic area, the "(AM)" silent disambiguator (and equivalents for other broadcast services) is used for a primary-ish topic (when there is another or no primary topic). Currently-operating stations are nearly always assumed to be primary or at least primary-ish; defunct stations in the same service get other disambiguators as warranted. Both the Spindale station and WGTM (Wilson, North Carolina) were AM stations, and are both defunct, so both now have geographic disambiguators — and "WGTM (AM)" is, at least until another AM takes the call sign, now incomplete disambiguation. The best course of action may be to retarget to WGTM as an {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to WGTM per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to WGTM. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:48, 24 February 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 WGTM. (non-admin closure) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:49, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• WGTM (defunct)WGTM (defunct) → WGTM (Wilson, North Carolina)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

This disambiguator is itself ambigous; WGTM (Spindale, North Carolina) is also defunct. (This is a large part of why "defunct" is no longer used as a disambiguator for broadcast station articles.) This should probably be retargeted to WGTM as an {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to WGTM per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 11:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per above rationale - 🐲 Jo the fire dragon 🐉(talk|contributions) 04:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to WGTM. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:48, 24 February 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).