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. ✗plicit 23:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Dim Bastards → No. 617 Squadron RAF  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

No mention in article. Quick online search didn't enlighten. Widefox; talk 23:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insulting redirect without any apparent connection Traumnovelle (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete punning play on the Sqn's nickname "Dambusters" but there's no evidence for this usage so it might just be an attempt at a joke. No claim was made when the redirect was set up. I don't think we need it. DBaK (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google search could only find results on Reddit calling other things apart from RAF No. 17 "Dim Bastards" User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 02:48, 23 February 2025 (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. ✗plicit 23:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Traditional architecture → Vernacular architecture  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

These aren't the same thing, the lead clearly defines what that is and traditional architecture can encompass revival styles, which aren't vernacular. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2025 (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. ✗plicit 00:04, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• L10n (disambiguation) → Localization  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Seems like an implausible search for its current target. L10n (without "disambiguation") currently redirects to Language localisation and the current target of this redirect is ambiguous. Cannot trigger G14 as the target IS a disambiguation page. And if this gets retargeted to the same target as L10n (without "disambiguation"), then it would trigger G14. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "L10N" means word that starts with L and ends with N with 10 letters in-between. If we take this literally, all terms with that are LxxxxxxxxxxN would be applicable, not just LocalizatioN. L1234567890N, as it does say "(disambiguation)" -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  but there are other words that it could mean then Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No. "L10n" means "localization", with "10" referring to "ocalizatio". That it refers to any other word is just an unsubstantiated claim. If you believe otherwise, then find sources supporting your claim. Paradoctor (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to language localization. Paradoctor (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Then that would trigger WP:G14 for speedy deletion as a redirect ending in "disambiguation" whose target is neither a disambiguation page nor a page that performs a disambiguation-like function. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, right. Slippery little disambiguator, that. Paradoctor (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is no dab page at L10n, so this redirect is misleading. Dab pages are for terms, not meanings.

  Note: I'll redirect L10n to Internationalization and localization. While I can see "localization" being used to mean "language localization", that is a mistake, as "localization" is a proper hypernym of "language localization", so this usage is generally ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradoctor (talk • contribs) 02:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete L10n isn't a DAB page, and using @CyberTheTiger / 65.92's assumption that L10n means LITERALLY any terms that are LxxxxxxxxxN would mean WP:PTM at best and WP:ASTONISHING at worst User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 02:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and put a hatnote at Internationalization and localization: {{redirect|L10n|another use|Language localisation}}. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2025 (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 British military vehicle markings of World War II#Allied star. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Allied starAllied star → United States military vehicle markings of World War II  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Equally appropriate for several other pages, see e.g. discussion of the subject at British military vehicle markings of World War II. Also, most common usage seems to be mispelling the company Alliedstar, which we don't have an article for. Rusalkii (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Allied Stars and hatnote the other topics -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• It would be nice if this got turned into a (short?) article. Retagging it with {{R with possibilities}} seems appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on retargeting to Allied Stars?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the suggested target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retag with {{R with possibilities}} as it is a very likely article subject. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to British military vehicle markings of World War II#Allied star, which is the only place in English Wikipedia which defines what an "Allied star" is and what it looks like, as compared to the current target which doesn't even mention the Allies at all. Tag {{R with possibilities}} per above. Don't retarget to any companies whose correct names are distinguished by WP:SMALLDETAILS. 59.149.117.119 (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A new target suggestion has come up.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to British military vehicle markings of World War II#Allied star I'm fine with tagging it as a {{R with possibilities}}, but, for now, we might as well target the article where the term is defined. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:25, 22 February 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 21:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Attempted takeover of US federal agencies by Elon MuskAttempted takeover of US federal agencies by Elon Musk → Department of Government Efficiency entry into US federal buildings  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Elon Musk's activities are not a "takeover of US federal agencies". If anything, he's looking to remove them. IMO, unlikely to be useful in the future. Delete. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's referred to as a takeover by several news articles (see, e.g. [1], [2], and [3]). Thus, I think it is a plausible search term. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per reason 4 of WP:RFD#KEEP "Deleting redirects runs the risk of breaking incoming or internal links. Redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason." //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 23:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as it appears to be an opinion piece. GoodDay (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speefu keep Snokalok (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I also found this term being used in diverse places including Fox News: [4] and this article on ABC News repeatedly uses the words "takeover" or "take over" [5], again for USA Today [6]. Lizard Commissioner (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is another example of why I think Wikipedia should have a 6 week - 6 month period where editors have to wait to add an event to an article. The regularly sensational language of news media is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

Big Thumpus (talk) 04:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per Lollipop and redirects need not be neutral. Gotitbro (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep It's a redirect, not the title of the article. Needs to be kept so as not to break links. The original link is already one of the top posts of all time on the Wikipedia subreddit. Internetronic (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it being popular on the Wikipedia subreddit holds any weight here ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 22:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep: Plausible search term given its usage in sources. TarnishedPath^talk 06:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as it is misleading. Make no mistake about it, this is Mr. Trump attempting to takeover federal agencies, because there is more than one agency involved, and Musk is not involved in taking over all of them, as this re-direct implies. Just look at Trump's cabinet nominations: Kennedy, Gabbard, Hegseth, Patel, Duffy, McMahon, Noem, etc. etc. etc. - they are aiding Trump in his desire to take over those agencies and/or departments. At this point, Musk's involvement is limited to a select few, and doesn't encompass all federal agencies, which this re-direct implies. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the destination article has been moved to Department of Government Efficiency, so this is now a double redirect. That said, I think we should delete the redirect because it uses WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:CONTENTIOUS language in violation of WP:NPOV. Carguychris (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clear NPOV violation, double redirect ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 22:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A double redirect isn't a reason to delete. It can just be pointed to the new article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep: Agree with the above rationales; this is how the actions are being framed and discussed in the news, so the search utility has merit, among other jusitifications. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, even if it was non-neutral to some extent, that is not a reason to remove a redirect from a plausible search term (Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pretty clearly PoV. Not really a plausible search term imo either. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. NPOV alone isn't a reason to delete non-neutral redirects (WP:RNEUTRAL) and given that reliable sources repeatedly use variations of the phrase, it seems appropriate enough. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The redirect target at the time of the nomination was in turn redirected to Department of Government Efficiency#Actions within federal government post midway the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 16:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is a WP:NPOV violation (opinion as fact). Kaito-san (talk/contribs) 17:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Convincing arguments have been given that this is a plausible search term (keep), and that it is contentiously worded (delete). To pass WP:NPOV, further discussion needs to show whether including this redirect gives due or undue WP:WEIGHT to the perspective represented by this wording. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per WP:RNEUTRAL, this is a non-neutral, but verifiable redirect, which should remain and be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}. StainedGlassCavern (talk) 15:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep being POV is not a reason to delete a redirect. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:46, 24 February 2025 (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. As there was no support for keeping at the current target of Varieties of Arabic, retargeting to Mashriqi Arabic as a compromise. Jay 💬 21:30, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Sharqi ArabicSharqi Arabic → Varieties of Arabic#Regional varieties  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned at target. "Sharqi" is apparently a romanisation of the Arabic word for "eastern", so maybe it could be retargeted to the DAB page Eastern Arabic. — Anonymous 23:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should be a rd to Mashriqi Arabic, which did not exist when I created this.

Though there are no incoming links, there are a couple hits on Gbooks from the 2010's that contrast Sharqi dialects and Maghrebi dialects. — kwami (talk) 23:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notified of this discussion at the proposed and suggested targets.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 09:49, 22 February 2025 (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. ✗plicit 14:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Junkers Ju 53 → Junkers A 35  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

For reasons listed in this discussion, this redirect appears to have been made in error. While there almost certainly was a Ju 53, the few sources that mention it state that it was a "twin-engined reconnaissance aircraft", while the A35 was a single-engined aircraft. The confusion likely arose because Junkers built a variant of the A 35 called the K 53. ZLEA _T\^C 04:45, 22 February 2025 (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 💬 22:12, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Canadian Oak → American chestnut  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Delete. I can't find any evidence that "Canadian oak" refers to American chestnut (thefreedictionary.com scrapes Wikipedia). From what I can find, "Canadian oak" is oak wood sourced from Canada, often used for making barrels in alcoholic beverage production. Canadian oak wood may be from Quercus alba (this is generally considered one of the best species for barrel making), but there are some websites that mention Quercus rubra as being a source of Canadian oak. Plantdrew (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After a short search I cannot find a source either. The species is planted very locally in South Africa as a street tree, and then appears to be known by the name "Canadian oak". It was introduced to me by that name, but the person who did so died during covid, so I cannot check with him either. It may be a commercial name, or a name that is suppressed to avoid confusion. You may delete. JMK (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I think the closest would be a oak timber industry entry at Forestry in Canada but it doesn't exist now. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate – this phrase is used [7] [8] [9] and may lead readers to the not-unreasonable assumption that there is a tree species known as the "Canadian oak". There are several oak species found in Canada [10] and these can be listed on the DAB page as they could all be referred to as "Canadian oak". Cremastra (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is used, but disambiguating the potential sources of a product of a particular national origin doesn't make much sense to me. The phrase "Canadian oil" is used, but it would be silly to disambiguate the oil companies or oil fields in Canada where Canadian oil might come from. Plantdrew (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 13:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of trees of Canada, which has a list of oaks. Paradoctor (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Plantdrew, JMK, Lenticel, and Cremastra: what do you think? (not just about Paradoctor's proposal.) it's lio! | talk | work 14:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I stand by my nomination to delete this. It's not a common name for American chestnut, nor any oak species (or even a common name shared by multiple oak species). It only appears on the internet as phrase denoting a particular national origin of oak wood and there really isn't an article to redirect it to that covers that sense. I understand it appears like it could be a common name for one or more oak species, but I don't think Wikipedia needs to cover redirects for every descriptive phrase that could be misunderstood to have a specific meaning. Plantdrew (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment still delete. I get where the new proposals are coming from but I think they aren't enough to keep this redirect --Lenticel ^(talk) 23:44, 4 March 2025 (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 ISNT. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• IsntIsnt → Illinois Soil Nitrogen Test  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

With these caps, far more likely to be a mispelling of Isn't. Rusalkii (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' There was a previous RFD for this redirect at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_30#Isnt so it can't be closed as "retarget" I was wrong. See WP:CCC. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 01:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say it "can't" be closed as retarget? I'm pretty sure anything is possible if community consensus has changed. Nonetheless, I personally don't believe that it should be retargeted, as "isn't" doesn't exist as a redirect (probably for the best). I would say just delete to avoid confusion (with keeping at the current target a secondary option). — Anonymous 02:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Someone-123-321: WP:CCC states otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ah User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 02:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the ISNT dab page Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 03:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget - Agreed with Cyber / RemoveRedSky ^{[talk] [gb]} 15:24, 24 February 2025 (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. ✗plicit 14:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Clayton Ray Huff → Dream (YouTuber)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Maybe this Youtuber's full name, but it isn't mentioned in the article and I don't think there's high-quality sourcing to add it, so there's a WP:BLP concern as well. Rusalkii (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2025 (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. ✗plicit 14:32, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Felix Arvid Of Shellberg → PewDiePie  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Unlikely translation(?) of this youtuber's real name, not used anywhere except wikipedia. Rusalkii (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2025 (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. ✗plicit 14:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Tau Ursae MinorisTau Ursae Minoris → RR Ursae Minoris  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: //delete ] 

Not mentioned in the target page. 21 Andromedae (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It is now mentioned. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned as a name for RR UMi on Simbad or VSX site. PopePompus (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that SIMBAD sometimes omits some old designations originating in Flamsteed, Bayer, Gould naming systems. If I'm looking at some 19th or 18th century work with these designations, they don't show up when I try to look it up in SIMBAD. -- 65.92.246.77 (talk) 05:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @21.Andromedae: What do you think? Jay 💬 08:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems to be a lost designation that is no longer in use. 21 Andromedae (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep since it is now mentioned, though the source appears to be a selfpub. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While there's a few comments, there doesn't seem to be a strong consensus here. I think this could benefit from further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:05, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 22 February 2025 (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).