This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 22, 2019.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 1#SFormula
- 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. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
05:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
WP:FORRED, no reason to have the German name for the country. signed,
Rosguill
talk
23:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
05:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
Internet search doesn't indicate that this term has any usage, neither does the page history. signed,
Rosguill
talk
22:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Google Pakislam and you will get intense results for Pakistan.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Pakislam
Barracuda41 (
talk)
00:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
SURPRISE! signed,
Rosguill
talk
22:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Well, its official name is Islamic Republic of Pakistan and even its flag has the Islam sign and color green and its capital is Islamabad, which proves it even further. So by definition it's Pakislam. I could also do Afghanislam, Turkmenislam, Uzbekislam, Tajikislam but I probably won't because they are rather misspellings.
Barracuda41 (
talk)
23:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- That doesn't make any sense at all.
Thryduulf (
talk)
10:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Fine. Islamic Republic of Pakistan is where Pakislam comes from. It's also easy to do so since istan and islam are similar.
Barracuda41 (
talk)
16:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- In that case, should we have
Germafed point at the
Federal Republic of Germany? signed,
Rosguill
talk
16:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- @
Barracuda41: I understand how you constructed the neologisms, what doesn't make sense is why you think this makes it a good redirect. Christianity is the official religion of Argentina, should therefore
Christentina,
Christiantina or
Christina redirect to
Argentina? What about
Liechtianity →
Liechtenstein?
Cambuddhism →
Cambodia? These are all identically constructed neologisms.
Thryduulf (
talk)
11:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Yeah but Pakislam and Pakistan both have 8 letters and Pakislam only changes 2 letters in Pakistan. Besides, Liechtenstein has no official religion, nor does Cambodia, let alone Argentina, while Pakistan
DOES. And Pakislam and Pakistan still rhyme. P.S. If
Islambul redirects to
Istanbul why doesn't my redirect work ????
Barracuda41 (
talk)
19:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Islambul is explained in the article - see
Istanbul#Islambol - I'll refine the redirect to point to that section. Absolutely nothing else in your comment is at all relevant to the redirect - "Pakislam" is a
neologism not an established term for the target - see
WP:NEO and most pertinently
WP:R#DELETE point 8, "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful."
Thryduulf (
talk)
00:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- If you read the above, it's not entirely a neologism because Google gives you results for pakistan if you google pakislam.
Barracuda41 (
talk)
02:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- What do you mean derogatory? It is NOT derogatory and everyone knows that. Besides it's more like a misspelling and it's allowed to be redirected because again Pakistan's official name mentions Islam.
Barracuda41 (
talk)
19:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- For it to be reached with spelling typos, letters l and t would have to be as close as letters m and n, otherwise the argument devolves down to- there are some people in the world who know "paki"s (a well established racist slur) are from an islamic country and so, when they hear pakistan, they will send their ears on holiday and just assume the name of the country is "pakislam", and we need to have a redirect so that those people have a jolly comfortable time in wikipedia.
Usedtobecool
✉️
✨
12:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Identity based provinces of Nepal
- 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. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
05:26, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
The Category that this was pointing to,
Category:Identity based provinces of Nepal was merged into the current target. At this point, I think that having this redirect from the mainspace to the current target is contrary to
WP:SURPRISE. signed,
Rosguill
talk
19:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: The title is wholly inappropriate. I assumed the category discussion's merge meant the articles that populated the category were to be categorised into the proper category (the target of the merge). After that's been done, no reason not to kill it for good.
Usedtobecool
✉️
✨
20:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 1#Migthy the Armadillo
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 1#C22H33N3O6
- 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. Clear agreement that this misspelling is plausible enough to warrant a keep.
(non-admin closure)
ComplexRational (
talk)
16:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
Non-existent word, the Italian name is Alleanza Nazionale, this is an obvious mistake, it should be deleted.
Wololoo (
talk)
13:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
05:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
Too vague to redirect to this article in particular. See also: Naruto.
ZXCVBNM (
TALK)
12:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete or disambig. The most prominent single use seems to be
The Fox Boy, a book by
Peter Walker (author) about
Ngataua Omahuru but we don't have an article about the book or the author, nor is there any mention in the biography we do have other than being used as a reference (and it's also used as a reference in at least two other articles). We do have a few sentences on and an image of a statue by this name at
Menstrie#Recreation, but while that would be enough for a disambiguation page entry or hatnote it's not the primary topic by a long way. Fox Boy and Fox Girls are two background, non-speaking, characters mentioned at
The Mysteries of Alfred Hedgehog#Russard family but that's even more obscure. While Tails (character) does get referred to as a fox boy in a few fanfictions, as far as I can tell it's not a name for him or more common than for him than for any other young male fox in furry (fan)fiction.
Thryduulf (
talk)
13:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Probably best to have Wikipedia's search function help out our readers with this one.
Steel1943 (
talk)
13:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete no such article although
Category:Anthropomorphic foxes might be helpful.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
15:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per above --
Lenticel (
talk)
01:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
05:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
Overly vague sci-fi concept to redirect here.
ZXCVBNM (
TALK)
12:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Full List of Sonic the Hedgehog characters and Items
- 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. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
05:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
Delete per
WP:GAMEGUIDE.
ZXCVBNM (
TALK)
12:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
05:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
Too vague to redirect to this specific character.
ZXCVBNM (
TALK)
12:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
05:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
It just says Commander in Japanese, too vague to be a redirect here. Delete per
WP:FORRED for the actual
Commander page.
ZXCVBNM (
TALK)
12:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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 speedy disambiguate. Withdrawn by nom; per
WP:SNOW consensus to disambiguate the page.
(non-admin closure)
ZXCVBNM (
TALK)
03:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
An overly vague redirect to be directed to this article.
ZXCVBNM (
TALK)
12:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete all. Unclear this is would be what a reader with this search term would be looking for. Mythological or religious entities could be plausible. --
LukeSurl
t
c
12:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Recommend a disambig page per LukeSurl's last point.
Perses (Titan) and
Shiva are both described as gods of destruction on their articles. It's not quite the same as
war god and "destruction" as such doesn't seem to be a common enough association for an entire article about it, so a disambig might work best. —
Nizolan (
talk ·
c.)
16:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Disambig per Nizolan. In addition to those they list and the current target, there is
Beerus (a character from Dragon Ball),
Batara Kala (Javanese and Balinese) and
Nergal (from ancient Mesopotamia) are both clearly described in our articles as being gods of destruction.
Erra (god) (Akkadian),
Typon (Greek) and
Set (deity) (Egyptian) don't use the exact phrase in the article but should be listed.
Trillion: God of Destruction, a Japanese roleplaying video game merits at least a see-also, I'm not sure about
Loki or
List of Marvel Comics characters: A#Abraxas.
Thryduulf (
talk)
18:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Batara Kala and Nergal definitely belong there. I'm not sure about the others. Ironically, Set is only described as a god of destruction on Typhon's page! They and Erra fit a general bill of "gods of bad stuff", but might be more appropriately listed elsewhere. Set and Typhon are already listed at
Chaos gods, which I included in the See also. --
BDD (
talk)
18:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Beerus definitely should be there as well since he has directly been called a god of destruction.--
64.229.166.98 (
talk)
18:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Disambiguate I had started a short disambiguation page, and Thryduulf has given me many suggestions to add. We may want to tweak it into a list suitable for inclusion at
Category:Lists of deities. --
BDD (
talk)
18:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Dabify per Thryduulf and BDD --
Lenticel (
talk)
01:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Dabify as above. This is more helpful. If the Sonic one explicitly uses the title per
MOS:DABMENTION then you can add that.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
15:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Shiva, the Hindu god of destruction.
Nyttend (
talk)
22:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The phrase God of Destruction does not appear in the article not is there any evidence that Shiva is the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this term. The dab page is the better option.--
64.229.166.98 (
talk)
02:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, I don't know why Shiva would take priority over all the other ones people have turned up here. "Destruction" is mentioned as one of many titles in the Shiva article. —
Nizolan (
talk ·
c.)
02:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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 all. There is broad consensus that none of these redirects should be deleted. Alternative targets have been suggested for some of them and editors are encouraged to retarget these boldly as they see fit.
Deryck
C.
15:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
(cat) is not a proper disambiguation for a fictional character, and is confusing. The same applies to (echidna) and the others.
ZXCVBNM (
TALK)
12:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. These are accurate because they are referred to as those animal species within their respective fictional universes. It is not necessary to add fictional because they are not confused with any notable real life animals by these names. --
Tavix (
talk)
16:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: I added
Vector (crocodile) to the nomination. My "Weak keep" rationale still applies.
Steel1943 (
talk)
19:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- I only have specific concerns about "Big (Cat)" and "Big (cat)". I could see a reader searching for them looking for
Big cat, i.e., "What's 'big' in the context of cats?" --
BDD (
talk)
19:41, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep all, except for Big (cat), which should be retargeted to
Big cat (disambiguation). The former is per LukeSurl, while on the latter, I think it almost seems like the perfect split, as in I can see people searching for the character, or
Big cat.
James-the-Charizard (
talk)
21:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
- Keep all; nomination doesn't make sense, as it's entirely plausible that someone who finds that
Rouge is not about the bat will try to place (bat) after the character's name. Let's keep the big cats too, since this nomination is problematic; we can always start a new RFD on them later.
Nyttend (
talk)
01:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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.
Deryck
C.
15:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
The film did not release in 2017 and has been shelved.
Kailash29792
(talk)
09:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 11#Call of Duty 4 (Beta)
- 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 Χmas, delete the other two. --
Tavix (
talk)
00:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
Even more inappropriate mixed-script redirects. Greek letters have been underlined and bolded for convenience. –
LaundryPizza03 (
d
c̄)
06:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep "Χmas" per above. Keep "Οros Αthos" as this gets a surprising amount of hits in a variety of independent uses, so it's seems plausible for someone to copy and paste it. Delete "ΥENED" as this gets essentially no uses outside this redirect and derivatives.
Thryduulf (
talk)
11:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- (week) keep Xmas, as per the previous arguments, the mixed script has some meaning. Delete the other two. -
Nabla (
talk)
00:19, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 8#Force of law
- 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. --
BDD (
talk)
02:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
I redirected this last year to
Godawari Municipality on the basis of
this erroneous PROD (which if carried out would have caused
WP:ATTREQ problems).
Godawari Municipality was subsequently moved to
Godawari, Lalitpur. I now see, however, that
Lalitpur_District,_Nepal#Administrative division lists
Godawari Municipality and
Bagmati Rural Municipality as separate administrative divisions, suggesting that Godawari cannot be in Bagmati. This seems to have to do with the establishment in 2015 of the
Provinces of Nepal: Godawari may have been in the now-defunct
Bagmati Zone (though that article doesn't say it was) but is not in the
Bagmati Rural Municipality, itself established in 2017. In short, I'm not entirely sure what's happened here, or what's correct, or how to find out, but having created the redirect I feel a degree of responsibility and would appreciate others' input.
WP:ATTREQ still applies, so deletion is probably not an option here, but if the current target is inaccurate a new one will have to be found. –
Arms & Hearts (
talk)
13:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep
Bagmati, Lalitpur is a rural municipality in Lalitpur District established in 2017. Godawari is in Lalitpur District, a part of now-defunct Bagmati zone. Godawari municipality and Bagmati Rural Municipality are local levels in Lalitpur District.
Arms & Hearts, I think you little confused.
~SS49~
{talk}
14:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- comment Previously a lot of local levels were followed by zonal names in article title. Now all are moved to replace zonal name by district name.
~SS49~
{talk}
14:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- I'm more than happy to admit that I'm confused! So the gist is that "Godawari, Bagmati" is no longer strictly accurate, but is a plausible search term because Godawari was previously in
Bagmati Zone? In that case, can we add a mention of this to the article? Otherwise the redirect strikes me as potentially confusing, especially given the existence of a new entity called Bagmati that Godawari isn't part of. –
Arms & Hearts (
talk)
14:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, Godawari was previously in
Bagmati Zone. I'll mention it in the article.
~SS49~
{talk}
14:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- It can be deleted or be kept. Either would be fine. Previously, the full address of someone in Godawari would have been "[community], Godawari VDC - ward no. [#], Lalitpur district, Bagmati zone, Central Development Region, Nepal". As such, for example weather, map or travel websites would pick "Godawari, [one of the three], Nepal" so, all combinations of the above would have been valid redirects. People actually familiar would look for Godawari first (could lead to a ton of other places), then they'd try Godawari, Nepal or Godawari, Lalitpur. People unfamiliar would have tried Godawari, Bagmati, as well which is as valid of an argument today as it was then. Zonal divisions were always defunct (had offices but didn't do anything) but they were used in addresses in good measure. The current address format is "[Community], Godawari Municipality - ward no. [#], Lalitpur district, Province no. 3, Nepal. But, putting "Bagmati zone" between district and province is still not invalid. Since we have a new Bagmati rural municipality, now Bagmati has to be disambiguated to Zone, River and Rural Municipality. But, whenever, one mentions Godawari, Bagmati, it's clear from context it means Godawari municipality, Bagmati zone. As far as the usefulness of a redirect goes, those people who'd have searched for Godawari, Bagmati are still likely to search for it, those that wouldn't have still won't. Regardless of the validity, the demographic that the redirect services hasn't changed, as internationally, the administrative restructuring has yet to be noticed, and even if it were, I wouldn't expect them to change anything to reflect it, as in practicality, the restructuring has little to no impact. So, it's as valid as it was before. It's also as invalid as it was before. It's also as useful and as useless as it was before. I haven't heard of a smaller place named "Godawari" in Bagmati rural municipality. If and when it turns out there's another Godawari there, we can redirect it to there. Otherwise, there's no problem. So, keep it; or remove it as you wish. I'd still expect some website out there to have "Godawari, Bagmati, Nepal" in there database though. Whatever you do, probably a good idea to fix that circular redirect though.
Usedtobecool
✉️
✨
14:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
- 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. --
BDD (
talk)
02:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned in the target, I can't figure out what the connection is between this redirect and the target. signed,
Rosguill
talk
13:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Draft:Bring Your Own Device
- 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. Consensus is now clear, so closing prior to the new 7-day cycle per
WP:RELIST.
(non-admin closure)
Steel1943 (
talk)
19:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
WP:XNR with no internal links, result of a page move on 4 April 2019 by
User:Bradv to
User:FlippyFlink/Bring Your Own Device which itself now redirects to mainspace (content fork, according to EC by
User:Legacypac later on same day). Incidentally, there are caps difference on "Your Own Device", but fortunately
Draft:Bring your own device is red (I haven't checked for other combinations outside of mainspace).
94.21.252.162 (
talk)
11:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, we keep Draft redirects after moves typically.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}
03:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
Do we? I couldn't find anything that says that we should or shouldn't. I would have thought this is dealt with on a case-by-case basis depending on internal links, e.g. from talk pages. Although I can't find anything to say so, I presume that external sites shouldn't be linking to draft articles expecting them to be stable. But even if we do generally keep draft links as redirects, this is a little more complicated because it was moved from user space, then back again, so really it's a vestige of those moves and nothing more.
94.21.252.162 (
talk)
03:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- (Struck part of mine out above, consensus is documented at
WP:RDRAFT.)
94.21.252.162 (
talk)
04:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 7#Feynmanium Element 137