Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 6

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

June 6 edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 6, 2017.

Tylognathus (disambiguation) edit

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. 14:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect claims to be a redirect to a disambiguation page, but its target is not a disambiguation page. Instead its an article about the Obsolete taxon Tylognathus. Since there is no disambiguation page involved, this redirect is inappropriate. HighFlyingFish (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6, as is commonly done with this type of redirect. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I withdraw my previous comment. SIAs are an exception and I overlooked this. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not speedy delete. This is more complex than it might first appear, as the target page comprises a short explanation/introduction followed by a list of 34 taxa that were formerly placed here, when the redirect was created (by a bot) in 2010 this version of the article was current and was tagged as a disambiguation page. That tag was removed by Tortie tude in 2013 with this edit summarised "unlink invalid names" (Tortie tude's last edit was in 2014). Other than that unlinking and a rephrasing of the introduction, the page is basically the same as it was when labelled as a disambig. Essentially the article is a set index of species that were formerly classified as Tylognathus. There was a big discussion a few months back about whether (disambiguation) redirects pointing to set indicies were a good thing or not, I'm generally in favour of them as (imo) they can aid navigation but not everybody shared my view. I don't recall that this discussion reached consensus, but I can't immediately find it to check. Whether this redirect is useful or not I am uncertain about at the moment (I need to do more investigation when I'm fully awake), but it should not be speedily deleted before people have had the opportunity to opine. Thryduulf (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Target is a SIA that is functionally very similar to a DAB. There is no need to punish users who know that Tylognathus referred to more than one thing and search for this term as a result because there is some additional text at the target page.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia has numerous articles about genera. Some like this one Allogalathea are very much like the Tylognathus article: lists of species that belong (or in the case of Tylognathus, belonged) to it, with little context. Others like Epalzeorhynchos are have been expanded to be significantly more informative. Regardless, these are not DAB pages. They are articles about genuses. We wouldn't have redirects like Epalzeorhynchos (disambiguation) for each one. That would make literally millions of needless redirects. Tylognathus is not a DAB page, it is a page about an obsolete genus, listing species that were formerly within that genus. People might search it because they encounter it in an old reference work. I don't think anyone would ever search "Tylognathus (disambiguation)". If anyone has actually made that search please say so. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While Tylognathus might qualify as a set index, it bears little resemblance to a valid disambiguation page. Redirects to a disambiguation page are created for a single purpose, which is to mark intentional links to a disambiguation page because by definition ALL links to a disambiguation page that are not so marked are mistaken links. Keeping redirects such as this only dilutes this utility and furthers the confusion about the distinction between set index pages and disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 16:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tylognathus isn't actually a set index or a disambiguation page (although it was improperly tagged as a dab at one point). It's a low quality article about a genus that isn't currently accepted by taxonomists, with a list of formerly included species. I don't think that articles on non-accepted taxa are generally a good idea; redirects to the accepted taxon are usually more appropriate (which would be Bangana in this case). However, as the Bangana article doesn't account for all of the former Tylognathus species, I support retaining an article for Tylognathus essentially for navigational purposes. Even if it's navigational, that doesn't make it a dab. Plantdrew (talk) 04:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Plantdrew. -- Tavix (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Plantdrew as the target is nowhere near resembling a dab page. – Uanfala 11:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

CSS filter edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 24#CSS filter

Bound monster edit

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 restore article at Bound monster and retarget Bound Monster there. The latter is not explicitly stated but is the clear implication of those arguing for restoring the article. This is without prejudice to an AfD if anyone desires. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of monsters in mythology and fiction who are bound in some way. This title started off describing a trope in Norse mythology, of which Fenrir is an example, but it looks like it was original research. The term is ambiguous and a "novel or obscure synonym" at best for Fenrir. --BDD (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague. Books mostly use it in a general sense like "captured monster" or Bind or Physical restraints. And there isn't a monster called a bound. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article to this revision. It's not OR, but a very good summary of the two-page entry in Lindow's reference text. If it's perceived as unencyclopedic, then AfD is the way to go. – Uanfala 21:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lindow's text: [1] Note that Lindow applies this to multiple characters in Norse Mythology, with Loki being the most famous. It's still in the context of a captured monster, imprisoned monster or chained monster but specific to that they will be freed at the time of Ragnarok. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't notice there was a reference there. It was misplaced, so I saw the navbox and assumed that was the end. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: Having looked at the predecessor version, it seems to me to be a big fat pile of original research. If someone can find an academic source that talks about this as a motif, then yes, I would go for the restoration; as it stands, it has the appearance of something someone made up one day. Seyasirt (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seyasirt, see the comment immediately above. – Uanfala 18:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • revert to previous version per above discussion. Seyasirt (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

WarII edit

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 Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness. -- Tavix (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to refer to WW2. Note that it previously redirected to Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness. --Nevé–selbert 19:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I remember, back in the day, when Warcraft 2 was an A-list game, and people used to call it "War 2". - Richard Cavell (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Warcraft II, as more likely search target. Add redirects here in case anyone really wants to find World War 2. Note War3 goes to Warcraft while War 3 goes to another video game, but WarIII and War III do not exist. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

WW@ edit

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) – Uanfala 13:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this redirect is plausible. --Nevé–selbert 19:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I suppose this could be a typo from holding the shift key down. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This got over a thousand hits last year, and 27 last month. I think the typo (on American keyboard layouts, the British equivalent is WW") is the most likely reason for the hits. The only other consistent use Google finds is mentions of an abbreviation for the slang "Where we at?" ("where are we?", "what is the current state of play?"), but any coverage of that is Wiktionary's domain not ours and they don't have entries for wikt:ww@ or wikt:where we at. Thryduulf (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Easily explained as a typo from holding the shift key down for an extra stroke and gets tons of use. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the shift key explanation is obvious and the views confirm this. Schwede66 08:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Japanese-American War edit

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 Pacific War. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Pacific War, as a more specific destination? --Nevé–selbert 19:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget - I agree. It's a plausible search term, and this is what the user is searching for. - Richard Cavell (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy retarget This is not an alternate name for the entire conflict of WWII, and it's also misleading as Japan and the US were not the only belligerents in that war. Not by a long shot. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2w2 edit

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 Clearview Airpark Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Clearview Airpark? Google "2w2" and the airpark is the top result, not the Second World War. --Nevé–selbert 19:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to disambiguation page - it also refers to nuclear weapons specialists in the US military, a category of Estee Lauder makeup, and several electronics products. - Richard Cavell (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom until the other ones have articles, then you can create dab, but not for now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nelson A. Rockefeller Center edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 14#Nelson A. Rockefeller Center

Ww2' edit

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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why the apostrophe? Should delete as implausible per WP:RTYPOS. --Nevé–selbert 19:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Angla lingvo edit

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) 17:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. According to Wiktionary, lingvo is "language" in Esperanto only. -- Tavix (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I note that there is an Esperanto Wikipedia. - Richard Cavell (talk) 19:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator, people wont find articles in Esperanto about these languages on en.wp. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

4-an de oktobro edit

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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. -- Tavix (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Reality Leigh edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 21#Reality Leigh

Stanley B. Mulaik edit

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. A major question was whether redirects to wikispecies should generally be allowed. This was further brought up at a TfD discussion for the related template, but no consensus emerged in either place. However, there is agreement that such redirects should not be created for non-notable individuals.
Turning to the specific redirect discussed here, the arguments for deletion are 1) it would encourage article creation (per WP:REDLINK) and 2) keeping a redirect to wikispecies would surprise readers. Point #2 is possibly offset by the fact that the wikispecies entry has the same content that a stub article would have, and overall the arguments for deletion are balanced out by the current usefulness of this redirect for navigational purposes. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala 11:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to WikiSpecies, which disguises the fact that no article exists in Wiki. Narky Blert (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: Redirects also exist to aid searching (through the local search engine and otherwise), not just for linking within articles. That aside, I disagree that it looks better, and (again) that argument applies to all soft redirects in the mainspace. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nom. @Godsy: I wholeheartedly agree that a broad discussion about soft redirects to Wikispecies could be useful, and would be happy to contribute. Notable Naturalist needs a Wiki article. Grad Student (who described one species, which turned out to be a junior synonym) almost certainly does not, even if they have a Wikispecies article. Narky Blert (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The cross-wiki redirect is helpful for someone searching for him. A redlink doesn't help as the only results are for Stanley Mulaik, so someone won't be able to find anything on him that way. However, they will probably get the information they're looking for via WikiSpecies until an article can be created on him in Wikipedia. -- Tavix (talk) 20:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage making the article if he's Wikipedia-notable. WikiSpecies may have different standards for notability. Here's an obituary from Deseret News [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom here. I opened this discussion to get a debate going. I haven't voted yet, but do so now. Delete, to encourage article creation. Inline redirects to sites like Wiktionary (this is what this word means) or Wikisource (here's the justification for this quote) are one thing. Properly used, they mean that an editor has decided that a topic will never be Wikinotable, and that readers will be best helped by pointing them off site. Hiding a species, or a perhaps notable individual, by an off-site pseudo-bluelink to WikiSpecies gets my goat. It's all about the readers. If something or someone is notable but has no article, that should be flagged by a redlink.
Sidenote: I recall finding one C19 naturalist linked in a Wiki article (as is, unfortunately, not uncommon) by only his surname. It took me a good half hour or so - but eventually I found not only him, but also the single paper he had written, describing just the one species. So: I removed the bad link, added the citation, and posted on the Talk Page saying why I thought he failed WP:BIO. Narky Blert (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd be fairly SURPRISEd to be thrown to Wikispecies if I clicked on something that wasn't a specific taxon. We have some very specific guidelines for how to treat biographies on Wikipedia, and the idea that certain scientists would be treated this was is pretty unusual, nor do I see great benefit from it. --BDD (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that a TfD discussion about this type of soft redirects is also underway.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely weak keep. I don't like SURPRISING redirects to Wikispecies at all. But with the existence of an article for Stanley Mulaik, it's better to have something that keeps the arachnologist distinct from the psychologist. There are 77 articles that include the word "Mulaik", almost all of them are spiders. I don't want to see the psychologist getting linked from them when the arachnologist is intended. If there were no articles on any other Stanley Mulaiks, or if there was a surname disambiguation page with some mention of the arachnologist (even if it were a link to Wikispecies), I'd favor deletion. Plantdrew (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Donald Trump–Russia relations edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 21#Donald Trump–Russia relations

Psycho (Borderlands character) edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 21#Psycho (Borderlands character)

Adventure Time (band) edit

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 , without prejudice against a new discussion if an article gets created at DJ Frosty. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala 13:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:XY, as made up of two artists and a label, it could redirect to Daedelus, Plug Research, or DJ Frosty, but not just one of them. Lordtobi (✉) 15:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, given that DJ Frosty isn't notable, the musician link would be most useful, since his discography has Adventure Time albums and singles listed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AngusWOOF. The article for Plug Research only lists Adventure Time as one of their artists, no more prominently than any of the others listed there, so it's not a valid target for the redirect. WP:XY does not apply here as the label does not appear to be as intimately linked with the band as the nominator suggested. Revisit deletion if/when DJ Frosty gets an article before the band can. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 12:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Indie Megabooth edit

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 turn into an article. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currently points to PAX, but could as well point to E3, so WP:XY. Expansion would be favorable, though it currently does not seem to help as a redirect, as it is not mentioned at either XY-possible target. Lordtobi (✉) 07:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Indie game and add mention of Megabooths appearing at multiple gaming conventions like GDC 2015 [5], GDC 2016 [6], GDC 2017 [7] and PAX [8]. There's a Community section that discusses Indie Game Jam and other promotions, so it would easily fit there. Another option is to Create article as there seems to be an official website that fronts this: [9] but that can be done later. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedy close. All mentions (but the most recent) refer to Indie Megabooth as a PAX event, and by the principle of least astonishment, that's where readers would expect to go. It's not mentioned at indie game so there's little use in redirecting there. There are more than enough sources for its own dedicated article (video game reliable sources custom Google search). Edit: I've expanded the article beneath the redirect, so this discussion can be closed.   czar 16:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a "traveling convention setup", but yes, an article is certainly possible with RS'es like this [10] Striking retarget, it can be its own article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cyclobothra elegans (disambiguation) edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 22#Cyclobothra elegans (disambiguation)

Cinderella Phenomenon edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 14#Cinderella Phenomenon

Template:Db-fake edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 June 14#Template:Db-fake

Who wrote the Bible?, Who wrote the bible?, Who wrote the Bible and Who wrote the bible edit

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 delete. G6, WP:SNOW, et al. --BDD (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this is such a burning question that it needs to be asked four times in four different ways? I don't think so. -- Tavix (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete implausible search term, and unlikely book title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Highly unlikely search term, as it doesn't need to be repeated four times. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 06:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The page history notes this was created via articles for creation, which usually leaves a record of the request somewhere (which can shed light on why it was created) but I can't find anything in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unlikely search term. The original proposal is here. Apparently, this was proposed as four separate re-directs, but mistakenly created in the form of a single quadruple-named re-direct. A few hours later, the proposer simply went ahead and created the individual re-directs (i.e., Who wrote the Bible?, etc.). NewYorkActuary (talk) 10:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, then this should be a speedy delete for G6 technically created in error. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Arrested Development (2013 film) edit

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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion edit

Here's my next batch of "faulty crystal ball" film redirects (and a bonus TV series!). As these years have already passed, it's impossible for these films to be released that year. It's also implausible that someone would type these redirects in the search bar due to the incorrect year disambiguation. (raw list is available on talk page) -- Tavix (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_June_6&oldid=1138581811"