Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
192.76.8.73 (talk)
→‎Hermy: reply
Line 273: Line 273:
* '''Comment''' - "Hermy" is the name Grawp (Hagrid's brother) uses for Hermione in [[Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix]] [[User:CiphriusKane|CiphriusKane]] ([[User talk:CiphriusKane|talk]]) 11:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' - "Hermy" is the name Grawp (Hagrid's brother) uses for Hermione in [[Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix]] [[User:CiphriusKane|CiphriusKane]] ([[User talk:CiphriusKane|talk]]) 11:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
*'''Turn into disamig''' there’s at least three reasonable targets, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be one. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 21:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
*'''Turn into disamig''' there’s at least three reasonable targets, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be one. [[User:Dronebogus|Dronebogus]] ([[User talk:Dronebogus|talk]]) 21:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per [[WP:CSD R3]]. [[User:Neel.arunabh|Neel.arunabh]] ([[User talk:Neel.arunabh|talk]]) 17:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' as implausible search term. [[User:Neel.arunabh|Neel.arunabh]] ([[User talk:Neel.arunabh|talk]]) 17:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
** {{replyto|Neel.arunabh}} Have you actually read [[WP:CSD R3]]? {{tqi|This applies to '''recently''' created redirects ...}}. In what universe is a redirect from 2009 recently created? This is also nowhere near implausible enough to qualify for R3 given that it was created as the result of a DRV. [[Special:Contributions/192.76.8.73|192.76.8.73]] ([[User talk:192.76.8.73|talk]]) 17:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
** {{replyto|Neel.arunabh}} Have you actually read [[WP:CSD R3]]? {{tqi|This applies to '''recently''' created redirects ...}}. In what universe is a redirect from 2009 recently created? This is also nowhere near implausible enough to qualify for R3 given that it was created as the result of a DRV. [[Special:Contributions/192.76.8.73|192.76.8.73]] ([[User talk:192.76.8.73|talk]]) 17:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


Revision as of 17:38, 19 January 2022

January 15

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 15, 2022.

Primera Iglesia Baptista

None of the source I have been able to find on this building ([1] and [2]) call it "Primera Iglesia Baptista"; this is why I made a page move and now this redirect exists. I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A look at Street View reveals the tenant is the Primera Iglesia Bautista del Sur. Note the "u" in "Bautista" which is correct (not Baptista!). A search of the archives of the Casa Grande Dispatch reveals that this church has occupied the building since 1981. There is no article at Primera Iglesia Bautista ("First Baptist Church"), though it would likely become a major dabpage with Primera Iglesia Bautista de Caguas as an article and the First Presbyterian Church (Van Horn, Texas) which is now similarly occupied by a Spanish-speaking Baptist church. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ground of oneness

No mention of this at the target, and I have no idea what this expression refers to. I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Far from having any specific target. Dear Debasish (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not sure how this is related to the target; no mention of any "ground of oneness" there either. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Church Assembly Hall

No mention of this expression at the target. I recomment deletion. Veverve (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Assembly hall (disambiguation) where the link to the target is explained and a list of specific buildings with this or a similar name be found. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In most cases, it seems to be used for the meaning used at the target, even if not in the target.Sarcelles (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sarcelles: in any case if it is not present at the target, the redirect should be deleted. Feel free to add this designation in the article - with RSs supporting your claim - if you feel it fits. Veverve (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. "Church assembly hall" is much more well-explained there. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Church in

The expression is abstruse, I have no idea what this is supposed to refer to and the information at the target does not help. In any case, the expression itself ("church in") is too vague to be useful for anything.
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This search term is hopelessly vague. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Far from having any specific target. Dear Debasish (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Frankly, the title of the redirect itself makes zero sense to me. Even though "church in" is mentioned at the target, it's far from being an appropriate place to redirect it to. 98.179.127.59 (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ground of locality

No mention of this concept at the target. Furthermore, the expression is quite vague. I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Google search results for this exact phrase show that Christianity is the clear primary topic, and I think a specific aspect of that - certainly the results appear to be all related to a common theme so I'm not certain this is a vague term in actual usage. Whether the term is unique (or even related) to the current target though is going to require someone who understands the topic more than I do. I'll drop a note for the Christianity wikipproject. Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep actually gbooks & google suggest that only this bunch use the term, so leave. Ideally add on what it means. Johnbod (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Even if this group uses this expression, since the expression is not discussed, explained or even mentioned in the article, then the redirect should be deleted. Otherwise, feel free to explain what this expression means in the article - while indicating your RSs supporting the information - if you feel this information is WP:DUE. Veverve (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013

These articles were preemptively created in mid-2012 when some thought that these countries may compete in the 2013 edition of the contest. This never materialized, however, and the articles were then redirected to the main contest page to a section that just says they didn't compete. It is highly unlikely that these redirects receive any use. Grk1011 (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. Given that these countries all competed in the previous year it is entirely plausible for someone to search on these terms (and the stats show that, contrary to your guesses, the first two are well used with ~270 and ~815 hits this year; third is still used but not to the same extent). Given that there is sourced content in the target article about their lack of participation the targets are appropriate, not misleading and will educate people who use the redirects. Deletion will not help anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to bet that it's because there is an infobox in use that presented the redirects as the next year and people blindly clicked on them. That is how we identified this problem. When a redirect for a non-participation year did not exist, the infobox correctly ended the succession. Working on fixing the infobox coding as a separate issue. Grk1011 (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So? Infoboxes are far from the only method people use to find Wikipedia articles. This doesn't change my opinion at all. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the case but I also don't think having these redirects in place serves any real purpose. As Grk1011 mentioned below we don't have redirects in place for every single country that has taken part for every single year, even if there was no intention to ever take part in that year's event, so why continue to support these specific redirects? The same purpose you describe can be achieved without redirects as well: a user typing in the search bar for a specific country in a specific year and finding no result may be curious to find out why, prompting them to search for the country or the year in question to find out more, whereas keeping the redirects could be seen as an invitation to expand and create a new article when no such article is required or indeed desired given these countries did not take part. In addition I don't believe the purpose you ascribe to keeping these redirects is covered under WP:POFR, unless you can tell me otherwise? Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly redlinks are also invitations to start articles, indeed per WP:REDLINK even more so than redirects. Secondly the internal search engine is far from the only method people use to find Wikipedia content. I'm not arguing for redirects for every country for every year, I agree most would not be warranted, but only for the year after the last year of participation, especially when it is/was expected that the country would be participating again, as that is a very likely search term for those looking through the history of a country in the contest. Thryduulf (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly understand your reasoning for keeping a redirect for a country for the year after they last participated, and I don't understand how there is any value to keeping these, especially when these countries could return eventually. Would at that point you recommend we delete these redirects specifically? I'm also not particularly sure how we can qualify a country being expected to participate, as no country is obligated to take part in a given year and many countries have and do regularly miss editions. Following fixes to infoboxes the original 3 redirects now have very few links in place where a user could access it beyond typing in the search bar (all 3 are now only linked to the RfD pages and our WikiProject Eurovision talk page), so the chances of a user stumbling upon them is now remote. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One further comment: we do have several redirects in place for countries that didn't take part in a given year's contest, however these are specifically for those countries that were planning on enter that year's contest but eventually withdrew or were disqualified. None of the redirects in this discussion fall within this category as all of these instances pertain to countries that did not appear on any confirmed list of competing countries ahead of the event, and therefore had no intention of ever participating. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, shouldn't they then at least be retargeted to Slovakia in the Eurovision Song Contest (and equivalent articles for the other countries), rather than Eurovision Song Contest 2013? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In those instances where redirects are in place for what was a planned participation that didn't occur, yes the redirects are to the country articles rather than the year articles. The point I was trying to raise though is that none of these articles in question fall into that category, as these instances are all occurrences where the countries in question for that year had no known intention in participating in the contest at all, and therefore there is little reason to continue to host these redirects from a consistency perspective. There are several cases where countries did not participate in certain years, and we do not have redirects for those cases since there is very little reason to create them; e.g. Poland competed in 2011 and 2014, but not 2012 or 2013, and we do not have redirects for those years. I think this should be seen as quite a simple tidy up of redundant articles which were created at a time where all the facts were not known. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I was replying to Thryduulf's comment, not yours, because they claimed the people using the redirect are looking through the history of a country in the contest, and the article Eurovision Song Contest 2013 doesn't provide any information about that. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the addition of the above into consideration. These are redirects for things that didn't happen. You could arguably create a page for any year and make it a redirect with that way of thinking. Grk1011 (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I at least think they should not be deleted unless they get actually added to this RfD, so that the redirects are tagged and the authors notified. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, very valid point! I have added those additional articles to this section, added the templates to the pages in question, and have notified all of the original creators. Some appear to me missing or blocked, but better to at least try! Sims2aholic8 (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know... I think they should have been removed, because these countries were never included in the final list (ex. Bulgaria for 2019 or Turkey for 2016). 009988aaabbbccc (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2022 (CEST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all; per above discussion, I don't think these redirects aid the reader. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a type of thing that can happen with a lot of series, not just annual events. I lean towards keeping, in which case I suggest (and perhaps this suggestion might persuade some deleters to reconsider) adding {{Redirect from gap in series}} to them, with suitable documentation on that template. jnestorius(talk) 15:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I think this suggestion might work in some cases, I'm not sure this fits here, given that countries are under no obligation to participate in the contest any many countries do pause participation for different reasons. Also I think if we were to add this template to these articles, would the implication then not be to create redundant redirects for other gaps in a country's participation when there is no need? Finally, there doesn't appear to be a redirect cat under that name, or any that deal with gaps in a series. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aervanath (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:1200 (disambiguation)

Redirect from draft space to mainspace, shouldn't exist Dan Bloch (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RDRAFT. Jay (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Jay. ― Qwerfjkltalk 18:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RDRAFT. Community consensus is that these sorts of redirects should be kept. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks for setting me straight. Since you all clearly know more about this than I do, I'm curious about one thing. The only reason I noticed this page was that when I tried to edit the page I saw a big "There is a draft or redirect for this article" warning which I'd never seen before. What purpose does this serve? Thanks, Dan Bloch (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks to be a bug. I am seeing the same warning while editing any disambiguation page having a draft redirect, we can have it reported. Jay (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Danbloch gives an excellent example why WP:RDRAFT is wrong. Having a redirect from draft space gives the illusion of there being a draft where there is not one. It would be nice if, like everything else in draftspace, redirects were only kept temporarily, but alas. -- Tavix (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tavix: There was recently a discussion concerning this, and {{draft at}}, the template that generates the message. Unfortunately, I can't find it. Pinging @Xaosflux who (I think) participated in the discussion. See Special:Permalink/1064855455#False edit warning that a draft article exists.  ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:34, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been fixed, so I have withdrawn my !vote. Thanks, Tamzin! -- Tavix (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've drafted what I think is a solution, and started a discussion at Template talk:Draft at § Suppressing display when the draft is a redirect. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 05:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical side fixed. Special:Diff/1066566246. Not visible on the case in question yet (since the RfD tag makes this redirect "not a redirect"), but see Aioli (disambiguation) (cf. Draft:Aioli (disambiguation)) for demonstration. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:33, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Redirect talk p

Unused (currently), implausible, and confusing with {{Redirect talk}}. Qwerfjkltalk 12:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsches Medizinhistorisches Museum

On behalf of @Mateus2019, who nominated the page for speedy deletion with the following rationale: simply wrong, it's located in another city and has nothing to do with this one. Qwerfjkltalk 10:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 12:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

X:RA

Implausible/ambiguous search term; not linked anywhere. Qwerfjkltalk 10:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baby reading

Redirects to a now-nonexistent anchor, not even sure if this is a real thing/plausible search term or just some WP:FRINGE crap Larry Sanger made up. Dronebogus (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re-refine to § Optimum age to learn to read, which contains the phrase early (baby) reading. Even if this is fringe, redirects from fringe terms are allowed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pure radio

Pure (radio) is also an article. It probably should be at Pure (radio station). Bringing this redirect up for discussion to figure out if the target should be the radio manufacturer or the radio station. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zones and woredas of the Amhara Region (template-redirects)

These 23 template-redirects (batch #2) are left over after completing a month-long project to organize, simplify and update 167 outdated and disorganized templates (many old redirects, duplicates, and overlapping) into just 12 remaining templates. All 23 in this batch point to the same template, and have been double-checked to ensure there are no remaining articles using them. Removal of these old redirects will help to reduce any confusions as to which templates are to be used in articles, and simplify maintenance of named administrative divisions in a country (Ethiopia) which frequently renames, splits, and merges their zones and districts. Platonk (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DC Washington

Implausible search term, and virtually all Google results for this term are for a singer of that name. I suggest deleting this redirect, and if people feel the singer is notable, they can create the article for him. Smartyllama (talk) 01:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following D.C. Washington redirect for the same reason:Smartyllama (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon gas

This was recently at RfD but was procedurally closed due to sock issues. Since there was no user in the previous discussion arguing to keep the redirect as is, I return it to RfD to reach consensus on how to handle it. As I argued previously, I lean toward deletion due to the ambiguity of the term, as most users likely seek a gas containing carbon such as carbon dioxide, methane, other greenhouse gases, or many others at list of gases, and there is no good target that captures the possibilities well. If we are to take redirect literally to refer to the element in a gas state, then Allotropes_of_carbon#Atomic_and_diatomic_carbon is a possible target, or as suggested previously Carbon#Characteristics gives a phase diagram and there are some mentions in the text. I strongly oppose simply targeting carbon, as most users would be quite unsatisfied reaching a page less specific than their search term. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment my preference is to target carbon, as gaseous carbon is found in the spectrum of stars, in the form of gas plasmas. If not that, then a set index to indicate other topics. A {{distinguish}} to gas carbon (soot) might be included -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Retarget to carbon (preferably to a subsection on its different phases), since that is what "carbon gas" literally refers to. There are lots of gases that merely contain carbon, many of which are not greenhouse gases -- doesn't make sense to me for this page to be a redirect there, that's kind of like redirecting round white pill to aspirin. jp×g 01:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the previous RfD, nitrogen, oxygen, and chlorine are all gases in their elemental states, so those redirects make sense, which is not the case for carbon. Carbon is only a gas at very extreme temperatures. And anyone seeking information about carbon as a gas would be disappointed to reach the top of the carbon article. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt that gas carbon must be what anyone searching the term is seeking, and if that were true, hatnotes wouldn't be necessary. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isuzu Leopard

The vehicle nameplate is likely non-existent, cannot be verified. Proposing a deletion. Andra Febrian (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I was unable to find anything about this existing (the closest I found was an Isuzu dealer/service network in Pakistan. It seems like this could have been created as some kind of translation error or similar due to the Leopard being a type of Panther? A7V2 (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resurrection from the dead

The expressions are too broad and vague, so they can refer to numerous phenomenons, not primarily a Christian eschatological concept.
I suggest turning Resurrection from the dead into a DAB with Resurrection, Undead, Universal resurrection and linking all those expressions to this DAB page. Veverve (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Do you have examples of each of these phrases being used in contexts other than universal resurrection (which article is not limited to Christianity)? I can imagine that someone unfamiliar with religious doctrine who read the phrase "resurrection of the body" or "resurrection of the dead" would not conceive it to have any meaning more specific that resurrection, but that of itself would not be not a reason to change the redirect target; a simple hatnote on universal resurrection pointing to resurrection would suffice. The expressions are used in the Nicene Creed or the Apostles' Creed; they may have been broad and vague at the time, but it's too late to fix that now. jnestorius(talk) 19:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all save the bodily resurrections. "Resurrection of the dead" is a term of art and there's nothing vague about it. In fact, the article should be moved to that title. Srnec (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a quick GScholar search shows various different uses for these terms, with the possible exception of Resurrection of the flesh. While Christian uses predominate, most seem to actually refer to Jesus's individual resurrection (or in one case, that of other biblical figures but still primarily in relation to the resurrection of Jesus), not Universal resurrection. signed, Rosguill talk 21:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: the link is broken. Veverve (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Veverve, not sure what to say it works for me. The paper in question is Wenkel, David H. "Abraham’s Typological Resurrection from the Dead in Hebrews 11." Criswell theological review 15.2 (2018): 51-66. signed, Rosguill talk 01:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The link doesn't work for me either, it seems you've copied a cloudfront URL for it not the original, which has now expired. The article is also available at [3], however it requires an academia.edu login which I don't have. Thryduulf (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Turn the first two into disambigs, as they’re vague terms that could mean any number of things. Neutral on the rest. Dronebogus (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nom per nom & Rossguill Signed, IAmChaos 05:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hermy

Both a Google search and an on-wiki one suggest that this term is rarely used to refer to Hermione Granger, and frequently used to refer to a number of other entities, including Hermann Görring in Addie and Hermy and a character created by Stan Sakai. We could write a DAB, but I'm skeptical of that when we don't have any direct title matches. I favor deletion; the search results can take the lead instead. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - "Hermy" is the name Grawp (Hagrid's brother) uses for Hermione in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix CiphriusKane (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn into disamig there’s at least three reasonable targets, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be one. Dronebogus (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible search term. Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Neel.arunabh: Have you actually read WP:CSD R3? This applies to recently created redirects .... In what universe is a redirect from 2009 recently created? This is also nowhere near implausible enough to qualify for R3 given that it was created as the result of a DRV. 192.76.8.73 (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Granger

According to the target article, Hermione's middle name is "Jean", but apparently there's been some confusion over Jane vs. Jean over the years, so I don't object to Hermione Jane Granger. However, I don't see any indication that Hermione is ever referred to by just her middle and last names, be that as "Jane" or as "Jean". (Jean Granger is a redlink.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_15&diff=1066701331&oldid=1066701075

Leave a Reply