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 Félix Correia. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Felix Correia → Jorge Félix Correia  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Félix Correia is also a Portuguese player. I do suggest a page of disambiguation with this title Dr Salvus 19:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Félix Correia as a temp ((R without diacritics)), and add a hatnote to the present target. The Portuguese player seems far more likely to be searched for without diacritics than the Brazilian by their middle and last names. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 12:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Turn Felix Correia into a dab page, and link to Félix Correia and Jorge Félix Correia there. GiantSnowman 12:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Is Jorge Félix Correia ever referred to simply as Félix Correia? Whether this is a compound given name or a given and middle, I wouldn't expect that. --BDD (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to' Félix Correia unless evidence can be found establishing that Jorge Felix Correia is commonly referred to by his last two names. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Félix Correia. A DAB seems unnecessary unless someone is willing to provide evidence as suggested by Rosguill. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Félix Correia per Rosguill. I think a ((distinguish)) hatnote would be fine, though. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2021 (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 retarget to List of regional nicknames#G. --BDD (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Gulte → Telugu diaspora  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned in the article and no authoritative source refers to the Telugu diaspora as Gulte. Ab207 (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Telugu people and tag as ((R from non-neutral name)). Jay ^(Talk) 19:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Retarget to List of regional nicknames per Ab207 where I mentioned it. Jay ^(Talk) 15:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there is no explanation of this term anywhere in Wikipedia. The only mentions are for a website Gulte.com. There is not even a Wiktionary entry where we could soft-redirect this lemma. In the absence of any content, we have nowhere to send readers. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 06:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Urban dictionary. Redirect titles don't need an explanation on Wikipedia. Jay ^(Talk) 07:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes in fact it's widely accepted that redirect titles do need an explanation in Wikipedia. Reproducing Urban Dictionary in the redirect system is a terrible idea. If you have a reliable source you could add this term to your proposed target; unfortunately I speak no Telugu, but in English I can't find anything in Google Books, and if there's anything in Google News it's being drowned out by the website of the same name. 61.239.39.90 (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirects without a mention are tagged as ((R without mention)). WP:RGUIDE, WP:RFD#DELETE and WP:RFD#KEEP do not concern with redirect titles being explained in wikipedia. However articles that don't have mention can be nominated, but need not end up deleted. Jay ^(Talk) 09:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom, but I am more concerned that this is a derogatory term. All we have to go off really is the Urban Dictionary entry, which says that outsiders refer to Telugu people by this term. So, not something they call themselves. The entry also implies it is used out of envy, which would imply it's not a friendly term. So, unless someone can show that this term is used in a non-derogatory way, I am not comfortable keeping it. I am not sure what policy this would fall under, but I just don't feel comfortable having a possible slur redirect to an ethnic group. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We do have ((R from slur)). The alternate spelling Gulti gives more results, and samosapedia does claim it is not a foul word! Jay ^(Talk) 19:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We need reliable sources rather than user-generated sites like Urban Dictionary and Samosapedia. Per WP:RNEUTRAL, such redirect should be "established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources." which is clearly not the case here. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, per the discussion, I have no issue with retargeting to List of regional nicknames#G. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources: 1. book from Cambridge University Press; 2. IIT Madras § Extracurricular activities mentions it and has a citation to a Master's thesis (pages 97,98) from Chemnitz University of Technology on student slangs; 3. book from Dark Horse Comics. Note that the terms they use are Gulti, Gult or Gults (plural). Jay ^(Talk) 14:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the sources. Perhaps there is case for redirecting the aforementioned term to List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity or List of regional nicknames with a mention there. But such a term cannot be redirected to the ethnicity article. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, if there is consistency. How does this compare to Gujju which redirects to Gujarati people? Jay ^(Talk) 08:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe even that term should be redirected to one of those list pages, if accompanied by reliable sources. When readers are looking for these terms, they should be directed to places where they can read about them. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Added the entry to List of regional nicknames. Jay ^(Talk) 15:06, 18 July 2021 (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. Hog Farm _Talk 04:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Snapology → Modular origami  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, an internet search doesn't suggest a connection with the topic. Delete unless a justification can be provided. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:53, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I can dig for more if need be, and i did this mainly as a method for future people in my position to find what i found more easily, but "snapology origami" is used to describe a form of modular origami it seems, and is often abbreviated as snapology, and there seemed to be no conflicts on-wiki, so i found it appropriate to help redirect people to where the information on the topic is.

Quick Google Search Results

Is this a good justification?

--Eric Lotze (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It seems the term "Snapology origami" is derivative of Snapology the educational brand, and as a partial title match it doesn't seem appropriate to redirect Snapology there. Having Snapology origami as a redirect should be fine. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2021 (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. ✗plicit 23:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (Milch) camels → Camel milk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Milch camels → Camel milk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Milch camel → Camel milk  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Seems like a mix of delete per WP:RLOTE (no particular affinity between German and dairy camels), as well as an unconventional disambiguation syntax for the first redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (Milch) camels per nominator. Delete the others per WP:R#D10: the target article has no information on the camels used for milk production; contrast milch cow which doesn't point to cow milk but a whole article on dairy cattle. However, WP:RLOTE is inapplicable here: "milch" is used as an adjective in English (see e.g. Google Books results for "milch cow".) 61.239.39.90 (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2021 (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 Refine target to WMHT (TV)#Programming. Not much of a consensus here (and a third relist seems unlikely to produce one based on this getting little interest), so defaulting to status quo, with the suggested tweak. Hog Farm _Talk 04:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• New York NOW → WMHT (TV)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target. Multiple article attempts provided no external sources. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per [1]. Appears to be a flagship news program produced by this television station. User Shortride added a mention of it yesterday based on that source which might not be sufficient, but there are no competing targets. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 13:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine to WMHT_(TV)#Programming per Ivanvector's points and Shortride's addition. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 14:46, 21 July 2021 (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. ✗plicit 09:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Cum factory → Male reproductive system  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Informal slang at best, not a commonly known name of Male reproductive system and misleading in regards to possible agro-industrial application (e.g. bovine semen [2][3]) Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' I think it could add value to the situation - t.cal.69 — Preceding undated comment by T.cal.69 added 06:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete. Enwiki has no mention of this topic (or at least not in this context). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unlikely search term. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 11:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Indef protect from being recreated. WP:NOTSLANG This has no meaning except to adolescents who think they're really clever by tossing the words around. — Maile (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2021 (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 restore article. Borderline no consensus, so while you're welcome to take this to AfD, and they're welcome to close as draftify, redirect, etc., please don't just redirect this yourself. --BDD (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Dan Hamill → The X Factor (Australian season 7)#Finalists  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

random redirect Avilena (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - this individual is clearly listed in the target section, and we have no other information about them. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 14:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - better with no redirect than a random one - see also Special:WhatLinksHere/Dan_Hamill and this version. --Avilena (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - valid redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Popstars Live#Finalists or Love Child (TV series) would also be valid - so why pick this? --Avilena (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore article and draftify - I disagree with Onel5969's assessment that they're not notable, but more work is needed. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore per Ivan and tag as stub. Jay ^(Talk) 05:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - (change to delete per Avilena's point above) - it is true that there are multiple valid targets for his different roles, so delete. The pre-existing stub fails NACTOR and GNG (Daily Telegraph interview, along with IMDB and a self-promotional page from his agent) and there is no evidence that Dan Hamill is a notable actor. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 20:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore per WP:BLAR and send to AfD. When there is disagreement about whether a person is notable enough for an article then it needs to be discussed at AfD not RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per WP:BLAR, send to AfD. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 11:17, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirect and draftify If more work is need to figure out whether he is notable, then do that in the draft. On the surface, he's not meeting WP:REALITYSINGER and would probably redirect to The X Factor again as the most prominent show he participated in. A non-notable spot in another reality singing competition isn't helping either. If article is restored, I would push for AFD. BLAR isn't entirely at play here since it didn't spend much time as an article before being turned back into a redirect. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 19:38, 21 July 2021 (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. MBisanz ^talk 19:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Sam Bungey → Mongrel (magazine)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Sam Bungey is associated with other work, such as West Cork (podcast), and a redirect to a 2003–2008 magazine is not necessarily helpful.I suggest delete to encourage article creation, if they are notable Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or retarget to West Cork (podcast)). Per the nom above, I'm not sure that the subject has sufficient notability for own article. However (if they do) then a redlink might be best. To encourage article creation. If the title is to be retained, then West Cork (podcast) would seem a more representative target than Mongrel (magazine). Guliolopez (talk) 10:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to West Cork (podcast) where the subject is mentioned in lead. This article also has more content than the current target, which could prove useful for readers. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:02, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for uninhibited seach results. Jay ^(Talk) 17:56, 24 July 2021 (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. MBisanz ^talk 19:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Medium talent → Chevy Chase  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target, this appears to allegedly be an insult hurled by Bill Murray at Chevy Chase ([4]). Unless mentioned at the target, I don't think we should keep the redirect. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Saturday Night Live (season 3)#Behind the scenes, the only place the exact phrase is used in mainspace. I'm very surprised that what sounds like a very generic phrase has a primary topic, but everything does point to Bill Murray's description of Chevy Chase. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is not a particularly significant phrase, and we cannot have redirects for every quote/reference. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 19:00, 15 July 2021 (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. No formal !votes were cast, but the arguments are both solidly in favor of the status quo in the absence of any novel suggestions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:citation broken → Template:full citation needed  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

• template:broken citation → template:full citation needed  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Previous TfDs for this template: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 7 § Template:Citation broken – delete and re-target

I wish to re-target both of these to ((dead link)). There earlier was a consensus that “This is completely redundant with ((Full citation needed)), which specifies what the problem is – lack of complete citation information – and by implication how to fix it, instead of just vaguely complaining, in hyperbolic wording, that there's an unspecified problem of ‘breakage’.”

But a “broken” citation is not a vague complaint; it is a complaint that the citation is broken. I would re-target it myself except that it goes against an earlier consensus. Bwrs (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging the logged-in participants of that TfD: @SMcCandlish, Izno, PC-XT, and HyperGaruda: Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: retargeting to ((dead link)) would only make sense for online citations. Tagging references to books and other offline sources as "dead links" looks weird, in my opinion. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with HyperGaruda; a citation might be broken in any of a number of ways, so ((full citation needed)) is probably the better redir target.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:20, 17 July 2021 (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 no consensus / retarget (WP:NCRET) to Lying press. After almost a month of open discussion, there doesn't seem to be a great option, but no desire to keep things as they are. This is the best I think we can do for now, though we probably haven't seen the last of this. --BDD (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Dishonest press → List of nicknames used by Donald Trump#Organizations  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm concerned that the current target may be too narrow, as while Trump's usage of the phrase did get significant attention, the phrase seems to have a good bit of usage outside of the context of Trump's nickname for the media. Would fake news be a better target? Hog Farm _Talk 04:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think this is too ambiguous to be the subject of a helpful redirect. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Media bias might be our best option if we want to keep, though I'm not sure I do. --BDD (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Lying press#United States, which discusses the same phenomenon (with some historical context) - possibly add a ref there for the use by Trump of the exact formulation "dishonest". Arguably there is a change in meaning from "dishonest" to "lying", but Trump uses the term more or less interchangeably, so... Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 16:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Could this refer to Yellow journalism? — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Lying press#United States: Per User:Tigraan. Aasim (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the section: United States is too narrow. The article as a whole may be OK though. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Could equally refer to Media bias, Fake news, Yellow press or a cluster of other topics. N. b. Lying press is a ((R from alternative language)) for Lügenpresse, so it doesn't provide much guidance here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:21, 29 July 2021 (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. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Burmese–Siamese War (1767–1775) → Burmese–Siamese War (1775–1776)  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This is a redirect leftover from reorganisation of content previously covered in the Taksin article, which has since been further reorganised, and the content is now mainly covered in Burmese–Siamese War (1775–1776)#Background. This redirect, with the year range 1767–1775, is misleading, as it suggests there was a continuous state of war during the entire period, while in fact there were only individual skirmishes, with only those since 1770 now covered in the target article, so I suggest deletion. There is no need to retain the history, since the addition to Burmese–Siamese War (1775–1776) already correctly attributes the Taksin article as the source.

While this page was previously kept at AfD, I believe RfD is now the appropriate venue as the page has been redirected without objection for over a week, and none of the keep !voters at the AfD actually made arguments for keeping the article. (Andrew Davidson only said that the page title was reasonable, Sodacan actually suggested merging, as since been done, and the article creator Tanakorn Srichaisuphakit only made tangential statements.) I previously raised this with the AfD closer MBisanz, who suggested starting an RfD as one of two options forward. Paul_012 (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and also delete the en-dash equivalent Burmese-Siamese War (1767-1775). Jay ^(Talk) 14:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Burmese–Siamese wars where someone using this plausible search term will be able to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  How would this be a plausible search term when there was no 1767–1775 war? The premise of the AfD also was that there was no 8 year war. Wouldn't targeting to Burmese–Siamese wars which doesn't have a mention of 1767–1775 add to further confusion? Jay ^(Talk) 21:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• So from what I understand, you're saying that there was no war between Burma and Siam from 1767 to 1775 at all? In that case, delete as misleading. Mlb96 (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as inaccurate. Based on the assumption that there was no war at that time (which I am trusting the above users regarding), it would only cause confusion to have this redirect to a list of wars that actually happened. We could have Siege of Rome (1492) redirect to Siege of Rome which lists the actual sieges of Rome, but if someone mistakenly believes there was a siege in 1492, it will only extend their confusion as opposed to alleviating it, and the same logic is true here. --‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 14:07, 22 July 2021 (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.