Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 20, 2014.

SpongeBong HempPants[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) 16:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing links here and "SpongeBob HempPants" is not mentioned in the article. ... discospinster talk 14:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It seems that this is a fan version of the show according to my Google search.--Lenticel (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2014 (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.

GNU/Linux[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. Ruslik_Zero 20:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose retarget to GNU/Linux_naming_controversy � (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "What does a person who enters 'GNU/Linux' into Wikipedia is looking for?" I think he either wants to know what is 'GNU/Linux' which he or she has read somewhere or wants to get in-depth information on it.
  2. "How does it impact existing 'GNU/Linux' links in Wikipedia?" There are 343 inbound links in the article space of Wikipedia that need to be changed.
Now, is there a reason persuasive enough to counter these issues?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2014 (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.

List of endorsements in the British unity referendum, 2014[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; G5. Courcelles 05:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for British unity referendum, 2014:result of reversion of a POV pushing move. BethNaught (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as POV fork, same reasons as below. No RS calls it that. JohnCD (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2014 (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.

Opinion polling for the British unity referendum, 2014[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; G5. Courcelles 05:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for British unity referendum, 2014: this is a POV pushing move. The referendum has not been called this by anybody. BethNaught (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as POV fork, same reasons as below. No RS calls it that. JohnCD (talk) 11:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete'. Nuff said. Si Trew (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete'. No merit. Chris55 (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2014 (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.

Musical score[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. All are agreed that this is a sensible redirect as things stand and the issues with the DAB can be resolved by bold editorial action outwith this RFD. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an R to a section of a DAB. Separate the DABS out. Si Trew (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy close - the redirect does not need to be deleted, as it can simply be overwritten with the dab content. If you think this might be controversial, then talk:Score and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation is the place to gain consensus. See WP:SPLIT. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and close for the reasons given by User:Thryduulf. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right,I'll go with speedy keep and close. The problem is, usually you get very little participation on DAB talk pages, and little more at their targets' pages, so I don't think I could ever achieve consensus. I might steamroller it through, though. Si Trew (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be bold and just do it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:33, 21 September 2014 (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.

British unity referendum, 2014[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. G5; creation of a DavidYork71 sockpuppet. Courcelles 05:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article should obviously be at Scottish independence referendum, 2014. I've never heard it called a British unity referendum here in Britain. Dbfirs 07:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If a referendum results in the unity of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, as this has, what otherwise should it be called?BushBandarSting (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A "British unity referendum" (if there ever were such a thing) would presumably be held throughtout the whole of "Britain", whatever that means at the given point in time, rather than in one constituent nation. You're also missing the point that the referendum was instigated by a pro-independence Scottish Government with the objective of achieving Scottish independence. We don't call the 2011 Alternative Vote referendum the "endorsement of First Past the Post referendum", do we? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The referendum was on Scottish independence only. Who knows whether the result will improve British unity? If the referendum had been about British unity, then I, as a British citizen, should have had a vote. Please stop pushing your point of view. Dbfirs 07:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it was about breaking up the union not establishing one. There was unity in the end but it was the continuation of the existing union since the Scottish leaders failed to get enough support to break the union up. This title is obviously misleading and is the reason that neither of the Quebec sovereignty referendums are called Canadian Unity Referendums.--76.65.42.142 (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dbfirs 07:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Have not found a single RS calling it a unity referendum. Unjustified POV fork. BethNaught (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects don't have to be WP:RS, but "British unity referendum" does seem to be a neologism." Her Majesty called for "unity" in her written statement, but the two terms have thus been agglomerated by a well-known search engine, it seems. Neither she, nor anyone else that I can make out, called it a "British unity referendum". As an English citizen, I didn't get a vote either. Does seem a bit WP:POV. Si Trew (talk) 08:04, 20 September 2014 (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.

Russian-Ukrainian 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 delete. See the discussion and my closing rationales at the related RfDs linked below. If anyone wants to create a disambiguation page at such a title, it can be discussed on its own merits, and taken to AfD if needed. --BDD (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Google News search comes up with 1 blog and a few translations of foreign news sources for "Russian-Ukrainian War". ZERO English news sources use this term for this conflict. Both sides in the conflict are manufacturing POV-push redirects. Wikipedia should not be used as a POV-battleground.

Delete as nominator. Alsee (talk) 06:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Russian–Ukrainian War
See also: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_17 § Russo-Ukrainian War, and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_17 § Russian–Ukrainian War
  • Keep as likely search term. Stats are in the high single digits or low tens. Si Trew (talk) 08:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate there have been several conflicts between Ruthenia/Kievan Rus/Ukraine and Moskovy/Great Rus/Russia. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as likely search term or disambiguate. Also see a discussion of a similar redirect with a different dash in the title at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Russian–Ukrainian War. —PC-XT+ 07:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC) —PC-XT+ 00:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the Ukrainian-Soviet War of 1917-1921. Outright warfare between Russia and the Ukraine is not occurring at the present time, but the Ukraine and the Russian SFSR essentially fought several years of warfare (much more than what's going on now, and several times the duration) almost a century ago. If you disagree with my contention that it's the primary topic, you at least ought to support disambiguating it, per the IP. Nyttend (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose disambiguation. I updated my !vote to reflect this. There was some kind of a DAB at Russo-Ukrainian War, but it is now a redirect. —PC-XT+ 00:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC) —PC-XT+ 00:45, 30 September 2014 (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.

???[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 Question mark per WP:ASTONISH. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason this page redirects to Three Investigators#International Publishing of all things and not, say, Question mark? --Richard Yin (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2014 (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.

MOHROn[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) 16:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is this meant to mean? (probably some insult (moron) ) etc. That's my guess. - TheChampionMan1234 04:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheChampionMan1234: It's a misspelling of the name of Mongolia in Cyrillic (Монгол), similar to Poccnr for Россия. I have no idea why it exists, though. Perhaps it was once a link from somewhere. Jarble (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have no objection to this decision. Jarble (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the "correct" Volapuk encoding would write the "г" as lowercase "r" not uppercase "R", i.e. MoHron (or maybe MOHrOn). Redirects from Volapuk encoding may or may not be useful, but redirects from typos/misspellings of Volapuk encoding are probably a bridge too far. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of the weird capitalisation, which really makes it implausible. I can see Mohron being a plausible redirect, and maybe MOHRON or MoHron, but not MOHROn. Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2014 (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.

WİKİPEDİA[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. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to type. - TheChampionMan1234 03:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What it has to do is that there is no RS that anyone uses it in this way in any reliable source. Of course "Wikipedia" is referenced in articles, and it can be because "Wikipedia" is referenced in reliable sources. But not "WİKİPEDİA". Unless you can find any. Si Trew (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Nothing of importance links to it, nobody is going to type it out. ... discospinster talk 22:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep quite easy to type by accident if you leave CapsLock on and your system language is Turkish. See Dotted and dotless I#In computing. It gets around 180 views per month, suggesting that a few actual humans (rather than just bots & spiders) make this mistake every day. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the IP. This really is getting too many hits for us to assume that it's all bots, and the IP gives a solid explanation; I thought of Turkish as soon as I saw it, but I wouldn't have thought of leaving on the caps lock. Put that together with the obvious lack of alternative targets, and I see no reason to trash or modify it. Nyttend (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IP and Nyttend —PC-XT+ 00:36, 30 September 2014 (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.

亞墨利加[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. Magioladitis (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rare/archaic Chinese name for America, see zh:s:瀛寰志略/北亞墨利加米利堅合眾國 - TheChampionMan1234 03:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:FORRED and discussions [ad nauseam] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) here about foreign-language redirects. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obscure and no affinity. BTW how does it ever come to using 墨 (mo)? 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 03:36, 23 September 2014 (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.

吾父甘地[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. Magioladitis (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rarely used alternative Chinese name. - TheChampionMan1234 03:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:FORRED and discussions [ad nauseam] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) here about foreign-language redirects. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article title in zh-classical wp and good redirect in zhwp, but movie has no affinity for Chinese. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 03:36, 23 September 2014 (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.

孟尼王[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. Magioladitis (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid name in any language. - TheChampionMan1234 03:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:FORRED and discussions [ad nauseam] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) here about foreign-language redirects. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isolated uses in zhwp and zh-classical wp (Cambodia Commercial Bank) as transcription for a Cambodian road. I don't know whether Cambodia officially uses Chinese in tandem with other languages to sign roads (although 1% population looks thin), but if yes then this might just pass. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 03:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional delete. Much of Indochina used Chinese script (e.g. Chữ nôm, used for Viet Namese), so it's possible that Khmer also used it. Aside from that, there's no reason to keep. I'm going to ask at the reference desk, since Khmer language doesn't address the issue, as far as I saw. Nyttend (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full delete, not provisional; WP:RDL seems to think that Chinese script wasn't used for Khmer, so this is no better than a Chinese title for a German or Guaraní topic. Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2014 (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.

愜酷[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. Magioladitis (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Japanese. - TheChampionMan1234 03:26, 20 September 2014 (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.

斯科特 · 凯恩[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. Magioladitis (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity for Chinese. - TheChampionMan1234 03:25, 20 September 2014 (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.

盧金河[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 as it is not mentioned in the article (even if it is his Chinese name). Ruslik_Zero 20:22, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name isn't mentioned at taraget, and not in a relevant language anyway, by the way, if you're wondering, I'm sorting out Category:Redirects from non-English-language terms - TheChampionMan1234 03:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:FORRED and discussions [ad nauseam] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) here about foreign-language redirects. Champ, if I can offer any help to sort the category, let me know. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A few uses by some Chinese news outlets in 2008 ([news.sinchew.com.my/topic/node/48020]), but does not look official. Anyway no affinity with Chinese trumps over IMHO. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 03:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "not in a relevant language" is incorrect. He is of Chinese descent, this is his Chinese name as verified by multiple WP:RS [1][2], and scholars have documented the role which his decision to publicise his Chinese name and ethnic background played in his rise to political power [3]. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2014 (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.

芹菜糖苷[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. Magioladitis (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 4

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.

馬容容[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. Lenticel (talk) 02:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid alternative name in any language, see [4] - TheChampionMan1234 03:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:FORRED and discussions [ad nauseam] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) here about foreign-language redirects. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yo mama seems an equally likely target, although that is an R to Maternal insult: I note we haven't Paternal insult: dads may be insulted with impunity, I suppose. Si Trew (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, his name in Mandarin is pronounced "ma you you", but this is "ma rong rong". Siuenti (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Suienti. We haven't rong rong nor the song "Doo rong rong rong", which would seem likelier targets (but not by much). rong is a DAB with several Chinese entries but that doesn't help us here. Si Trew (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The closest connection I can find is in Cantonese, where 友 is yau and 容 is yong, i.e. still very far-fetched. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 15:56, 22 September 2014 (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.

`

姓名[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 East Asian name Lenticel (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This word is also used in Chinese and Japanese to refer to your full name, (as you can see from wikt:姓名 so it's not necessarily Korean - TheChampionMan1234 03:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure about this one. (Saying so explicitly rather than shutting up since my notvote is generally delete in this list of them all.) Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate WP:CJKV to the three name articles -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonTrew and 70.51.46.146: PLEASE CLOSE THE DISCUSSION and retarget this to East Asian name, there doesn't appear to be any problems with that target. I, as the nominator, proposes to withdraw from this discussion. - TheChampionMan1234 10:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheChampionMan1234: I haven't the authority to close it: I am not an admin. But I am not sure this has consensus for your proposed retarget. Si Trew (talk) 12:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to the retarget to East Asian name. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2014 (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.

黃偉強[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) 16:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the name of a Chinese actor, which clearly isn't related to the target. - TheChampionMan1234 02:52, 20 September 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_20&oldid=1131475266"