Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 23, 2015.

template:refl[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) 14:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing as just as likely redirect target would be {{ref label}}, which in fact it apparently once was. {{Reflex}} is also reasonable. If the creator of the redirect is so lazy that he can't type 3 additional letters, he can save 2 more keystrokes and use {{RE}}. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - confusing; ambiguous between many possible targets. Ivanvector (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2015 (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.

template:+r[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. --BDD (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way anyone would understand what this redirect means or that it suggests to improve references in an article. Including the actual template, there are 30 redirect options to use in such articles that make much more sense as to what they are and what they mean. Template:Refimprove#Redirects StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -
  1. Per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
  2. The redirect was created weeks ago with dozens of uses to its name, so IMO the time has passed for changing the redirect without significant confusion. Alleged confusion is not very plausible at all. So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete.
  3. "There seems to be no evidence of confusion, just conjecture on the part of nominator, and no argument grounded in WP:R. Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended. We don't delete redirects based merely on conjecture. Someone obviously found these useful given they were created."
  4. "One of the lowest things one can do is steal another mans tools. So you have no use for it. That it's being used on [talk pages] is good enough, and there is zero reason to take away something that has no higher use. Such Nominators should be required to be the one to hand edit and remove any deleted tags."
  5. "Redirects are not only cheap but this is a redirect from and to template namespace. That would tend to indicate to me that anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it [confused]. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as {{tlc}} or {{tlx}} or whatever as useful shorthand for editors."
--Jax 0677 (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2015 (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.

Scared shitless[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) 14:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic profanity. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D3, "offensive". Defecation doesn't mention fear, there's no Symptoms of fear or Fear#Symptoms, [[Diarrhea would be plain wrong, and I can't find a better target. I note Chicken shit redirects to Cowardice but is not mentioned there. Searching for "shit[ting] oneself" reveals a few WP discussions but nothing fruitful. Si Trew (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's not very profane, and not very offensive. Further, it's a commonly used term. Whether "fear" is the proper target or not, is a different question, but WP:NOTCENSORED on deletion just because the word s**t appears. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is nevertheless a common term, unlike other offensive terms that are uncommon, and we don't censor just for the hell of it. (And I did use the word "hell", which one may wish to censor as well) WP:CODI -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep absent any good reasons for deletion; gets readers to the content they're looking for. In the guideline, "offensive" means the redirect creates undue insult to the target of the redirect, as in the given example, redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a loser" -> "Joe Bloggs", or redirecting "Joe Bloggs" -> "Loser" (unless it is reliably sourced that Joe Bloggs is indeed a loser). It doesn't mean "some readers might be offended" - that falls under WP:NOTCENSORED. Or I may create a redirect WP:PEARLCLUTCHING. Ivanvector (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point. The offensive argument would be relevant if this was pointing to an article about a person but this redirects to a grneral article. There may be valid reasons to delete this but I don't think it may be offensive aplies.--69.157.252.152 (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unhelpful because the phrase isn't used in the article. Tavix |  Talk  03:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it unhelpful? Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it should not include every synonym in an article just because we have redirects from synonyms. Or should we make articles into dictionary entries just to support synonym redirects? Or should we make articles hard to find by deleting all synonyms? Isn't that the point of redirects, to point from a synonym to the article? -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia has a fine search engine that can take someone exactly where they want to go. By redirecting someone to Fear, it does an injustice by pointing them to an article that doesn't contain that term. If the redirect is deleted, and they are instead taken to a search page, they can see that "Scared Shitless" is a song on the album Thanks to the Moon's Gravitational Pull or is quoted in the Alpinestars (band) article, for example. PS: It would be a lot easier to figure out who you are if you could please create an account. Tavix |  Talk  12:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia defaults to giving search engine results for anything typed in the searchbox. This is not a good thing, since the search engine is buggy and sometimes returns no results. There was a change in the behavior of the searchbox sometime last year, as discussed in VPT. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can you provide evidence that this is actually a problem? I use the search engine daily, and have never had any problems with it. Tavix |  Talk  15:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • It was discussed at VPT last year, with the problems with the search engine -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's worse than that: If your search term happens to match a title in article space (case insensitive) most of the quick search tools on the sidebars etc. take you straight there, even if one were typing search terms generally to see what articles there might be. Hence redirects can positively harm people trying to find "something similar". (This is a particular bugbear of mine since I have to jump over to Special:Search to find things that are not redirects to a given article.) Si Trew (talk) 23:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC) PS. 70.51, I thought that was your real name. Well, since you cycled from 70.50.[reply]
  • Delete - Tavix makes a better point. Since this isn't mentioned at the target and isn't necessarily a synonym, search results would be better. Ivanvector (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate between fear and the song on Thanks to the Moon's Gravitational Pull. It's an obscure topic so I don't think hatnotes are appropriate. Siuenti (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopaedic; the phrase is not used in target article. 2.27.78.251 (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Many may argue that it's unhelpful because it's not at the target, but there's no WP:RFD#DELETE criterion for that. I mentioned, above, that others such as Chicken shit, listed here at RFD had the same level of unhelpfulness – and now that is an encyclopaedic article (albeit a stub). This isn't, and seems unlikely to be so any time soon. I searched for RS before, and listed my failure above. If the only RS is a dictionary, then that belongs in Wiktionary as it would be a WP:DICDEF: but Wiktionary doesn't have it.
Thus WP:RFD#D2 "The redirect may cause confusion". Several editors here are confused by it, and all we could do is provide a WP:DICDEF. Q.E.D. Si Trew (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2015 (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.

Mascucide[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 both. JohnCD (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created out of a discussion on Talk:Femicide speculating whether there should be an equivalent masculine-centered word corresponding to Femicide. There is no indication of any significant use of the word mascucide to represent the concept of androcide, but the creation of this article gives legitimacy to a word that really does not exist. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NEO: obviously made up. The only sources are anonymous trolls in online women's forums. Ivanvector (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are downplaying real suffering from men and by doing that you are not neutral, see the ethnocide against Bosnian men at Screbenica, your argument has as much valid as me claiming that "femicide" is a made up term only used by trolls in men's fora, Wikipedia is no place for unneutral misandric statements, a more recent example of where this term might apply is the systemic mass murder of men and boys by Boko Haram, but I guess this makes me "a misogynistic troll" in your eyes.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Certainly men have been killed for being men; this is well documented in history. However I don't see any sources for that act being called "mascucide" - the word is made up, not the concept or the action. Ivanvector (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a Latin for of a Greek word, the user who suggested the term did so because the Latin-termed page Femicide has a Greek redirect "Gynocide" and if you want to compare it with less relevant redirects look at Lesbicide that is also listed for Femicide, they are easily confusable as Greek and Latin words are often used interchangeably in regards to modern laws see the aforementioned comparison with Femicide Vs. Gynocide otherwise those 2 redirects should also be nominated for deletion. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The word gynocide has been used meaningfully, as indicated by a Google search for the term. The terms mascucide and masculicide have not been used in any meaningful manner to represent the murder of men. The point isn't that one could make up a word like this to have this meaning, just that no one ever has. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplication - since it looks like we're going to have two mirror conversations happening here and below, would either of you object to me combining the two threads, rather than each of us repeating our arguments in two different places? Ivanvector (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually since there have been some more comments, it's going to be difficult to merge. I'll just leave the two threads separate. Ivanvector (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked around and have indeed found no other usage of the word, I retract my keep and go for delete as it's a neologism. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But they both could qualift as {{R from incorrect name}} as they are Latin forms for an other wise Greek name so the mistake might more common than "trolls".
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A good example would be the People's Republic of East-Germany, something I've heard literally never in my life but is used under this rule, at-least these 2 terms are used by alleged "trolls", while the P.R.G. is a new invented term made by a random person on Wikipedia.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, you might be right about that. It does clearly refer to androcide and thus may be a proper incorrect name redirect. The difference between this and East Germany is there is some external precedent for Communist states being incorrectly referred to as "People's Republic" even though East Germany is not, while these two terms ("mascucide" and "masculicide") seem to have mostly originated here. We couldn't even decide which was the proper Latin form. I'd like to hear what some editors who weren't involved in the original discussion think about this.
I hope you don't mind I've edited your comment to wrap the rcat template in the tlx template, otherwise this page gets incorrectly categorized. Ivanvector (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
neither is People's Republic of East Germany, but then again I've heard these 2 terms be used on several sites like A Voice for Men and other Men's Rights pages, while as someone with an interest in world history has never heard or read about the supposed "People's Republic of East Germany" while for some reason this term is being preserved while a more commonly used term such as mascucide which is just a latin-form of androcide isn't seen as a plausible confusion.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be made up. No hits on Google Books. --Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ancient Greek: homicide (and Ancient Greek: gynocide), if you want, otherwise it's WP:NEOLOGISM. Also WP:POINTY, but that's one for the article not the redrect. The acts of a subject being killed by a man or woman, would be an entirely different case, I imagine. I am well aware that Latin and Greek can be stitched together in words such as "television", but we need WP:RS here, and WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The target Androcide is itself an R to Gendercide, and it's only the discussion for this R stopping a bot "fixing" the double redirect. (Similarly for the other nom.) All these arguments, then, are essentially moot. Si Trew (talk) 23:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The target was not a redirect when this discussion opened; that only happened in the last few days. However Guettarda and others did have a relevant discussion on the talk page there which might affect this discussion. I've left a note there about this thread. Ivanvector (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that - I wasn't aware of this discussion when I redir'd the page. Had I known I would have left a note here. Guettarda (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that myself. I had written a whole thing here about the bits of the words coming from Latin caedere plus the nouns they refer to (it's commented out here if you want to read it/are a sadist) but that's overly complicated. Basically, the words Si mentions existed in Latin as whole words. We have matricide, fratricide, sororicide, suicide, and so on, because they are concepts known from classical antiquity. The words femicide and mascu[li]cide were invented in modern times, which suggests that the concepts also date from that time, and frankly mascu[li]cide seems to have been invented only very recently because some men felt the need to have a counterargument to writings about femicide, and means nothing outside of being contrary. My point being that Latin usage arguments are moot here. And don't get me started on the Greek-Latin mashups androcide and gynocide. I do believe that both men and women have been killed throughout history as acts of war, but that doesn't seem to be what any of these articles are referring to. Ivanvector (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mascucide/ Masculicide are not English words. 2.27.78.251 (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2015 (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.

Masculicide[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 procedural close - merged with discussion above. Please comment there. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created out of a discussion on Talk:Femicide speculating whether there should be an equivalent masculine-centered word corresponding to Femicide. There is no indication of any significant use of the word masculicide to represent the concept of androcide, but the creation of this article gives legitimacy to a word that really does not exist. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NEO: less obviously but still made up. Sources this time are anonymous contributions to online dictionaries, and of course trolls in women's forums. Ivanvector (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are downplaying real suffering from men and by doing that you are not neutral, see the ethnocide against Bosnian men at Screbenica, your argument has as much valid as me claiming that "femicide" is a made up term only used by trolls in men's fora, Wikipedia is no place for unneutral misandric statements, a more recent example of where this term might apply is the systemic mass murder of men and boys by Boko Haram, but I guess this makes me "a misogynistic troll" in your eyes.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a Latin for of a Greek word, the user who suggested the term did so because the Latin-termed page Femicide has a Greek redirect "Gynocide" and if you want to compare it with less relevant redirects look at Lesbicide that is also listed for Femicide. They are easily confusable as Greek and Latin words are often used interchangeably in regards to modern laws see the aforementioned comparison with Femicide Vs. Gynocide otherwise those 2 redirects should also be nominated for deletion. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could only found one source to use the word (for both words, though different sources), and in this case it as only a comment using it as a neologism, so I change my vote to delete.
Though I'd suggest {{R from incorrect name}} as the mistake is plausible as this is a Latin form of an otherwise Greek name, and more people than merely "internet trolls" might confuse the terms.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added Masculicide to the Mascucide discussion above. Please keep all further comments in that discussion to avoid the duplication problem. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to do that. Ivanvector (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2015 (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.

Witbier[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. JohnCD (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with a byte order mark in page title. GZWDer (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I would say delete, but Gorobay has edited this redirect and did not suggest deletion at the time. Will wait for their comment here. Ivanvector (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Witbier is Dutch for White beer, not wheat beer. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. I updated the nom to show that this is a {{R to section}}. Witbier is a particular type of wheat beer. Witbier (without the extra code) also redirects to that section. Ivanvector (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the marked-up redirect - does not seem to be useful. Is it even possible to type this? Ivanvector (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just typed http://en.wikipedia.org?title=%EF%BB%BFWitbier into my browser, and it worked fine. So, yes, it is possible to type it. (That's UTF-8). So, yes, possible, but rather unlikely. But more likely is other user agents (such as things that harvest URLs) "typing" it automatically... Si Trew (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea how I managed to create this redirect instead of Witbier, but I certainly didn't intentionally include the extra markup. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to markup issues. --Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hidden characters not visible to users and unusable as a redirect -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2015 (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.

Template:ReedPlaceNames1975[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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Tavix |  Talk  03:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect for someone to be able to input the citation for a particular book (without a way to put the page number in but whatever) based on a typo. I fixed the 4 typos. The odds that someone will (a) know that you can cite this book by this template and (b) make a typo looking for this template are beyond minimal. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well beyond minimal, but not, I think, in the direction you mean. In New Zealand English, "placename" is one word, yet this book uses the more formal UK spelling "Place Name". As such, the redirect is actually at the correctly spelt name, even though it is one that is less likely to be used by a New Zealander. It would, however, be the name more likely to be used by someone who knew that the name of the book was "Reed Place Names Of New Zealand" but was unfamiliar with New Zealand orthography (such as, say, an editor in the US or UK). As such, both variants of the template name are extremely useful. BTW, I would say that I use both the template and its redirect interchangeably and about equally - probably about 30 or 40 times each (usually subst'ing, which is possibly why you only found four transclusions). Grutness...wha? 12:06, 23 February 2015 (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.

Rubén Salazar[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 Procedural close. Move protected due to edit-warring. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources for the accent on Salazar's first name. All English-language sources lack the accent. The editor who added the accent has been warned about adding them without sources, at User talk:Comayagua99. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wrong forum - active move-war: when you read this the page you expect might not actually be the redirect. Per Thespian's edit summary here when move-protecting the page when this last happened, this is one step away from Arbcom. I am going to list this at WP:RFPP. Rfd is the wrong forum for this. Ivanvector (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Some sources use the accent, and it's reasonable enough to be a potentially likely search term. The article has your preferred title; trying to uproot this redirect really makes it look like you're being a sore winner. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep the redirect Rubén Salazar -> Ruben Salazar per WP:RFPP: some sources use the accent but it seems most (and he himself) do not. We go by reliable sources; the redirect is valid. I believe all have been move-protected now so there's nothing to do here. Ivanvector (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2015 (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.

East Germany–Iceland relations[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. JohnCD (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unhelpful redirect. East Germany is not mentioned at the targeted article. Tavix |  Talk  01:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against it eventually being created as a full article or as a redirect to an article (yet to be written) on German-Icelandic relations. Currently, however, it seems pointless. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble. Si Trew (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. West Germany–Iceland relations does not exist. 2.27.78.251 (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2015 (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/2015_February_23&oldid=1136448181"