Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 19, 2016.

Invisible control character[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) 15:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is a redirect from a control character to an article. It is of no use because the control character cannot be entered on the keyboard; it does not display on the screen; it cannot be selected by dragging across it; and if it appears as a link, you can’t activate it by clicking. (It appears as a link to the left of the arrow in the header of this RfD: try seeing it, selecting it, or clicking it!) It is harmful because it is confusing and frustrating that you can’t see it, select it, or click it. —teb728 t c 19:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience this is a piped link to the redirect. —teb728 t c 19:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I fucking hate this redirect and how it (doesn't) work or render for the majority of users. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if you can't see it, select it or click it, then it's harmless. And it's pretty busy for a "useless" redirect, with 259 hits in the last 30 days. Actually it is a visible character, just not in the font we use. This one's been around for 10 years, and since it's possible to link to it, it's possible there are external links to it, and no good reason to break them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It hasn't been around for ten years. It was around for just over a month in 2006 and then was restored in October 2015. And probably 200 of those hits were because it popped up on WP:AN. —Cryptic 20:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here are the links to the redirect. At least six of the nine are connected with this RfD and other attempts to delete it. —teb728 t c 20:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It also should be salted. The deletion log shows the title has been deleted and recreated numerous times. The deletion rationales in the log give additional reasons why the title should be deleted. —teb728 t c 20:10, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not harmful. It can be typed on a keyboard. It is visible with certain fonts and browser configurations. The draft version of CSS Text Module Level 3 requires it to be visible, so pretty soon it will be visible by default to most people. Fucking hating a redirect is not a reason to delete it. And it is a good idea to have a redirect from every Unicode character for which there is an appropriate target, so that users can learn about it by searching for it on Wikipedia; the character is a C1 control character, so the target is appropriate. The two reasons it was deleted according to the deletion log are This title cannot be entered into the search window, is not being used, and it is implausible anyone will need it (but it can be entered into the search window, it could be used, someone could need need it, and even if they don’t it doesn’t hurt having it just in case) and that the character should not appear in valid XHTML, which is irrelevant, because it works fine in HTML. Gorobay (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We've already blacklisted titles with wikimarkup, as the technical problems they cause are disruptive. The same is the case here. Delete this one, and delete all other invisible characters. BTW, the link provided by Gorobay is technical enough that it basically explains nothing. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • This character is not used in wiki markup; what problems does it cause? Gorobay (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I can't see this while reading the page, but in the editor, a block appears saying "008D". Based on that, I think this character is "Reverse Line Feed". I have no idea what that means. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The target article tells you. Si Trew (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew:No it doesn't. It says reverse line feed but it doesn't tell you what that even means. The description field is blank. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Oiyarbepsy: true, but considering that below someone doubts that a reverse line feed even exists on "modern hardware" (presumably, EPOS terminals and ATMs -- a subclass of EPOS terminals -- are not "modern hardware") then what are we to do? The best would be to write an article on reverse line feed, but my searches tend to show it not as a Unicode code point but as an ASCII or EBCDIC one, and mostly an EPSON printer escape sequence if that is the right term to use as COMMONNAME, although VAX/VT display terminals such as the VT100 supported it to, but I guess I am old enough to have used one instead of this "modern hardware" that doesn't) and the sources I could get I felt were not reliable sources in a WP sense i.e. secondary sources (although I'd trust 'em, mainly primary sources), so I was not confident to write the separate article. I;ll have a go to make a stub if you think it worthwhile, though. Si Trew (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, the lede of VT100 mentions ANSI escape codes, so we may have a way in via that, haven't had time to check yet, just replying to your ping. Si Trew (talk) 21:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What an odd history. I have a couple of thoughts. Yes, it's been deleted twice before but both were speedy-deletions that were clearly outside of the speedy-deletion policy therefore the two deletions are irrelevant as precedent to the decision here. Second, Cryptic is right that even though the title was first created almost 10 years ago, the title was visible for much less than that. The likelihood of external links is small. All that aside, the arguments that the character can't be seen or linked is simply not true depending on the fonts used by individual readers. That makes it appear broken to some but perfectly clear to others. But appearing broken is different from being broken. And since it is usable to those others, it is apparently helpful and not harmful. Keep. Rossami (talk) 04:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Not used outside this discussion, hits are almost all caused by XfDs. For me, this does not even appear in my edit window, let alone in the rendered page (using Mozilla Firefox on a PC laptop). Now, I cannot be the only one. So, it is harmful. I've no objection to it on any purist grounds, but the fact that it does not render properly for some users – and it didn't on my Android tablet either – means it will never be useful. One thing Wikipedia/Wikimedia strives to do is keep the interface simple enough that it can be sensibly rendered on the vast majority of browsers. Saying "Pretty soon it will be visible to most people" assumes people can and will update their browser software, and the browser software will in fact be updated. I have no idea how this would render on a text-to-speech browser, but suspect it may not. Si Trew (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Is it helpful? No. Is it useful? No. Even if one is to be charitable and say that it can perhaps be hypothetically useful, it still is problematically confusing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Maybe replace the entire redirect with U+008D → Reverse line feed, with a visible source and a target that actually explains what the control character does. Apparently (Wikipedia is zero help) it causes backward movement of paper in a pre-laser, pre-inkjet printer. —teb728 t c 08:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It could also move the cursor up on a terminal emulator, as line feed (-> newline) moves it down (not always implying a carriage return): I'm not saying it will for any particular hardware, just that it could (I'll do some more research). I'm for adding a section on U+008D, but it could just be a section in newline, since line feed is already an {{-r|R from merge}] into that. The Unicode line breaking algorithm (here, referenced in newline) makes no mention of it.
But that doesn't really sort out what to do with this redirect; User:teb728 you're implying "delete" without actually saying it. Si Trew (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I said Delete in my nomination; I suggested this as an alternative for Keep !voters, who want to have something about the control character. I labeled it as "Comment" here to avoid !voting twice —teb728 t c 12:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, I missed that: sorry. Si Trew (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of an RS is obviously because nobody would dream of using a reverse line feed on modern hardware. —teb728 t c 12:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Plenty of line printers still around. Microsoft Windows 10 seems to use it in e.g. PosPrinter.PrintNormal to mitigate problems with cr/lf sequences, although the documentation doesn't say explicitly which control characters it emits to do so (that probably depends on the printer driver, anyway). The UNIX/Linux col(1) utility supports it (and half line feeds), e.g. here and imply that nroff(1) and tab(1) will output it; these are usually encoded as two-character (7-bit ASCII) sequences ESC+7, ESC+8 and ESC+9. The Linux console recognises it as ESC-M (says here). Si Trew (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are competing claims here about the harm this character could cause, and I admit to not fully understanding the issue. But if this is bad enough to have an outstanding bug report, why should we keep it? Conversely, if most users won't be able to see or use it anyway, what harm is it really causing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick link there, if unable to view the character(s), like myself. When I copy the character that is invisible to me from the edit link of that page, it turns into "Â". There is an article on Â.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So if I'm reading this correctly, we have a control character redirecting to an article on control characters. That sounds reasonable and helpful to me. -- Tavix (talk) 01:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Well by that argument, it should be deleted as WP:RFOREIGN. Control character language is not English language, it is a specific technical language that belongs on Control Character Wikipedia, not on English Wikipedia. When that Wikipedia exists, we can maybe redirect as an interwiki link to there. Until then, not. WP:RFOREIGN, article titles should be in English and redirects are article titles, WP:USEENGLISH. This would only be reasonable if:
if it were mentioned at the target
If it were valid HTML or XHTML that gets passed from the Wikimedia servers to client browsers
If it weren't invisible to most readers
Otherwise, it does not sound reasonable to me. I have already put in a load of stuff about reverse line feed for the doubters that it even existed (and half forward and reverse line feed as well), but this was an accident waiting to happen, until it happened.
For if not, let's have article titles (and redirects are article titles) for the byte sequences for Left-to-right reading order or Byte order mark or whatever else we fancy. None of those exists, I think, but I have no way of finding them because my browser won't let me search for FFEF or FFFE. I am perfectly capable of writing an HTTP client that would submit that, but it's not valid HTML, as was pointed out above. The fact the Wikimedia servers accept it is just a "feature" in their implementation of HTTP address decoding.
We don't need to confuse an English-speaking readership so that a control-character readership will understand it. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Control Character Wikipedia. We speak English, not Control Characters. WP:RFOREIGN, as I say. Si Trew (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I know I am good at typos, but this invisible control character is effing up my browser. It is harmful. Quite happy to write an article on reverse line feeds, but not happy that when I go to edit it makes my editor pane go weird. (Not everyone has your browser.) Delete with prejudice. Si Trew (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2016 (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.

Smarch[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 disambiguate with all plausible past targets of this redirect plus suggestions below. This option will satisfy most participants in this discussion. Deryck C. 21:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This redirect has had an interesting history. Currently it targets a discussion of thirteenth months in general, while in the past it targeted the Simpsons episode in which it was coined, and it was even a separate article at one point. Currently neither of the articles mentions the term, and I don't think it belongs in either of them because it's WP:TRIVIA. Thus I recommend deletion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep More people know Smarch as the "13th month" than the official term Undecimber. Therefore the redirect helps average people find the concept they are searching for and, in the process, teaches them something without otherwise getting in the way. It's also much easier to type and spell than Undecimber.Sturmovik (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of the very history you describe. Links to it are scattered across multiple pages of history and are subject to being restored at almost any time. It is also relevant that this title has existed for almost 12 years now, making it likely that external links to the page exist. Link rot is an evil to be avoided whenever possible. The redirect does no harm and has the potential for some benefit. Rossami (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - is this widely recognized as a generic term for a thirteenth month, though? My search suggests that it's only known as a reference to the Simpsons, and doesn't refer to quite the same thing as Undecimber. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete per Rossami. I don't have a solid idea of what we should do with it (presumably keeping or retargeting to the Simpsons list is best), but the history given above is a solid reason to leave it a blue link. Nyttend (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Disambiguate. The Simpson's term is trivial and probably isn't mentioned anywhere for good reason. However, there are a few minor uses elsewhere and the redirect is obscuring searches for these uses: Dempsey Bob's apprentice Keith Wolfe Smarch, Yukon general election, 1989 candidate Carl Smarch, and Ross River-Southern Lakes candidate Jim Smarch. I appreciate that Rossami and Nyttend want this kept due to the history, so we can always disambiguate these uses, although it'd consist entirely of WP:DABRLs. I'm fine with deletion as well. -- Tavix (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate. With respect, the keep voters' arguments are the epitome of putting process over readers. Page history is quite easily restored when needed. This redirect gives nothing to readers who already know of "Smarch" as a fictional month, and will only mislead and confuse the rest. --BDD (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2016 (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.

LTFC players[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. General consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect, should be deleted. —  Cliftonian (talk)  15:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unambiguous. As an alumnus of what was then Luton College, I can confirm that LTFC is used quite a lot to refer to the club, especially as graffiti on bus-stops. Si Trew (talk) 05:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not seeing how this redirect is "implausible" at all and it's not equivocal. TheAstuteObserver (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think this is a plausible redirect at all. GiantSnowman 08:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly to call the XI who turn out each week "players" is optimistic, but otherwise, why not? Si Trew (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2016 (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.

LTFC history[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 29#LTFC history

Palestinian infiltrators[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, but retarget Palestinian infiltration to Palestinian political violence. I don't find consensus for a specific action here, and I note that both redirects were created by Gabi S. at the same time, both pointing to the political violence article. Another user unilaterally retargeted the one, and presumably was just unaware of the other. Lacking evidence that anyone wants these pointing to different places, I'm restoring the older status quo. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing, WP:RFD#D2. Not used anywhere, stats are three in 90 days. I just don't see how an infiltrator implies political violence, or vice versa. And is it Palestinians doing the infiltrating, or being infiltrated?

See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_11#Palestinian_terrorists. Si Trew (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Infiltration does not, as stated above, imply violence in any way. Having recently seen the film Bridge of Spies, the parallel cases of Francis Gary Powers and Rudolf Abel come to mind: Both functioned as infiltrators of a foreign power into another nation's territory, but a major reason why they could be swapped was both of them were gathering information, acting nothing akin to pirates, terrorists, etc. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabi S.: you're right, and I'll put my hands up and say that I didn't check whether it was at the target – I had meant to, but ran out of time (and battery power) before I could. Striking my delete. Si Trew (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Casting around for similar terms, Infiltrator is a DAB at which this Palestine/Israel sense is not mentioned (probably should be); infiltrators is red, as is Palestinian infiltrator, Israeli infiltrator and Israeli infiltrators. Si Trew (talk) 06:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added Palestinian infiltration to the nom, because they should probably go to the same target. This was also created by User:Gabi S., so that user's view may or may not carry over to this one; discussing the two together seems sensible. Si Trew (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It doesn't look like these will be deleted, but indeed it probably does make sense for them to have the same target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:43, 19 February 2016 (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.

True bat[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 22:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True bats, a Neelix variation, was just speedily deleted. There's no mention of this designation at the target article, and it's at least not intuitive that only microbats would be "true" bats. This redirect is much older, but I still can't find anything about "true bats". BDD (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete for same reason. Microbats don't make a good home gym. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This can't be speedy deleted for the same reason. The other one was a Neelix redirect. This one isn't. -- Tavix (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Searching around, the phrase does not seem particularly used about microbats. It seems occasionally be used for some vampire bats, but the veracity applies to its diet, not its battiness. Si Trew (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate If a definition is not intuitive it helps to provide a redirect. In this case it's ambiguous and could also refer to Vespertilionidae. It may however be better to add this to the microbat article, that they are sometimes called "true bats" but that this has term also has narrower definitions. Peter James (talk) 01:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neither of Peter's suggestions would be valid in a dab since 'true bat' isn't mentioned in either article. I have no prejudice for recreation if it can be cited somewhere. -- Tavix (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2016 (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.

Neutral Milk Cafe[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence that this is a genuine alternative or former name of the target (which is a band, not a hotel). It gets nine Google hits, all from Wikipedia scrapers. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense.
I guess I get different search results as I don't see WP mirrors in the search results, but my second is for a YouTube video of them performing at the Crocodile Cafe, third for a Youtube video of Me - "In the Aeroplane Over the Sea" (Neutral Milk Hotel) and fourth for tickets for them performing at the World Cafe Live Wilmington.(First is WP.) I can't see that this band was ever known by this name. It's not like the Penguin Cafe Orchestra where the band and café are somewhat synonymous. We don't have Neutral Milk Café with the diacritic (and, off-topic, I can imagine the fights to settle our article about cafés at the somewhat arch title coffeehouse). Si Trew (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2016 (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:Tryharder[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: implausible redirect. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's been around for five years and is still in some use. It does not strike me as especially implausible - at least, no better target directly presents itself. Keep. Rossami (talk) 03:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Rossami.--Louiedog (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how the term 'try harder' can be construed as meaning 'that information is not in the provided source' or 'this reference has failed verification', which is what we're saying with this template. Granted it's harmless, but it also strikes me as pointless. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate and delete - it occurs to me that this shortcut's use is inherently WP:BITEy. "Try harder" cannot be seen as anything but a negative judgement of another editor's work, no matter what the purpose of the template is, and that's not appropriate behaviour. In that sense it is harmful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It has also been deleted before as WP:G6 uncontroversial maintenance, back in 2010. I can't tell what it referred to then but there's a clue in a talk archive that it carried the same use. I have bypassed all (three) instances of the redirect in main space. It's still referred in the template documentation, pending outcome of this discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Template redirects that are a total WP:SURPRISE, though they do not happen often, are a bit confusing. Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector and Steel1943. General inappropriateness aside, it is ambiguous, as there are many encyclopedia editing related things that editors could be unsuitably derided about with the words used in the name of this redirect.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, it is disparaging even if hidden within the markup, and ambiguious. We don't have {{R from whatever}}, for example. Si Trew (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is being mean just for the sake of being mean. There's no point. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not helpful and mean at the same time --Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2016 (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/2016_February_19&oldid=1037901809"