Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 4, 2017.

Presidential candidate[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 15#Presidential candidate

Brexit crisis[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. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems POV term. Was a weird dab, then a redirect to a dab (the dab is likely to be deleted). Widefox; talk 23:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. striking vote. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I agree with Patar knight. It's a widely-used term which should lead to one of the Brexit pages. Polly Tunnel (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given how this exact wording appears to be used by a wide variety of publications, I also suggest that we keep this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Rangel Ravelo[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 St. Louis Cardinals minor league players#Rangel Ravelo now that he's in the Cardinals system. -- Tavix (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No longer in the Athletics minor league organization and is currently unemployed so not possible to change target. Spanneraol (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Withdraw nomination.. ok with keep and changing the redirect. Spanneraol (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom.--Yankees10 22:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing to Keep for now since he signed with new team.--Yankees10 22:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not for the reasons stated above. A person either is notable, or not notable: whether they were included or removed from a league should not change that. Delete because they were presumably not notable in the first place. But since the article only gives potted biographies of people in that league, this strays into WP:BLP1E or whatever it is, if people are only notable for being in the league then they are not notable by WP standards. Si Trew (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Acch, I prodded the target, but Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oakland_Athletics_minor_league_players says it was kept, and the near-to-closing comments specifically call out WP:GNG. I don't think we can move much farther with the R when the article itself has a consensus keep. I shall check the other names in the article here and list their targets, for completeness. Si Trew (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Paul Blackburn (baseball) -> Oakland Athletics minor league players#Paul Blackburn, but Paul Blackburn a DAB at which mentioned
  2. Ryan Doolittle -> Oakland_Athletics_minor_league_players#Ryan_Doolittle
  3. Ryan Scott Doolittle red would be {{R from full name}} as given in article
  4. [Matt Chapman]], a DAB, mentioned there but only to Oakland_Athletics_minor_league_players, not section Oakland_Athletics_minor_league_players#Matt Chapman
  5. Matt James Chapman red would be {{R from full name}} as given in article
  6. Heath Fillmyer-> Oakland Athletics minor league players#Heath Fillmyer
  7. Heath Devon Fillmyer red as above
  8. Daniel Gossett -> Oakland_Athletics_minor_league_players#Daniel_Gossett
  9. Daniel James Gossett red
  10. Daulton Jeffries -> Oakland_Athletics_minor_league_players#Daulton_Jefferies
  11. Daulton Compton Jeffries red
  12. Richie Martin -> Oakland_Athletics_minor_league_players#Richie Martin
  13. Richie Allen Martin red
  14. Casey Meisner -> Oakland_Athletics_minor_league_players#Casey_Meisner
  15. Yairo Muñoz /-> Oakland Athletics minor league players#Yairo Muñoz, with R without dias Yairo Munoz and marked as such
  16. Mikey White -> Oakland_Athletics_minor_league_players#Mikey_White

Of these above, all were born in 1990 or later and have only ever played minor league baseball if they have any claim to notability. I don't believe they do, I think it is just a masturbatory exercise in "being on Wikipedia". Most have sources but of course from sources that cover minor league baseball, which is a bit like saying that my local pub crib team should be notable. It was mentioned in my local newsletter, therefore it must be notable. WP:BLP1E seems to be the holding pattern here.

None marked as {{R to section}} nor sections marked as incoming per WP:RSECT.

But I'm probably wrong. I played as XIth man and scoreboard runner in a friendly against Essex C.C.C. first XI once, but that does not make me notable. Si Trew (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My PROD on the target has been reverted without discussion by User:Yankees10. I have left a message to discuss here. Si Trew (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is not about the notability of the page or the people in it, it is simply that the redirect is invalid because the article no longer contains any information on the named person. Spanneraol (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of Miss Universe hosts and invited artists[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) 16:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Combined these two entries, same topic. Si Trew, please check edits. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This has a "substantive page history", so I presume that is why it should be kept. People with criminal records have a substantive history but things like the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act suggest why they should not be kept. What happens is, we are left with the vestige that the target is not a list, it does not mention hosts or invited artists. The history will still be there when the article is deleted. All these do is WP:SURPRISE people. Perhaps "invited artist" is the name used by this competition, but neither "invite" nor "artist" appear anywhere on the page; WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Si Trew (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Primarily, the target is not a list article, so should not wrongfoot anyone searching for list articles. Secondly, it doesn't enumerate or list Miss Universe Hosts and Invited Artists (I guess that means contestants such as Miss Universe Canada and Miss Universe Liberia, but I think Miss Universe Canada had better thoughts and got another outfit, and her own article.) Si Trew (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess "invited artist" is the name used to describe (presumably paid) entrants to this competition, but neither "invite" nor "artist" appear anywhere on the page; WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Si Trew (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it referred to the entertainment eg Lady Gaga, Boyz II Men --- PageantUpdater (talk) 10:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stats below statistical noise level, although I think User:Thryduulf might argue the noise level got a bit lower since bots were excluded with the newer tool (and I would agree in principle, but then why did they shoot up to 89 on 30 March? Miss Universe 2016 was held on 30 January.) Si Trew (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Was there such a list for hosts and venues that got deleted? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Venues one still exists... with a hideous title: List of Miss Universe editions. Pageants would probably be more descriptive. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore list per WP:BLAR as there's a list in the history on the subject. It's undereferenced, but I think it can be brought up to snuff pretty easily. If it is to be deleted, it needs to go through WP:AFD first. -- Tavix (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Manned mission[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 16#Manned mission

Xxf[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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship between the redirect and the target article is unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My first guess is (or was) that this was something to do with the precision of decimal numbers; significant digits -> significant figures and so on. Such as a format string in C (language) such as "%xf" (although that means something else entirely, essentially a meta-substitution). That is just a guess on what was attempted on what this means, not what it actually does redirect to, the "X" being a placeholder for a digit and the "f" meaning floating-point number, if anything. Would be a WP:SURPRISE to end up where it does. Format string -> printf format string though this on its own would not be a valid one. Whatever, probably best read as "xxf" without initial cap. Normal precision is red. Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Miss Universe Liberia[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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. We seem not to have Miss Universe Canada, Mrs Universe Central African Republic, Miss Universe Ecuador and so on. In fact we don't have any other country province shire or state other than this, not even on List of Miss Universe Hosts and Invited Artists, which redirects to the same target, patently not being a list of etceteras. Si Trew (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, apparently, we do have Miss Universe Canada. I guess these very titles queered my search. And your judge for this evening, your own, your very own User:Ivanvector... Si Trew (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Um Miss Ecuador as well. In fact almost every participant country has one. However I couldn't tell you the last time Liberia competed at Miss Universe, it's been a while. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 10:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that page says they select the entries for Miss Universe and others, but Miss Ecuador is not necessarily Miss Universe Ecuador. Which makes these a bit odd titles anyway, i.e. presumably they mean "The artist invited to represent Ecuador in the Miss Universe competition", but then there are going to be so many Miss Universes I am not sure how useful that form of title would be, it's a bit WP:SURPRISEing that Miss Universe is not, er, universal but actually country-specific. Si Trew (talk) 05:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

XBIZ Award for MILF Performer of the Year[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. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There have been slow burning attempts in the past three six months to restore the redirect, so I think this is better off deleted (to remove the history), and then the name can be redirected to the original target. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the history have to be removed? The redirect as is should be fine; and speaking of the history, it doesn't show that there had been much discussion about the current state of the redirect (unless the discussion was taking place somewhere else). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 10:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect and trout nominator. There have been two efforts to restore the article in the past three months, both by the same editor. There are many better ways to deal with the alleged problem than deleting a valid redirect, such as page protection, and there is no indication that any alternative was pursued. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with User:MShabazz. "The way to decide a stupid law is not to ignore it but to enforce it". (Not mine, but Albert Haddock's). I am not saying this rule is stupid, but to think that one could evade it by taking it via the back routes through RfD is stupid, so let's enforce it. The history will be kept anyway, so there is no reason not to delete it on those grounds. It just makes it harder to search for non-admins and search bots to find it. And we are not I believe in the business on making it easier (or harder) for webcrawlers but human readers. Si Trew (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Page history without certain problems is publically preserved unless the page shouldn't exist in any form. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Johnson, Vermont[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 Wrong forum: You should've done this at WP:RM/TR. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 18:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary disambiguation. There is a Johnson (village), Vermont within the town, but obviously the town is the primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the town is the primary topic, then the redirect is currently pointing to the right place. Are you sure this shouldn't be a move request? Usually, simply reversing a redirect is considered uncontroversial. Station1 (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

EDucaton[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. -- Tavix (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausibe capitalisation, not a camelcase redirect. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. It was when I wrote it, but now I am starting to wonder whether it is actually a fairly likely typo (E being just above D on most -WERT- keyboard layouts). educaton is red, though. To educate and inform and entertain, that's me. No, hang on, that's the BBC. Si Trew (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a notable series that uses this stylization? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Galician Universities[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 14#Galician Universities

Book learning[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 17#Book learning

Skiagraphy[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 Sciography and hatnote to Radiography. -- Tavix (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Skiagraphy is an artistic technique that is not related to Radiography. Made WD entity: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q29034960 Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Sciography and add a hatnote to Radiography. Given the range of meanings also includes "the art of drawing outlines" and various obsolete ones like "telling the time of day by the position of the sun", "scenography" and "cross-section", disambiguating could be an option as well. – Uanfala (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Uanfala: Redirect to Sciography, as that appears to be the primary topic. A hatnote at Radiography also seems fine, since that does appear to be a secondary meaning of the word. 786b6364 (talk) 12:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab Sciography pertains mostly to the art, but Skiagraphy or Skiography have both referred to the art technique and the medical one mentioned in radiography. [4] [5] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jikkyō Powerful Pro Yakyū series/Power Pro Kun Pocket series[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 13#Jikkyō Powerful Pro Yakyū series

Left and right bank[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 Bank (geography). (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These were hard redirects from late 2003 and early 2004 respectively to mid 2016. In mid 2016 they were converted to their current form. I converted these back to hard redirects about 3 weeks ago, and was reverted. These should be converted into hard redirects, proper disambiguation pages, or wiktionary redirects. Pseudo-disambiguation is inappropriate. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Anything but the current state. A soft redirect with a bit of text below is confusing for readers, and it's also not needed as that text is also present in the first lines of the targets. So at the very least, these could be converted back to hard redirects and the first lines of the targets trimmed down for clarity and links added to Bank (geography), which has a neat picture illustrating the concept (and is itself a possible target for the redirects). But still, I'm not sure the arrangement will be optimal. My knee-jerk reflex was to propose moving Left Bank (disambiguation) to the primary title Left bank per common practice, but – taking note of the difference in capitalisation – all but one of the entries on the dab page are proper names in title case. In that case maybe it could be moved to Left Bank? But this redirects to an article about the Left Bank of the Seine. Is this really the primary topic? – Uanfala (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point, Uanfala and thinking when I changed them over a year ago. Bankedness is more important than cardinal directions, as the same rivers twist around in big hooks, and meander inside large regions. See a map of the Allegheny River]] for an example, or the Susquehanna Rivers. // FrankB
@Uanfala: I had the same knee-jerk thought three weeks ago, and almost took that action before I pondered the capitalization. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 23:43, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Bank... etc. (Changed) Keep as Soft Redirects, or delete, Right bank (disambiguation) & Left bank (disambiguation) & Right Bank (disambiguation) & Left Bank (disambiguation) for left bank & right bank as the disambig pages (As amplified below) - and thanks to Godsy for anticipating me in bringing this up here, but not for the discourtesy in addressing me about it before his revert three weeks back. This, if there is any place, is a case for soft redirects--as with any term little more than a dic-def that has been high-jacked by some cultural johnny-come-lately reference. I have no idea why Paris deserves two redirect for it's Left Bank and Right Banks, but being proper place references, grammar school rules of capitalization suggest to me the appropriate English terms are those two forms for the French named articles.
    • I agree having them at page top is contraindicated, had I not appointments this morning, I might have gone back to put them at page end. As is plain when I look at these three Mar 10th, Mar 17th, Mar 24th notice groups, its getting so the whole project is one big ass mess of disambiguation pages... AND for Pete's sake, WHY would we settle for THAT as the title of a disambig page? Left bank (edit talk links history) and Right bank (edit talk links history) would and should be perfectly fine for such purposes, and as with any other term of art (and not of culture) should lead such pages, as I added to the disambig pages themselves just this morning before fixing the redirect again.
    • I will own, I should have noticed his revert far sooner, but I'm focused at any time on 6-10 articles with related or same sourced cites and bot notices aren't high on my everyday routine. Heck, sometimes I'm working the same article on different computers. Working to add deep content, I might not have everything lined up to close a edit for some days. If I can deal with disambig notices at the time I get the banner notice, fine, but that is not a common case. That these have not been erased from my talk just says how busy I've been. The priority is low until I examine text!
    • So... Persons talking to me are more of a priority, Godsy, so you should have rang me up.
    • Bottom line, I'm also nominating Left Bank (disambiguation) (edit talk links history) and Right Bank (disambiguation) (edit talk links history) to AFD as being irresponsible. One cultural reference mode, should not be able to take up three slots in phrase compositions so they adversely affect other more needful referents, especially when the one we're fighting over can stay all lower case. And make no mistake, both the French term is like saying 'The Bronx', Lehigh Valley, 'Hollywood' — all capitalized for a reason as all are specific. Whereas left bank, right bank are specific geophysical descriptions for a winding twisty sneaky stream bed which faces west, east, or north on a seeming whim... yet in need of explanation for many a article. // FrankB 20:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fabartus: I didn't look into the page history three weeks ago; I did that in preparation for this discussion. I made the change I did because I believe the pages in their current form are inappropriate uses of {{soft redirect}}; in the mainspace, it should only be used to invite readers to visit another page on a different Wikimedia project. There are currently only three transclusions of Template:Soft redirect in the mainspace (all of which are nominated for discussion here). Best Regards, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 22:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shhhnotsoloud! Dude, No one in their right mind wants to type lower case left bank and mean a spot along the Seine, but the Seine is just one river in an unimportant country. Your focus is too narrow, you miss the point that a geographic term which ought be used in any page about a municipality where a river, stream, goes through or near the community, that any highway, road, or street bordering such streams, and so forth need be unencumbered by wikimarkup typing to avoid having (disambiguation) in an article. "Bank (disamb) is not descriptively helpful, but a step backwards to a geographic attribute what is being described, so Godsy is still missing the point. Let Left Bank and Right Bank keep their narrow and biased hi-jacked meanings. But leave left bank and right bank for useful description of physical attributes in geology, geophysics, and geography. // FrankB 16:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Bank (geography) per Godsy (with the hatnote stating '"Left bank" and "Right bank" redirect here; for other uses, see Left Bank (disambiguation) and Right Bank (disambiguation)). Differentiating by capital letters is sometimes necessary on WP, but internal soft redirects should be avoided per WP:SRD. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Bank (geography). That does seem to be the best solution. Note river bank has redirected there since 2009. Station1 (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both lower case variants to Bank (geography) per Station1. The upper case variants are not for up discussion here, but I don't think they should be changed. I agree with the primary target argument, not too sure why the piping of links argument is necessary. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As main opposition, now that the AFD is resolved, retargeting to Bank (geography), assuming a edit to make the terms more prominent, is quite acceptable. I never liked the disambig link anyway. // FrankB 05:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2017_April_4&oldid=1088107995"