Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 6, 2017.

China (cultural region)[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 as a hard redirect. Soft redirects are used to link across namespaces, and I haven't seen an explanation why there should be an exception here. It has been adequately argued that the redirect is a plausible search term and that the current target is the best available article to redirect to. -- Tavix (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt This is an odd, soft redirect. The proposed merger tag on the redirect and comments on the talkpage imply it's intended as backdoor way to recreate the old "Chinese civilisation" article from the pre 2011 POVfork mess that had the current China article split between an article on the current state and another (at the name "China") on Chinese civilisation. Other Wikis still maintain this split, either through different policies or through having simply copied the old arrangement from en.wiki and not changed it. (Note that the zh.wiki is blocked in mainland China which thus affects its userbase's systematic bias in this area.) The whole area of China article names took years to sort out properly and should not be undone without major discussion. Timrollpickering 01:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest this discussion be withdrawn for there is a merge request taking place on the talk page. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close. I agree with Champion, this discussion should be closed without prejudice until the outcome of the merge discussion is known. It is rarely a good idea to have concurrent related discussions in different venues. Thryduulf (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no actual merger discussion taking place either on the redirect or on the main article. Timrollpickering 11:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. Look at the interwiki. This is intended to be the placeholder for Q29520, wherever it might ultimately end up ("China" might be a reasonable page, as suggested by just about five dozen wikis, but a handful also opted for the equivalent of "China (region)", so that might be open for debate. The so-called "pre 2011 POVfork mess" is in fact the default situation as evidenced by pretty much every wiki not affected by blatantly agenda-driven pov pushing. --dab (𒁳) 14:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the pre 2011 situation was the one driven by a clear POV pushed agenda, creating a confusing mess of articles that prioritised a minority agenda over ease of understanding. It's a pity so many other Wikis still have such a mess in place but that's no reason to reintroduce it here. Timrollpickering 19:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close I think the explanation by Dbachmann makes sense here. This acts as a placeholder for the relevant Wikidata. China =/= People's Republic of China (despite where the Wikipedia pages lie). As for "prioritising a minority agenda over ease of understanding", I suggest people to look at Ireland which apparently is about the Island as a whole and not the country we know as Ireland. (Try doing a requested move on that). ;) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • China = People's Republic in the same way that Germany = Federal Republic, France = Fifth Republic and so forth. Ireland is a different case as the name is widely used for both the state and the island. By contrast the name "China" is almost never used to mean both China and Taiwan together outside the narrow issue of cross strait relations and structuring the articles in such an awkward way for years made Wikipedia ridiculous. Hence it was rightly fixed. Timrollpickering 10:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and as a vague title per the preceding nomination. The two Speedy close votes above make little sense to me. Every Wikipedia has a slightly different structure on its pages, and Wikidata should not be forcing every Wikipedia to have its pages strcutured in exactly the same way. Pppery 02:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I definitely support the nom's position on the current status of the China and Taiwan pages, and would strongly oppose moving Sinosphere to China, but I think this redirect is fine. When I think of a Chinese cultural region, I think the closest analogue to that is the Sinosphere. It is an awkward search term, so I'll stay at a weak keep. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, the redirect target "Sinosphere" is itself a redirect to East Asian cultural sphere. --T*U (talk) 08:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the creation of a redirect then immediately nominating it for merger makes no sense: there is nothing to merge, either in the content or history of the redirect, and so it simply cannot happen. It also makes no sense as a search term. As for 'a placeholder for wikidata', that Wikidata cannot cope with this is not our concern. The vast majority of WD items only have articles on a few wikipedia. Just because an item exists there, or articles exist on other wikipedias, does not mean we have to create a placeholder here.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a hard redirect. Maybe there's something I'm fundamentally misunderstanding (let me know if that's the case), but I don't really see the relevance of either the overall topic structure of this area, or the bizarre merge discussion happening on the redirect's talk page. All I see is a redirect with a plausible title that goes where it's supposed to go. – Uanfala (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status quo/Keep: I would want anyone to expand this article in the corresponding similar to Korea. Wrestlingring (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sinosphere was retargeted to East Asian cultural sphere as a result of the merge discussion, which appears to make several of the comments here invalid. Please discuss with regard to the new target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as hard redirect This seems an unlikely search term to me, but I am unwilling to dismiss the wikidata argument as too insignificant. Once kept though it should be a hard redirect as noted by Uanfala. CMD (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - While this is an awkward situation to say the least, I feel like the way that things stand make for a reasonable compromise. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @CoffeeWithMarkets: can you elaborate if the weak keep is for a hard redirect, soft redirect, or others?--Sevilledade (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Sevilledades: While I'm uncertain about the 'East Asian cultural sphere' article as it stands, the page appears to be trying to balance things: describing in delicate terms the social influences of the modern Chinese nation along with the related political issues. It seems helpful enough to readers. The redirect here is directing people to useful information. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think within the people who voted keep, some of the users can elaborate a little?--Sevilledade (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laughs sarcastically in Cantonese. Or keep as this is the most sensible available target. I have to say en.wp got itself into a cluster[bleep] here because the majority of the English-speaking world has a weird viewpoint that China = People's Republic of China regardless of the nuances. This caused en.wp articles' scopes to disconnect with other language Wikipedias, most notably, erm, the Chinese Wikipedia where the finest conceptual distinctions are made for obvious reasons. Now we're left with an RfD that arose from a weird merger that happened partly because the cross-wiki links don't match. I guess this is just me rambling and laughing, because as an RfD regular I'm now seeing us pick up the crumbs from the mess that arose from a massively controversial decision I disagreed with. Deryck C. 18:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Deryck Chan: Can I assume Talk:Chinese civilization/Archive 26#Requested move August 2011 is the decision you're referring to? -- Tavix (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Deryck C. 18:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as hard redirect, as I agree with the above that this is the "available target" that make the most sense, after looking through the discussion. FYI, I think the people who voted for keep should specify whether they think a hard redirect or a soft redirect is the most suitable.--Sevilledade (talk) 10:30, 17 January 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.

Friendliness[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 move Friendliness (album) over redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't seem to be the right target Prisencolin (talk) 03:55, 6 January 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.

Perineal urethrostomy[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. I'm going to revert to the status quo ante, which is moving Feline urethrostomy back to Urethrostomy and the redirect will repoint to Urethrostomy. -- Tavix (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect can't be fixed. the redirected article is now called Feline urethrostomy. Perineal urethrostomy is a surgical procedure mostly done on people. This redirect will not give a reader information on this topic. Urethrostomy (human) is an article I am working on. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 01:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave redirect as is (essentially my !vote isn't at variance with previous ones) – the term is mentioned at the target, and this is the only article a user wishing to know about the topic could currently go to. No issue with moving Feline urethrostomy back to Urethrostomy per Steel1943, or retargeting to the new article on human urethrostomy, when that gets to mainspace. – Uanfala (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For the record, though I am involved in this discussion, I am relisting this because Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion is starting to have WP:EXPENSIVE issues due to the closing templates, and relisting this discussion allows some of those issues to temporarily clear since relisting this allows Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 21 to be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:24, 6 January 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.

The Billionaires' Tea Party[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 19#The Billionaires' Tea Party

Antiliberalism[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 to delete. Hopefully it's no surprise that such a tepid discussion ends up without a consensus. This will default to Liberalism#Criticism and support as the alternative to deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDLINK notable topic not covered in detail anywhere. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:16, 6 January 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.

Ts'ao Hsueeh-ch'in[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) 18:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) Not a Germanic umlaut in Chinese. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Does seem to get used as a transliteration. [3], [4], [5]. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those sources seem to be copying this from Wikipedia, for I don't think those were created by a human user, either that or they were computer generated. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I get the same feeling – the example in the middle looks like it must have come out of a diacritic substitution process (operating like our Eubot). – Uanfala (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along the lines of other Eubot expansions of Mandarin ü into ue. Deryck C. 17:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I'm not sure, but this doesn't appear to be particularly helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:07, 13 January 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.

Northern Syria[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. The arguments seem roughly split between retargeting to Rojava and disambiguating. As no-one is satisfied with the status quo, I'm going to default to the path of least resistance, which would be retargeting to Rojava. This is without prejudice against disambiguating, but if one is to be created, please heed BDD's advice and make sure the entries aren't made-up. -- Tavix (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be an article on this. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm seeing this term being used to refer to the specific region of 'Rojava'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • But I don't think that is what news media refer to when they reference this term, this redirect has, unsurprisingly, received a lot of hits [6]. Northern Iraq also points to Iraqi Kurdistan, I have not heard of the specific region of Rojava mentioned by the media before, so I'm not sure if it it is a good idea to retarget there. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Rojava. The alternative name for this region is "Federation of Northern Syria" making this an entirely plausible search term. "There doesn't seem to be an article on this." is not a valid ground for deletion. Just Chilling (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. This could certainly refer to Rojava (FYI, Federation of Northern Syria redirects readers there), but it could also refer to the northern portions of Syria, Syria (region), the Aleppo Eyalet, or perhaps the portions of Ottoman Syria that were not considered part of Southern Syria. See also North Syrian Arabic. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Notecardforfree. Northern Syria obviously long precedes the very recent and de facto territory of Rojava. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per above – a cursory google books search reveals mostly results that have nothing to do with the proposed new target (Rojava), and not that many that are related to the current target. – Uanfala (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could someone draft something here? I'm concerned about us making stuff up. Any region has a north (including lots of planets), but that doesn't mean we should have a "North Fooland" for everything. Compare, for example, Northern Idaho and Northern Washington, even though Washington (state) surely has a northern region. Rojava is a concrete usage, so I'm leaning towards retargeting there. I'm looking at the Books results too, and they look to mostly deal with the northern parts of whatever "Syria" was at the time, rather than a specific "Northern Syria"—just "northern Syria", if you will. --BDD (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As BDD states, a draft disambiguation page may be helpful for consensus purposes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Rojava if my concerns aren't addressed. --BDD (talk) 02:01, 16 January 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.

Wikipedia:Violent Factionalizing Debate[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 17#Wikipedia:Violent Factionalizing Debate

國慶節[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 17#國慶節

Next king of the United Kingdom[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 country-specific succession articles as described by AngusWOOF. The unanimous consensus is that the current target should be changed and there is a rough consensus that pointing to articles about succession is better than deletion. AngusWOOF's suggestion, of pointing the Australian and Canadian titles to the relevant articles about those two countries, has gained a lot of approval so I'm taking that as the best solution. Deryck C. 17:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The best potential target I could find was list of heirs to the British throne. Leaving these where they currently target places an undue maintenance burden on the community which may not be adequately fulfilled, and makes a perhaps undue prediction (I'm basically arguing portions of WP:COSTLY and WP:NOTCRYSTAL here). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 08:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - I also don't think that these are that useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all this is crystal ball gazing but with no useful benefits, now or in the future  Velella  Velella Talk   08:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Succession to the British throne#Current line of succession which gives people using these redirects exactly the content they are looking for. It seems likely that the next three generations of monarchs (at least) will all be kings so for the foreseeable future there is going to be no maintenance load on anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I don't see these as particularly useful terms that anybody's actually going to search for — I find it excruciatingly difficult to imagine that there's anybody in the world who knows that these countries are monarchies, yet doesn't already know that the current heir to the throne is Prince Charles, who can thus be located by searching for "Prince Charles" instead of "Next king of...". Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fortunately we don't need to imagine, we can look at the page view statistics and see that they are getting a non-zero number of people viewing them. While I suspect that most Britons do know that Charles is next in line to the British throne, this is a global encyclopaedia and we must approach this with a neutral point of view. I know that Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlansds, Swaziland, Thailand, etc. are monarchies but I could not tell you without looking who the heir to any of these thrones is, so why should we expect a native of these countries to somehow know without looking who is heir to the British throne? Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because the British royal family (or at least the Charles-Wills-Harry cluster right at the top of the line of succession, if not necessarily all the distant minor nobles at the bottom) is markedly more famous than most other royal families, maybe? Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is that true everywhere? Does everybody know that? Does everybody who knows that remember it all the time? Do they remember how to spell his name? Do they know and remember what title he has, and how to spell that? I don't think that the answer to all these questions is "yes", and so these redirects will help some people. Thryduulf (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we make such assumptions about the notoriety of Prince Charles, we're building an encyclopedia for the long term. --BDD (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf, though I don't think this would be any less valid if women were in the top few spots. That's a place where we'll consistently have the most accurate information at the time as to who's most likely to be the next king of the UK (etc.). I see no potential for harm here, and plenty of potential for benefit. --BDD (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf and hatnote to Prince of Wales. I think this is a plausible search term, and the proposed target is where information on the topic will be found, and the current person in this position will be prominently featured. I feel like a hatnote (or a prominent link) to the Prince of Wales article is also warranted because that is the actual position that is currently in position to be the next king. But unlike cases like President-elect of the United States, this type of position exists regardless of elections, and there it is both known and interesting to readers who is 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or further down the line. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:26, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't favor such a hatnote. The Prince of Wales article says "the failure to be granted the title does not affect the rights to royal succession". As a matter of practice, we'll still have the Prince of Wales at the top of that section. --BDD (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. Redirects are cheap and certainly to many people it will occur earlier to search for "next king/queen" than for "line of succession". In any case, lose Prince Charles per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Daß Wölf 02:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Thryduulf. No hatnote necessary in my opinion since there have been several Princes of Wales who have predeceased their parents and thus never become king. –Grondemar 02:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget UK-related redirects to Succession to the British Throne, but the Canada one should go to Monarchy_of_Canada#Succession_and_regency. and the Australia one go to Monarchy_of_Australia#Succession as those articles explain how Canada and Australia use the UK succession for prince, princesses, heir apparents and others who could be king or queen. Jumping straight to the UK or Charles would be a surprise for those who aren't familiar with how the monarchies work in Canada or Australia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Angus. I agree that specific redirects regarding Canada and Australia should point to their respective Monarchy articles. I've updated both articles to include an easy link to the current line of succession, should that be what someone is seeking. I oppose the current target per WP:CRYSTAL, and would also be fine with a straight up delete. -- Tavix (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, these redirects will become obsolete when/if Charles ascends the throne. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually they wouldn't become obsolete when that happens — they'd get repointed to the next next king, i.e. William. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the specific articles per AngusWOOF, as these are precisely what a reader typing those phrases would be looking for. In terms of page views, only Next king of the UK receives a decent amount, but I would disagree with deleting the rest as they're very clearly useful. – Uanfala (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this for the simple fact that there are so many discussions displayed on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion that the day this was relisted from wasn't even appearing there. If a closer can assess consensus here, feel free to close it early per WP:RELIST.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the specific articles per AngusWOOF. Sideways713 (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as plausible searches per AngusWOOF. CMD (talk) 11:19, 7 January 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_January_6&oldid=1088107241"