Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 3, 2008

Wumbology → List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes#Season_3.3A_2002-2004[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed redirect - fixing this would be pointless as term does not appear in target article or even the main article for the list of Season 3 episodes of the series. I am also adding the more-properly-formed Wumbo → List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes#Season 3.3A 2002-2004 to the nomination as the term appears nowhere in either the target article or the main article for the list of Season 3 episodes of the series. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Barak Obama's Pastor → Jeremiah Wright[edit]

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Keeper76 as R3. Non-admin closure. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect to a BLP, neologism term to refer to the individual in question, could be used to refer to any number of people Mr. Obama attended service before. MBisanz talk 21:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted it as an implausible redirect (speedy R-something). The same editor that created this has disruptively been creating (and recreating) Sarah Palin's Pastor, (see Special:DeletedContributions/EricDiesel (admin only). This is simply a WP:POINT creation. Keeper ǀ 76 21:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.

Albino brain chiggers → Snow[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What links the redirect name to the target? Your guess is most likely better than mine. It appears to be a joke redirect. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Albino (Star Trek) → List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine#Albino[edit]

The result of the debate was Retarget per below. Tikiwont (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name is nowhere to be found in target article; target section is missing. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: The redirect has some edit history from when it was an article. Though it was all unsourced content about a minor character. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. No reason not to keep redirects unless they are somehow offensive. I could imagine editors and readers looking up aspects of Stark Trek and at worst they should end up on some Star Trek page. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoping I'm not out of line, I changed the redirection to point to Blood Oath (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) instead. This was not a recurring character, so that redirection makes no sense. However, appearing in that singular episode makes such a redirection logical. Oui? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems like a reasonable solution. I can't think of any other. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Albino channel catfish → Channel catfish[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. If people want generic channel catfish or hamster information, they would search without the albino. Anyone seriously interested in the albino versions isn't helped by the redirects as it gives the false impression relevant content is present at the targets. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to Albino raccoon below, this is a most unlikely search item.
Adding Albino hamsters → Hamster to this nomination, with the same rationale. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

→ Unicode Geometric Shapes[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This character is not a Unicode Geometric Shape but a Private Use Character -- Prince Kassad (talk) 19:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Unicode Geometric Shapes seems to show the  character and there is a bunch of these symbol redirects to Unicode Geometric Shapes. Suntag (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm unable to find this particular symbol in the Unicode Geometric Shapes article using my browser's search function. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do you say the character is a Private Use Character? Suntag (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I copy the character into a Word document and use Alt+C to get the Unicode codepoint. The returned value is F067, which is inside the Private Use Area. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Prince Kassad's comments above. Suntag (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Unidentified flowers → Wikipedia:Unidentified flowers[edit]

The result of the debate was Userfy target toUser:Belizian/Unidentified flowers and delete redirects. Tikiwont (talk) 10:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect out of article space unlikely to be useful. Suntag (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a redirect to a clearly temporary holding page. It is highly unlikely to have an article with the name "unidentified flowers". Delete redirect; then delete target once Flower2 is identified and the pictures moved and relinked to Belize (or whatever future target). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the redirect as an unuseful XNR, then userfy the target. Stifle (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:PROVEIT → Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep. The shortcut is seen as a not overly hostile, legitimate alternative to WP:BURDEN . Tikiwont (talk) 09:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be speedily deleted per Don't be a dick. Ordering volunteers with a capitalized "PROVEIT" comes off as needlessly aggresive and rude and is therefore unconstructive. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: While I agree such terms are thrown around recklessly, it's the editors which misuse the term. This does not mean the term itself is bad. This simply means our editors—both new and old—need to be better educated as to how to participate in discussions.
    Regardless, "Don't be a dick" is an essay on meta.wikimedia, not an official policy or guideline. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Using a phrase like "prove it", just invites a "why don't you?" kind of response. There are some discussions where to be honest I don't think "proving it" even matters as pertains to certain kinds of articles some just outright want those kinds of articles deleted and even when sources are presented, they still just ignore them. If someone wants to ask, "You know I searched here, but had no luck, where have tried?" Then, it invites proactive and constructive discourse. Asking someone is what makes say myself actually want to respond with "Well, I checked here and found x, y, and z." If someone just tosses a "PROVE IT" at me, I respond differently, because I don't believe in being ordered about on a volunteer project. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're happy to say SOFIXIT, though. Stifle (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant of Wikipedia:Proveit, which any editor optionally can post as [[Wikipedia:Proveit|PROVEIT]]. Also, Wikipedia:PROVIT would seem to stand or fall with this RfD. This should be taken into account, since it still is listed as a policy shortcut. -- Suntag (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC) MORE - Shouting PROVEIT is offensive, which is a basis for deleting redirects. There also is Wikipedia:SOURCEITORDROPIT. Like SOURCEITORDROPIT, PROVEIT does not use wording from the policy. However, Wikipedia:NOTTRUTH and WP:BURDEN do use wording from the policy. In sum, an offensive redirect whose wording is not taken from the policy and is redundant of a non-shouting term should be deleted. A bot can easily switch the 700+ links to something else so they are not broken. - Suntag (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that #3 of WP:RFD#DELETE is meant to refer to something blatantly and intentionly offensive to a person or thing. However, I think the offensiveness of this term is subjective. Much like WP:NOCRUFT, it can be used in an offensive manner, but that is a result of an editor portraying it that way by not properly engaging in a discussion.
      Though the term itself is not explicitly mentioned at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence, the whole section essentially tells editor to prove whatever it is they wish to add to an article.
      I would also like to point out that WP:RFD#DELETE are not criteria for deletion, but rather suggestions. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      • The whole section essentially may tell editor to prove whatever it is they wish to add to an article, yet that section intentionally omits such harsh language to keep from being offensive. WP:NOCRUFT use those words in the essay whereas PROVEIT are not words from the policy. WP:RFD#DELETE are listed in the Wikipedia:Redirect guideline and are redirect criteria for deletion. If they are not redirect criteria for deletion, please provide a link to what you believe are redirect criteria for deletion. Suntag (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still feel that the offensiveness of "prove it" is subjective. Regardless, Wikipedia does not censor based on offensiveness.
          As far as the exact wording intentionally omitted, I see no evidence of such intent. Though perhaps we both just have different subjective interpretations of the wording. :-p
          In regard to my comment on them being suggestions, it states "You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met." Such wording (specifically the word might) conveys to me that it is a suggestion. Also Wikipedia:Redirect is an editing guideline, not official policy. We are to interpret it and use common sense in its application.
          The real issue here is editors that throw out a policy/guideline/essay link without engaging in discussion. Blame the editors, not the link. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep: This is no more rude than exclaiming WP:NOCRUFT in big capitol letters. Capitol letters are just a naming convention. We should address "dicks" on a case by case basis, rather than engaging in blanket censorship of a word or statement. Randomran (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a big difference between linking to a neutral "no cruft", which isn't a command expression that "prove it," which is. The other problem is that it is used by those who can prove it themselves by looking for sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy keep: Changing vote to Speedy Keep. I am concerned that the nominator is targeting a shortcut as a thinly veiled disguise for his resentment towards the verifiability policy, which more often than not puts the burden on him. Quote: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT. Randomran (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that you should not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point by disingeuously using "Prove it" just to get certain kinds of articles deleted all the time. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's a pretty childish and unproductive way to respond. You'd be better off not responding at all, if that's going to be your tone. Randomran (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Far less childish and unprodutive than your own dishonest comments. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you're going to accuse me of being dishonest, you should try to come up with recent evidence. Otherwise this is just a personal attack. Randomran (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Please do not make any further personal attacks against me or anyone else. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I haven't. I'm willing to change my behavior, but you'd have to show me what I've done wrong. Many editors have shown you repeatedly how you're breaking policy, and you have ignored them for whatever reason. So be it. Randomran (talk) 16:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. It doesn't violate any policies or guidelines and in addition deleting it would break 700+ links. Hut 8.5 18:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:ITANNOYSME is not a valid reason for deletion. --Allen3 talk 21:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:19, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We've been over this before. Discussion isn't made civil by bureaucratically limiting options for discussion, it is made civil by asking that editors come to the table willing to argue rationally and truthfully. This especially doesn't help, as I can still pipe whatever text I would like in a shortcut to WP:V. There is nothing patently offensive about this redirect (compare to "VPILF--->Sarah Palin"). No reason to delete it. Protonk (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per the pointed observations noted by Randomran. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That Randomran uses it in a pointed manner in AfDs? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok. I'm breaking my promise about responding to your comments to break in here. You have been warned about that exact style and phrasing of response. These warnings have been issued multiple times, sometimes from eitors and admins you choose to listen to. Sometimes from editors and admins you choose not to listen to. Regardless, that response, where you reverse the syntax and subject of an assertion to turn it on another user, then place a question mark as though the original sentence could be refactored into your response is pointed, escalates rather than diffuses conflict, and is a listed example of incivility (playing dumb). If you cannot participate in deletion discussions without resorting to this sort of behavior I will bring this up at AN/I requesting that you be topic banned. I have a lot of respect for your right to assert your opinion here but I've frankly lost almost all patience with how you choose to assert it. Be mindful of the feelings of others in deletion discussions and please, please heed the warnings and guidance from the community about your behavior. P.S. If, in response to this, you feel that it is necessary to dredge up diffs where I was told to not file an RFC or diffs where I told you to get off my talk page or diffs where other people did the same thing you are doing, DO NOT BOTHER. Do not bother. I have seen it before. It isn't germane to the issue at hand. I am explicitly breaking my previous promise to you here in order to warn you that I (among other editors) have wholly lost patience. If you have "retired" or "semi-retired" from wikipedia, that is fine, but as long as your are contributing semi-regularly I don't have a problem bringing an issue to AN/I in your absence. If, further, you decide it is appropriate to reverse THIS comment against me, you can expect an immediate response on AN/I asking that you be topic banned. If you respond to this post by posting on AN/I that I be topic banned, expect that post to be speedily rejected. Tl;dr: these discussions are places where the fate of content gets decided, not a forum to rile up other users. If you can't post in them in a manner that isn't explicitly antagonistic, I would rather you didn't post. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consider this an echo of Protonk's warning -- although I differ in that I don't care how this behavior is stopped, so long as it is stopped. I would prefer if you stopped it voluntarily. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me or anyone. I have no problem with your participation in AFDs, or advocating for your position. But I do have a problem with you misrepresenting other people's statements rather than engaging in civil discussion. Feel free to respond to what people actually say, but don't deliberately distort what they said just to WP:BAIT a fight. Randomran (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, here's a warning as well. Stop making frivolously AfDs and dishonest claims about lack of notability and then totally ignoring sources when they are presented. People don't respond to "prove it" ultimatums when there's no real reason you could not have found the sources yourself. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you can find evidence that I'm making frivelous or vexatious AFDs, I will gladly stop. But I'm using AFDs as outlined by AFD policy. You're warning me based on your own personal opinion of what you don't like. I'm warning you based on repeated violations of policy, which is supported by a consensus of Wikipedians. For your sake, you'd be smart to understand the difference. Me, I'll take my chances with using AFDs as instructed, until someone shows how I'm breaking policy. Randomran (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a) no real reason why we need such a redirect b) it has to do with sourcing, not "proving" anything. Hobit (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Don't be a dick" is an essay on meta.wikimedia, not an official policy or guideline. Therefore it is not a criteria for speedy delete. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Also as per Protonk, LGRdC has been warned against continuing this exact sort of behaviour and his refusal to get the point is very disappointing. user:Everyme 23:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find it interesting that PROVEIT is shockingly offensive but SOFIXIT is completely ok? I'm confused. Protonk (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the discussion: With all due respect to everybody involved, let's please stay on point. Such tactics from either side are not necessary. I'd like to think the editors here can be above this. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Ok, this discussion is starting to go down in flames. And at the risk of coming across like a pompous jerk, I feel there are some things that need to be said.
  • First off, this is the longest thread on the RfD page and I personally feel it has no real reason to be. The bulk of the length is from comments that either do not help the discussion or are only indirectly related to it. I hope this discussion gets closed soon so we can all put this behind us and continuing trying to improve articles.
  • Randomran, calling Le Grand out on WP:POINT is not a reason to switch to "speedy keep".
  • Protonk, there is no need to dredge up past edits of behavior like that. I'm sure you dislike it when others do that in a manner meant to discredit you in a discussion.
  • Le Grand, certain tactics in a discussion can end up drowning out or distorting the original message. I'm sure there are several editors that roll their eyes at you because they don't understand why you do the things you do. I've always thought your message was that Wikipedia can be a great and useful resource if things were fixed up from its current state. However, it is not Randomran, Protonk, mine, or even your job to clean it up. We are volunteers that have to pick our battles because there are only so many hours in the day. We all do the best we can, but keeping everything on here in compliance with policies and guidelines is an impossible—though still worthwhile—task.
Forgive the rant, but I felt it needed to be said. I hope this discussion can stay on point so it can finish up and we can continue to do what we all come here to do—try to make a quality free encyclopedia. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I strongly agree, and say your "rant" was necessary; we should indeed focus from here on out on the topic under discussion both here and elsewhere instead of jumping to the ad hominem attacks, assumptions of bad faith, accusations against each other, etc. From here on out, I see we should no longer take seriously anyone who has to stoop so low as to derail discussions by calling editors disruptive or pointy. These usually false and conflict of interest lines of non-argument add nothing proactive or honest to discussions. People should focus on their arguments and not others. If people's stances are so convincing that should be good enough. Anyone who instead decides to call his or her opposition pointed or disruptive is the one who is actually those terms and we should no longer take such editors as actually intending to have a constructive discussion, because clearly they aren't. Thank you, Guyinblack25 for bringing some sanity back to this discussion and I strongly urge everyone else to join you and now me on making sure that we focus on the topics instead. And to do so, I again reiterate that the "burden" shortcut is sufficient. "proveit" is redundant and somewhat hostile. We're here to write encyclopedia articles, not come up with as many policy shortcuts we can. One shortcut is sufficient to a section of a policy or guideline page. Editors should work together collegialy in AfDs to find sources and have a mature and civil discussion about where to find sources and how they might be used. Saying "prove it" is nothing more than an ultimatum. If someone belives an article should be kept, they should be allowed to make his or her case and as we are all volunteers, someone should be able to say, "When I looked for sources, I saw ones that were compelling; however, as I am not personally interested in this topic, while I believe it should be kept, I trust others who are more familiar with it to use the sources available to improve the articles. If anyone willing to do so would like to know where I looked, I am happy to let you know, but I can best contribute elsewhere." --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is abundantly clear that some editors have deemed it a useful redirect/short cut. Redirects are not covered by WP:NPOV, and there is a simple thing to keep in mind: if you object to something that is being offered to the public, the best way to increase its use is to keep talking about it. Sorry, but not liking the wording of a redirect article is not one of the grounds for deletion. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has nothing to do with not liking it, but everything to do with making for actually constructive and civil discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see the major issue here with this redirect. Blown way out of proportion. When the article Burden of proof has the statement...

"when anyone is making a bold claim, either positive or negative, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it."

I think to myself that redirecting WP:PROVEIT to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence (evidence and proof sort of being the same) that it seems a pretty viable redirect. --Pmedema (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep as valid and relevant link to a section of the policy that the nominator would do well to remember in his AFD contributions. Stifle (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's always funny when a non-article gets "strong keep" votes! I'd like to see that enthusiasm for actual articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the other keepers. Deamon138 (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I really don't care if people have used it in a WP:BITEy manner, the redirect exists and is a well-known shortcut. Address the problems with usage by counseling editors who use it in such a manner, don't mess with perfectly good redirects. Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't be a dick is a humour page, there's no real weight there, proveit is a pity, easy to remember short form and there's no real rational. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 23:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:WHINE → User talk:Jimbo Wales[edit]

The result of the debate as delete as SNOW. Can't conceive of any possible use for this. I am removing my close as vandalism and attack as this was done by a long-term, established user. Perhaps it was done as some sort of WP:POINT. Dlohcierekim 18:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful redirect, for one thing it doesn't make sense, and for another I'm sure Jimbo has more to do than deal with people whining. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as an attack (in this case, an attack on the people who wish to complain about Wikipedia, etc.). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unconstructive and immature. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Speedy as test page, pure vandalism (blatant and obvious misinformation), and/or pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject. On a related topic, Should User:Admin and it's talk page be redirected to User:Jimbo Wales or to Wikipedia:Administrators? What about User:Root? Suntag (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I boldly tagged for speedy deletion as an attack page (G10) -Brougham96 (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_3&oldid=1144104503"