Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 26, 2009

Template:Football manager infobox2[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. The history is not relevant, because the target template incorporated only the functionally of this template, not directly its code. Ruslik_Zero 13:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old, orphan and unnecessary because of this "2". Let's simplify the redirects a bit. Magioladitis (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- Sure looks unused and unuseful. Deleting these old and unused template redirects shouldn't be controversial. —mako๛ 14:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. This seems to have significant history. Does the GDFL require that we preserve histories of obsolete templates and infoboxes? 147.70.242.54 (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Downtown Norwich[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete Downtown Norwich. All other redirects were not properly nominated. Ruslik_Zero 14:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Downtown Norwich Historic District. "Downtown" is an expression used in the United States. It is not in general use in the United Kingdom. A hatnote on the Downtown Norwich Historic District article can point to the Norwich article. Mjroots (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Downtown Norwich Historic District. "Downtown Norwich" is a common term used for the downtown area of Norwich, Connecticut as can be seen from Google News hits [1]. --Polaron | Talk 18:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See #various new redirects relating to CT hamlets and NRHP historic districts next section. Downtown Norwich is not shown to refer universally to a neighborhood in Connecticut. Note Norwich is a city in England. And the Downtown Norwich Historic District article is not to be burdened with describing the entire downtown neighborhood, rather than the portion that is the historic district, a different topic. doncram (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an alternative target would be Norwich, Connecticut. We just don't use "downtown" in the UK. Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the historic district is the downtown area. --Polaron | Talk 19:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may or may not be true, like 100s of other unsupported assertions on CT NRHP articles that have been made. There is no reliable source in the article indicating that what is the downtown area is the same, or even substantially the same, as the NRHP HD. It is premature and silly to be arguing for redirects and mergers, when the NRHP document that would serve well as the definitive source is available for free. But has not been requested. This is just one of hundreds of CT NRHP HD - village pairings where several persons have been edit warring to add personal knowledge-based information, and have basically not lifted a finger to get sources and resolve issues. I have myself obtained and/or linked towards 100 CT NRHP nomination documents. This is BORING and TEDIOUS. doncram (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Good grief! I retargeted the redirect to point to its original destination of Downtown Norwich Historic District. The text of that destination article does not indicate what country the historic district is in, much less where in the United States "Downtown Norwich" is located, but at least it's an article about the topic that the creator of the redirect intended to point to, and not an article about an unrelated city in an entirely different country (as it was edited to point to). I wish that certain people would refrain from disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, as that is exactly what has happened here. --Orlady (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that comment wasn't aimed at me. I found out about the redirect because of the hatnote that was placed on the Norwich article. As I stated above, "downtown" is not an expression we use in the UK, hence the request for retargeting. Mjroots (talk) 05:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That comment most definitely was not directed at you, Mjroots. You pointed out a problematic redirect -- a situation that should not be allowed to exist. My comment was directed at the petty edit warring that caused this situation to exist. --Orlady (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect is not linked from any mainspace article, just from discussion pages like this one now. I redirected it to Norwich, Connecticut for now. The proposal here is to delete the redirect as it is not specific and as the originally intended target is not ready (and will not be ready to receive it). If the editor wishes to connect to the NRHP HD he can create a direct link to the NRHP HD name, or pipelink. The redirect is not needed and is argumentative in the context of a wide-ranging dispute on redirects to and from CT NRHP HDs. doncram (talk) 05:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am incredulous. Several months of edit warring and seemingly interminable acrimonious discussion have occurred as a result of Doncram's concern that titles for U.S. historic districts had been redirected to articles about the entire town or city containing the historic district. Now, when the same user who created those redirects (which were subsequently corrected) instead redirects a title about a neighborhood to the article about the historic district defined for that neighborhood, Doncram is changing the redirect to point to an article about the entire city. My opinions about this behavior are best left unwritten. --Orlady (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am incredulous that Orlady is claiming now to misunderstand the long discussions, of which she has been an active opponent to a viable solution. This indeed relates to a long contention about redirects and mergers of CT NRHPs and villages/hamlets/neighborhoods. In the proposal, the Downtown Norwich HD and any village/hamlet/neighborhood of similar name would not be redirected or merged. I am indeed irked to see the agreement perhaps crumbling. doncram (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How thoughtful of you to have carried your longstanding personal animosity toward me to this venue, Doncram. Your commitment to WP:Civility never ceases to impress.
After hundreds of thousands of bytes of talk page discussions on the subject, I thought I understood your position regarding redirects and stub articles related to historic districts, and I was genuinely astonished to see that you are now insisting that a redirected title for a neighborhood must be targeted to a broad article about the entire city, rather than the article for the historic district designation of that neighborhood. --Orlady (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Orlady, I don't particularly have animosity towards you but it does seem to be the simplest explanation of a lot that you say, that you have animosity toward me. You have several times asserted my motivations were to promote NRHP sites relatively over village/hamlet/neighborhood articles, and you perhaps extrapolated to believe that I would want article names for neighborhoods and hamlets to redirect to the NRHP sites. Now you express surprise that I do not want that. What is consistent is that I do not want redirects and mergers of districts and hamlets forced where editors are not prepared to deal with the mergers in the writing of proper articles. And where it goes against a proposal that would settle the long-running disputes for CT NRHPs. For both reasons, I don't want the NRHP HD article to have to carry the burden of an uncomfortable merger. All of this is being forced by editors who will not obtain and use reliable sources, but who seem to wish to contribute to wikipedia by putting in redirects, and wishing/hoping/burdening others to make it work in the writing. The redirects serve no reader purpose, and they are argumentative in context, and just unhelpful. doncram (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the assumption of good faith in "All of this is being forced by editors who will not obtain and use reliable sources, but who seem to wish to contribute to wikipedia by putting in redirects, and wishing/hoping/burdening others to make it work in the writing"?
The negative energy that is going into this attack on redirects is vastly out of proportion to the insignificance of the subject. We are talking about redirect pages that point to stub articles about obscure topics. --Orlady (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you, who say you are uninterested and bored, are seemingly continuing to oppose a settlement that would provide stability, here and elsewhere. The greatest portion of sarcasm and disdain and other negativity in all of this belongs more to you than anyone, in my humble opinion. doncram (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep as redirect targeted to Downtown Norwich Historic District or delete. Norwich, Connecticut, is not a big place -- about 36,000 people at the 2000 Census. It is reasonable to conclude that the historic district, with 116 contributing properties and an area of 64 acres (26 ha) encompasses the entire downtown (which is no longer Norwich's principal retail area, since businesses have relocated to shopping malls). Users will not be misled by the fact that this title redirects to that article. On the other hand, I don't see a whole lot of need for the redirect, particularly when you consider the small size of the city -- anybody looking for the neighborhood is likely to find the article.
    Doncram apparently is afraid that this redirect will somehow contaminate the article by encouraging someone to add information to the article that is not contained in the nomination form that placed this historic district on the National Register of Historic Places 24 years ago. I don't think that this fear, which I consider to be irrational, justifies disrupting the encyclopedia and other users' lives to the extent that has already occurred. --Orlady (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with delete. Note further that there are numerous Norwiches in the United States, as well as the primary one in England, listed at Norwich (disambiguation). Google gives hits on "Downtown Norwich New York" for the Norwich, New York one, and I think also "Downtown Norwich Kansas" gets hits for another one. It is not clear that "Downtown Norwich" would primarily mean the CT one, and it is imprecise. doncram (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not proposing a merger. There will likely never be an article on Downtown Norwich that would not be fundamentally the same as the historic district article. Also, those other hits you indicate are very minor compared to the ones for Connecticut. Look at Google Books, Scholar, and News and see that the vast majority of references to "downtown Norwich" refer to the Connecticut locality. None of these other Norwiches in the US are as big or old as the Connecticut one. --Polaron | Talk 16:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to force a merger, don't create a redirect. Any topic name of a redirect should be covered in the redirect target article (and I believe it should be shown in bold in the lede). Here, where the CT NRHP and hamlets proposal is for there to be no merger, and then there should be no redirect of the topic to the NRHP HD article. It is just not adding any value, and it is confusing in the context of your having created hundreds of redirects within the larger dispute. Just don't create them, please, and please also give your approval to the deletion of these. doncram (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That theory regarding redirects is not consistent with my understanding of the way redirects are used in Wikipedia. See WP:Redirect#What do we use redirects for? -- there are plenty of situations where redirects have nothing to do with a merger ("forced" or otherwise) and do not require that the redirected title be listed in bold in the article lead section. --Orlady (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orlady, have you observed what has gone on in CT for several months. What redirects were used for was to force mergers; if anyone created an article at the redirect it was immediately embattled. What I said in a parenthetical expression was my opinion, set off in a parenthetical that opened with "I believe". What i meant is that is my opinion about what is appropriate when readers are being redirected to what would possibly be a surprising different topic. doncram (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is this is not a surprising topic for the redirect in question. --Polaron | Talk 22:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has also spilled over onto Connecticut Company, where Doncram is violating WP:R2D for no apparent reason. --NE2 22:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

various new redirects relating to CT hamlets and NRHP historic districts[edit]

The following items are new redirects created by Polaron today as redirects to NRHP historic districts. Redirects of CT NRHP HDs to CT hamlet articles and vice versa has been hugely discussed at Talk:List of RHPs in CT, at User talk:Acroterion and in other Talk pages over several months. A long dispute has stemmed from Polaron's creation of redirects to what i view as inappropriate targets. Seven previous batches of CT NRHP redirects have been processed already here, with all or most being deleted. These are somewhat different for including redirects to rather than from NRHP HD names.

User:Acroterion, invited mediator in the general dispute, commented about similar redirects that "Ignoring for the moment the propriety of the redirects themselves, a single specific redirect is to be preferred over a set of gradually-more-specific terms. With the improvement of Wikipedia's originally abysmal internal search functions to merely poor, any reasonable search term will find the appropriate article, especially if helped along by a concise, specific redirect." This comment appears at User talk:Acroterion/NRHP HD issues list.

Reasons 2 and 9 of WP:RFD#DELETE apply for deleting some or all of these. No reasons at WP:RFD#KEEP apply for keeping these.

Indicated are redirects and mention of initial redirect targets. They may no longer point to the initial target; i myself already redirected several of them away to town articles, from the NRHP HD articles.

The Hallville Mill Historic District article, per long discussion and a proposal at Talk:Poquetanuck, is not supposed to have to bear the burden of showing Hallville in the lede and covering that hamlet or neighborhood, which may or may not coincide with the NRHP HD. These redirects are in contradiction to the proposal to end CT NRHP HD edit-warring, a proposal with which Polaron agreed. This goes towards inappropriately forcing merger of a village/hamlet/neighborhood article that might be created at the Hallville, Connecticut name.

  • Hallville ‎ (←Redirected page to Hallville Mill Historic District) DISAMBIG CREATED BY Doncram
  • Hallville, Connecticut ‎ (←Redirected page to Hallville Mill Historic District)
  • Hallville Mill ‎ (←Redirected page to Hallville Mill Historic District) DISAMBIG CREATED BY Orlady

Note, further, that Hallville is not a unique name. I created a disambiguation page at Hallville; it certainly should not be a redirect to the NRHP HD in Connecticut.

  • Rename Hallville Mill Historic District to Hallville, Connecticut. Keep Hallville Mill Historic District as a redirect to Hallville, Connecticut. Convert Hallville to a disambiguation page, because there are other places called "Hallville." Delete Hallville Mill as an unnecessary redirect.
    Reasoning: Although it is a tiny village with no legal existence (being part of a legal town), Hallville is a place shown on maps and recorded in a lot of historical documents, and "Hallville" is listed as an alternative name for the Hallville Mill Historic District. According to the town historical society, the historic district that was listed on the National Register is the village of Hallville (see page 13 of this town newsletter), so the village name and the historic district name can be treated as two different names for the same place. Because the village of Hallville existed by that name long before the National Register of Historic Places was invented -- and the village name can be expected to be in wider use than the historic district name -- the article should carry the village name. --Orlady (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very odd for you to be striking out the items and also some of my commentary above and below. I am unstriking most of what you struck out; you may have to revisit this to clarify what was the point of your edit. As you are aware from FAR and other wikipedia pages, it is not usual for editors to strike out other editors' comments. Please don't strike out mine. doncram (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I was trying to make it easier for other people (such as the administrator who tries to close this discussion) to figure out what items are still under discussion. But apparently no good deed goes unpunished. --Orlady (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, although he hasn't explained his reasoning, I have guessed that Doncram concluded that "Hallville, Connecticut" should not be the name of an article (according to the list of arbitrary criteria that he says were established in the "agreement" he refers to) because it doesn't appear on the state Department of Economic and Community Development list of places in the state. It does, however, appear on the Secretary of State's list, which I contend is at least as reliable as the Department of Economic and Community Development list. --Orlady (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bean Hill Historic District article, per long discussion and a proposal at Talk:Poquetanuck, is not supposed to have to bear the burden of showing Bean Hill in the lede and covering that hamlet or neighborhood, which may or may not coincide with the NRHP HD. These redirects are in contradiction to the proposal to end CT NRHP HD edit-warring, a proposal with which Polaron agreed. This goes towards inappropriately forcing merger of a village/hamlet/neighborhood article that might be created at the Bean Hill, Connecticut name. In the proposal some other NRHP HD - hamlet pairings were agreed for merger, but not this one.

Note, Polaron commented elsewhere already that "It is highly unlikely that someone will create separate articles for this. People looking for information on "Bean Hill" would likely find the Bean Hill historic district article more than sufficient when it is fully developed." However, even if there is no article created, the wikipedia search screen will easily pull up the Bean Hill HD article. The redirects are not needed and just make it more difficult in the future if someone does wish to create an article on the neighborhood.

  • For the record, Doncram edited those redirects so that they no longer point to Bean Hill Historic District. Instead they point to the article for the entire city of Norwich, Connecticut. Delete Bean Hill -- it's a term with multiple meanings, and a redirect that points to a single meaning impedes the search process for users who are looking for some other meaning of the term. Keep the other two as redirects to Bean Hill Historic District -- They are reasonable names for the neighborhood that is the topic of the historic district article. --Orlady (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<<Redundant discussion (please ignore this and look at the previous section on this page)

The Downtown Norwich Historic District article, per long discussion and a proposal at Talk:Poquetanuck, is not supposed to have to bear the burden of showing Downtown Norwich in the lede and covering that neighborhood, which may or may not coincide with the NRHP HD. These redirects are in contradiction to the proposal to end CT NRHP HD edit-warring, a proposal with which Polaron agreed. In the proposal some other NRHP HD - hamlet pairings were agreed for merger, but not this one.

I redirected the Downtown Norwich one to Norwich, whose primary use is the city in England, but these should just be deleted.

End of redundant discussion>>

The Greeneville, Connecticut and Preston City, Connecticut articles, per long discussion and a proposal at Talk:Poquetanuck, are agreed to be merged articles covering NRHP HDs. These redirects are not helpful however, and are implausible typos.

  • Keep all. I don't see a particular need for "Preston City," but if this is the only place with that name in Wikipedia, the redirect is not doing any harm. Keep the two "Greeneville" redirects; in view of the existence of multiple spellings for that name and the idiosyncrasies of Wikipedia article-naming, they are plausible, and they don't seem to be doing any harm. --Orlady (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC) PS - Actually, for Preston City I can see potential for confusion with Preston in England, but no one has suggested (yet) that this is a problem. --Orlady (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also the following are redirects to NRHP HD articles which should not be burdened with covering those topics. They do not currently cover those topics.

Overall, there are problems from creating such hedgehogs of redirects. The redirects reflect what one editor believes should be covered in the target articles, not what is actually covered in them, and I believe I and others will oppose addition of coverage of these additional topics in the NRHP HD articles. Unless and until the target articles actually cover those topics and are stable, the redirects should be deleted, and the editor creating them should be given this feedback towards heading off more of the same. doncram (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all and restore targets as originally created. There is no harm in these redirects existing and will help point people to articles that will contain these topics. If Doncram is worried that there is currently no further information in the original targets, I am willing to add them once this is settled. --Polaron | Talk 19:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you added the hamlet info to several of these NRHP HD articles which are your intended targets, that would go against the agreement you agreed to. I don't want you to open new edit wars in those articles. You have it backwards, you should not create redirects to targets that are not prepared to receive readers following those links. Don't create the redirects. Others, please help me get these deleted. doncram (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop using the word "hamlet" to refer to Connecticut villages, neighborhoods, and sections of town. The word "hamlet" is used in some U.S. jurisdictions, but not Connecticut.
As for the alleged "agreement," I don't recall that any verdict was reached on whether village/neighborhood/section names could become redirects to articles that had "historic district" in their titles, but I confess that I've become bored with the massive war on words over this incredibly trivial matter, and I may not have read the various outpourings as closely as Doncram has. If anything, I thought the agreement was that when the only available information about the historic district is a database entry, an article would be created for the place, and the historic district title could become a redirect to the place article (although I've suggested that no redirect be created). Based on my understanding of the alleged agreement, I don't understand why stub articles were created under the historic district titles. --Orlady (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever about hamlets. For many of these no one can determine what they are, whether unincorporated "villages" or sections or what. All that is actually clear is that they correspond to NRHP HDs, not that they are notable. About the articles being created, merged articles are being created where the proposal called for merged articles. And where merger was not called for, it should be okay to have NRHP articles for the NRHP HDs. Probably the most efficient way to communicate simply to other editors that NRHP articles are okay, given all the contention, is to create stub articles for them. Where mergers are not indicated, it is not necessary to create corresponding "village" / hamlet / section articles, though, and it is against the proposal (by my understanding) to create redirects from them to the NRHP HDs. doncram (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Baltic Mills. It's a perfectly sensible redirect. In the unlikely event that someone searches Wikipedia for Baltic Mills, they'll find the article about the historic district centered around Baltic Mills. --Orlady (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for Woodbridge Center, Connecticut, it does not currently point to Woodbridge Green Historic District because Doncram changed it to target the entire town of Woodbridge. I don't find any evidence that Woodbridge Center is a widely used name for the center of Woodbridge, but I don't see that it does any harm to redirect the name in this fashion. --Orlady (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional redirects added today, in spite of or because of this RFD going on:

Offhand, does anyone know if there are other Norwichtown's that have a green? I just don't see these as adding anything for readers, and in the context of dispute, they are of negative value to wikipedia. doncram (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both. Both titles generating a surprisingly large number of ghits, and the two destination articles appear to be highly relevant to these titles, so the redirects could be helpful to readers. How could they be "of negative value to Wikipedia"? --Orlady (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Scuderia Ferrari Malbaro[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 13:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dubious mis-spelling of Marlboro. Falcadore (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some people went to {{f1 2009}} page and saw Scuderia Ferrari Malbaro, so they typed Scuderia Ferrari Malbaro inside the search box. So i thought of creating 'Scuderia Ferrari Marlbaro. Áqúáďêîâŝ Σ 07:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Template:f1 2009, and who are these 'some people'? And you don't create redirects for every misspelling in creation, that is not what it is for. --Falcadore (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete -- It doesn't sound completely implausible. That said, it seems to have gotten essentially no hits so deleting it wouldn't hurt. —mako๛ 14:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Island ecology[edit]

The result of the discussion was move new article over the redirect. Orlady (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like this to re-target to a new article I wrote on Island Ecology, rather than the shorter article on island biogeography. Erina02 (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- So the article is already "retargetted" so I I don't understand exactly what you want here. Is the issue that you want the redirect at Island ecology and the article at Island Ecology switched? In terms of naming conventions, that seems both appropriate and uncontroversial. I would just request that an admin do the swtich on WP:ANI and then we can close this. —mako๛ 14:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Garabato Blanco[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget to List of Acacia species. Tikiwont (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no apparent connection between the redirect term and the disambig page targeted to it. bd2412 T 01:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete -- I can't figure out what the connection is either by searching so it seems unlikely that users coming to the site would either. In any case, it definitely shouldn't be pointing to the Brea dab page. Unless someone knows which brea this should point to, it doesn't make sense to keep this around. —mako๛ 14:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Garabato blanco is also known as Acacia tucumanensis, which doesn't even appear in List of Acacia species (an apparent synonym, Acacia riparia, does). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to retarget to List of Acacia species with the recommendation of inserting mentions of Acacia tucumanensis and Garabato Blanco into the list. After all, there are over 900 species of acacia... 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you're the nom, why not go ahead and do it, and close this? GlassCobra 14:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_26&oldid=1136083689"