Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 31, 2013.

292,277,026,296; 584,554,051,223; 5,391,559,471,918,239,497,011,222,876,596; and 10,783,118,943,836,478,994,022,445,751,223[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. Nyttend (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've grouped these discussions (originally 4 separate nominations) together given that points have been made in individual discussions that offer opinions on the other discussions and refactored accordingly. WJBscribe (talk) 13:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You sure about that, 292277026296 was speedy deleted as vandalism. I don't know who created it or what the target was (if it was a redirect), or what the story is there, but in any case the redirects here are clearly not vandalism, so whatever vandalism was deleted is probably irrelevant to this discussion. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment 292277026296 consisted entirely of "This is the highest number that can be represented with 64 bits." and two prods, one for "not being at all notable" and the other for being incorrect "This is false as the the largest number that can be represented with 64 bits is one less than 2 raised to the 65th power (36 893 488 147 419 103 231), an odd number.". It was never a redirect, was not vandalism (so the speedy delete was outside process) and was neither created nor edited by user:Voortle. There has never been a page at 292 277 026 296. Thryduulf (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was Year 170,141,183,460,469,231,731,687,303,715,884,105,727 problem that user:Voortle created. Year 292,277,026,596 problem had significant impact from Voortle, but is now an (at least marginal) redirect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All I don't know what 2^2047 and 2^2048 are or have to do with this, but INDISCRIMINATE applies to articles. These are redirects, and the target section specifiably discusses these years/numbers. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The target target section prominently states " The year 292,277,026,296 (2.9×1011) and 584,554,051,223 (5.8×1011) problems: the years that 64-bit Unix time becomes negative (assuming a signed number) or reset to zero (for an unsigned representation) [...] The year 5,391,559,471,918,239,497,011,222,876,596 (5.4×1030) and 10,783,118,943,836,478,994,022,445,751,223 (1.1×1031) problems: the years that 128-bit Unix time becomes negative (assuming a signed number) or reset to zero (for an unsigned representation)." Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - discussed at target. I think it's exceedingly likely that someone searching for these terms is looking for the information at the target article, but could be persuaded a disambig is needed if I'm missing something. WilyD 10:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, and as unlikely search term. --BDD (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Harmless redirects that won't be used for anything else or cause confusion as far as I can see. They are discussed at the target and if someone did search for them, they seem to be being pointed in the right direction. WJBscribe (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I only think these should be kept if the relevant content remains at the target article. If a consensus emerges that John is correct and it is removed, the redirects should be deleted. WJBscribe (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 584,554,051,223 and 10,783,118,943,836,478,994,022,445,751,223 because the only other sites I found them on are Wikipedia mirrors, and per the article "these year values are based on an average year being 365.2425 days" hence only 7 digits are significant.
  • Keep 292,277,026,296 because it appears on other sites, hence it's a plausible search term. —rybec 22:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • 365.2425 days is an exact figure. A year is normally 365 days, with a 366-day leap year every 4 years. If you stopped there you would have 365.25 days per year (exactly 365.25 days per year -- (365+365+365+366)÷4=365.25 -- not a 5-digit approximation). But three out of of every four century-years are not leap years, so you subtract 3 days from every 400 years, or exactly .0075 days every year (3÷400=0075). That gives us a year of exactly 365.2425 days. 365.2425000 or 365.24250000000000000 would also be mathematically correct. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The target article explains that the Gregorian calendar is an approximation, but yes, people are likely to use 365.25 or 365.2425. In the article, I changed 292,277,026,296 to 292,277,026,596 to match the source and my own calculation. I had trouble confirming the biggest number: (2^128)/86400/365.2425+1970 came to 10783118943836478994022445751222.596... for me, whereas in the article the last digit is a "3" as if it had been rounded up. —rybec 08:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
292,277,026,596 also exists as a redirect to Year 2038 problem and should potentially be retargetted/deleted depending on the outcome of this discussion. It has been discussed at RfD before in May 2006. WJBscribe (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On stats.grok.se, no hits are shown for 10,783,118,943,836,478,994,022,445,751,223 in the first 11 months of 2013. The requests begin on 31 December, the day this discussion was started. There were no requests at all for 10,783,118,943,836,478,994,022,445,751,222 (the number I arrived at, which has a different final digit) at all. —rybec 11:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. When I first went looking for information on the 64-bit version of the year 2038 problem, I searched on the term "584,554,051,223", which I got from my calculator. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, utterly ridiculous WP:CRYSTALballery, and that applies to the article content as well, which is poorly written and does not have a peer-reviewed source for this claim. These are not inevitable problems with the storage. We've mastered storage and computation of numbers larger than the bus/memory width long ago. (see Large numbers for the extreme) If we are still using 64 bit unix 100 years before these dates, the unix software will be improved to use technology that is trillions of trillions of years old to work around the limitations of 64 bits. (Also, per Rybec, the accuracy of these numbers is in doubt, and btw, scientific consensus is that in these years we are no longer revolving around the sun, so what the hell is a 'year' after that? John Vandenberg (chat) 10:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure why you are arguing that "These are not inevitable problems with the storage" when the redirect goes to Time formatting and storage bugs#"Problems" that aren't problems (emphasis added). --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is original research and trivia. You can write about the storage limits, but if you mention the word 'year', beyond the life of our solar system per scientific consensus, you are into creative writing territory. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • When you give a reason for deletion ("These are not inevitable problems with the storage" ) and someone refutes it (the page already says that they are not problems), it is polite to at least acknowledge your error before making an entirely different argument for deletion. I also noticed that you deleted the target of the redirects that we are discussing -- content that has been there since 2009 -- yet you have never posted a single word to the article talk page. As for your latest argument ("It is original research and trivia.") That's an argument about the quality of the article content. We are discussing whether to delete the redirects. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most reliable sources don't have a problem talking about years before and after the the life of the solar system. Do you intend to challenge half the Timeline of the far future as original research? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Academic literature does talk about the far future of course, but people qualified to talk about them do not used exact years, and they do it for events that they predict will occur despite how we measure time. i.e. the representation of time may change, but the predicted timeframe does not. I have looked through them all, and I do challenge one of them, because it relies on our current system of measuring time. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this conversation between two editors of the 750 CE version of Wikipedia (it was written in Mayan hieroglyphs carved into stones back then and delivered by runners...).

"OK, I am going to put the following claim into our Eclipse article: The Royal Astronomers predict a lunar eclipse on the night of 12.19.6.16.2|5 Ik'|10 Muwan|G7"

"I challenge that one, because it relies on our current system of measuring time."

Fast forward to modern times. Two wikiarcheologists are looking at the stone tablets for some of those old talk pages.

"Hey, it looks like back in 1264 someone tried to post an eclipse prediction on the Mayan Wikipedia but got shut down."

"Why? No reliable sources?"

"Nope. Another editor claimed that the prediction relies on the Mayan system of measuring time."

"So what? We just convert it to our current system. Let's see... 12.19.6.16.2|5 Ik'|10 Muwan|G7 is (gets out calculator) January 21, 2000. Maybe the 20th or 22nd -- I didn't correct for time zones"

"Those crazy Mayans! 'Relies on our current system of measuring time?' What were they thinking?"

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon, funny, but .. quite ironic. In your example, the Maya Royal Astronomer would of course clarify that 'this lunar eclipse data is of course dependent on all the usual gotchas, like the earth, moon and sun all staying roughly where they are and doing what they have done for centuries.' And that should and would be sufficient for the Maya Wikipedia community, because they didnt have any credible evidence to justify that those possibilities needed to accounted for in the calculations for lunar eclipses. Their lunar eclipse prediction for Year 2000 would have been only slightly off, due to the movement of those bodies over the years, but it would have been close.
However, stating that the 64bit unix storage format will do something (anything) in the year 292,277,026,596 AD is no different to predicting a lunar eclipse in the year 292,277,026,596 AD. (note: it doesnt matter whether the prediction says it will happen 'any time in that year', or it will happen on '15:30:08 UTC on 4 December' - both are equally silly) There is no moon, earth or sun. It is a fictitious year.
Note that by using 'year', we are actually saying 'Earth year'. By calling a redirect 'Year X' or even 'X' (as our naming conventions says 'X' without suffix is a year), it must be a valid year. We know these numbers are not years. My objection is to these redirects only - not the content in the articles; the theoretical limits, if expressed accurately, should be in the relevant unix time articles, with proper sources. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fast forward to ten billion years from now. The question of whether the earth would hit the sun when it became a red giant was solved -- it did -- and now the sun is a white dwarf. A couple of AIs (humans went away long ago) are discussing this very page.
"If I am getting this right, someone was claiming that in the far future such concepts as 'day' and 'year' wouldn't be of any use by now"
"Why? it's just an arbitrary numbering system for time."
"No, actually, at one time it actually indicated the rotation and orbit of a planet."
"Well now it is just one of many time/date systems that we convert to our heximetric time, just like we do with Mayan Time and Dalek Time."
"Apparently he thought that we would lose the ability to convert between systems."
"Not really. He was referencing POSIX time, which of course we also convert, and when/how it overflows."
"I don't see the problem. You just look at the ancient POSIX specification, see exactly how the numbers increment, and do your conversion. Did he expect them to not talk about far-future events? If you have a counter that overflows and a deterministic method of converting that number to years or any other arbitrary units in any arbitrary counting system, you can say that it overflows in year X, even if X is trillions of years in the future or if your actual elapsed time changes because of relativistic effects. It's just math."
--Guy Macon (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Inspirer[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. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to Inspiration. --BDD (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CSD declined. This is an improbable (not even a standard English word) redirect created by a indef-blocked user. Serves no purpose and should be snipped out. Matt Deres (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Entertainment Culture, Hospitality Recreation, Health Medical Pharma, Technology Internet, Social Issues, Religion Belief, Disaster Accident[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 Entertainment Culture, Hospitality Recreation, Health Medical Pharma, Technology Internet, Law Crime, Religion Belief, Disaster Accident & War Conflict; keep Social Issues and Human Interest; and retarget Business Finance to Corporate finance. WJBscribe (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This one is apparently the name of a journal. —rybec 08:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These appear at #9, #11, #21, #49, #82, #103, #104 and #424 on the current WP:5000 list; all received hundreds of thousands of requests in November. I looked at the traffic graphs for them, along with Human Interest, on stats.grok.se (Javascript required): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] and noticed that the graphs look essentially the same. The 90-day graphs also look the same. Thinking that these looked like categories used on an external site, I searched [10] and found that there are many external sites which are organised around these very broad categories (although this search only turns up a few results, a search for only a few of the category names will show many results). However, this Wikipedia is not arranged along these lines. I notice that the sites using these categories carry news stories; if the requests are coming from readers of those sites, the most appropriate action may be to retarget all to Portal:Current events. The contributors to that portal already use section headers such as "Law and crime", "Disasters and accident", "Arts and culture" and "Science and technology" which have a similarity to the incoming requests. I think this would be a better match than, for example, ignoring the Recreation part of a request for "Hospitality Recreation" and serving up the Hospitality article. If these requests are coming from readers of news sites, those people are likely to be interested in the latest happenings; Portal:Current events is the part of Wikipedia which caters to that interest. —rybec 08:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed belatedly that War Conflict, (redirecting to War and ranking at #1370 in WP:5000) is another category on those sites, with a traffic graph that looks like the others. I haven't tagged it but if the others are changed, I think it should be changed too. —rybec 10:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise for Business Finance. —rybec 11:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh. Some external site using these silly, sometimes redundant terms is a terrible reason for making these redirects. And those search results are hardly convincing; they look like noise. Delete those that aren't otherwise useful:
And if the others are up for discusison too...
The terms I'm recommending deletion for are essentially junk search terms because they combine two (or three, in the case of Health Medical Pharma) related but distinct terms. Disambiguation should be out of the question. I'm really against retargeting to portals as well. Mainspace to portal redirects may not be CSD eligible, but they're still CNRs, and we should avoid creating them accordingly. Wikipedia can't be everything to everyone. Maybe we could make them all soft redirects to Google News. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per BDD's reasoning. Mangoe (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mangoe: please could you be more precise - BDD recommended deleting only some of the listed redirects, others he recommended keeping or retargetting. Thryduulf (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, should have been clearer: I mean to agree with BDD's list of actions. Mangoe (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with BDD's list of actions. Thanks, BDD! UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep them all, except retarget the ones BDD wants to retarget. I don't see what is to be gained by deleting high-traffic redirects such as these. Even if it looks like the hits are being generated by automated processes, we can never be sure, and the automated processes in question may well be doing something useful. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

TurkmenAlem 520E[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. WJBscribe (talk) 14:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no mention of this name outside of Wikipedia. W. D. Graham 11:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WJBscribe (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

John Matua[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. WJBscribe (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no feasible reason why this individual should be on Wikipedia, even with a redirect. That said, even if he is notable, redirecting to the type of fighting he does is not appropriate. There are hundreds of people who fight this way--should we create redirects for all of them? He is neither a founder of the style, nor a significant enough competitor to have his name synonymous with the style such that a redirect is valuable. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - he's listed (and sourced) at the target article as a notable practitioner of the style. Unless there's reason to believe he's notable enough that we should redlink to encourage article creation, I see no rationale for deletion. WilyD 10:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The reference on the target page indicates an MMA fighter by this name, but doesn't mention Kapu Kuialua at all, much less identify him as a notable practitioner of the sport. Smacks of promotion. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WJBscribe (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Broken Ear (film)[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. WJBscribe (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no film, not now nor planned. Prhartcom (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Fractured Ear[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 7#The Fractured Ear

The Black Island (film)[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. WJBscribe (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no film, not now nor planned. Prhartcom (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ranko[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 moot - converted to a given name disambiguation page so no longer in scope. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Character does not exist in the List of The Adventures of Tintin characters article and should never have been created. Prhartcom (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - mentioned in the target article, unlikely to be notable enough that redlinking to encourage creation makes sense. WilyD 11:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Ranko" is a common Japanese given name -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Converted into a given name page keep as such. Siuenti (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, creating a dab page would make more sense than outright deletion.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been done so I think we can close this. There are now links to 13 people and 2 fictional characters.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ranko the Ape[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 The Black Island. WJBscribe (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Character does not exist in the List of The Adventures of Tintin characters article and should never have been created. Prhartcom (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; retargeted to The Black Island per suggestions. This may be closed if satisfactory. Thanks for your work here at RfD. Prhartcom (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sani-Cola[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) 21:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Character (object, actually) does not exist in the List of The Adventures of Tintin characters article and should never have been created. Prhartcom (talk) 08:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, it's just an object in the story. There are hundreds of objects in the story. In the entire Tintin universe, this is the only redirect that is an object (the rest are titles, characters, and locations) Please delete. Prhartcom (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It isn't mentioned in the article. Prhartcom (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Suzhou Railway Station (Metro) Station[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. WJBscribe (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technical issue resolved. No need for such awkward redirects. HNAKXR (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Next leader of the Scottish Labour Party[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. WJBscribe (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current target is obviously incorrect - the next leader of the party will not be determined by an election held in 2011. Indeed, the next leader of the party is presently unknowable - there is no election currently and it is not knowable when the next one will be. Only when there is either speculation about the party leadership (which may or may not be notable) or an election for leader (which may or may not have its own article) can there be a non-misleading target for this redirect. There is apparently no encyclopaedic speculation at this time. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 30#Next Labour Party (UK) leadership election. Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I seem to recall reading something that discouraged time-sensitive redirects, but I can't think of where. --BDD (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_31&oldid=1142587456"