Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 11, 2014.

Userboxen[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. JohnCD (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Useless cross-namespace redirect. Yes, some people jokingly refer to userboxes as userboxen, but no inexperienced user is going to type in "userboxen" looking for userboxes and that's the main reason for having a cross-namespace redirect out of article space. B (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: userboxes are not critical for editing tasks; they don't warrant cross-namespace redirect. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as this redirect was created while I was on an unnecessary, immature redirect-creating spree. (I don't exactly remember what I was doing, but this is not appropriate for wiki anyway...) Epicgenius (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete XNR to Wikipedia pipework, not encyclopedic material. WP:Userboxen would be the correct format, and userboxes are not exclusive to Wikipedia, so this is misleading. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I am curious where else besides Wikimedia Foundation wikis (and Wikia) the term userboxen (as opposed to userboxes) would be used. A quick Google search (with methods to reduce search bias) doesn't come up with much...
    Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • A userbox is a synonym for a graphical box-like login prompt -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:34, 13 June 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.

Foodcalc[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 Number 57 18:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to the target in any way, since they are competing trademarks. See also ticket:2014061010018685. No incoming mainspace links. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 15:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • question I've found several web hits saying that FoodCare used to be called FoodCalc. Are these incorrect? Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not according to the letter they sent to OTRS. Take that back, the answer to Mangoe's question is yes, see below. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 02:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the article the company was founded in 2012, but the article was created in 2009 as Foodcalc and contained different information and references; the revision history shows a series of gradual changes as well as a page move to FoodCalc and then to the current title. Searching for information about the two names doesn't make it clearer - similar contradictions occur in Louisville Business First (27 April 2012 and 4 January 2013) and there are mentions of both names - and people associated with them - in registration details for the trademark "Now Serving Everyone" (Trademarkia, Trademark247.com and About Intellectual Property). Peter James (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Peter James: I've received a response from the company's rep. Basically it boils down to this: FoodCalc is a registered trademark of the company of the same name. FoodCare originally incorporated as FoodCalc but later changed their name. They have no problem with mentioning the historical relationship in the article, but the argument is that the plain redirect creates an implicit association and dilutes their trademark. I would tend to agree. Considering there are no incoming links to it to begin with and the redirect gets an average of 20 hits per month, I don't see any harm in removing it. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't make it clearer, but I'll support deletion as potentially causing confusion. There's also a redirect FoodCalc - maybe that should also be deleted, and it isn't clear from the FoodCare article that there should be an article at all; an earlier version had references for some of the information, but I'm not sure which company was the subject of that coverage (or what I mentioned above). Peter James (talk) 21:02, 16 June 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.

Supein[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, again. --BDD (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_12#Seupein, same thing, appears to be created by the same IP editor (see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_8#Beurajil TheChampionMan1234 10:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep nine years old, harmless. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC).
    • It is harmful, specifically if linked externally, as it suggests that such titles are OK in Wikipedia, provoking vandalism. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G1: patent nonsense. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects from foreign languages such as this are discouraged, particularly when not mentioned in the target article. Search results include Names given to the Spanish language, where the term is mentioned, although a redirect there would be misleading as it refers to the country, not to the language. Peter James (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since this is a non-native term for the country. I think this is romaji for Spain.--Lenticel (talk) 00:21, 13 June 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.

மலேசியா[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. JohnCD (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another one in a language not particularly related to the target topic. TheChampionMan1234 10:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What language is it in? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC).
Malaysian English is widely used in business, along with Manglish, which is a colloquial form of English with heavy Malay, Chinese, and Tamil influences. so
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.

South Mexico[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 Number 57 18:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could be redlinked and expanded. TheChampionMan1234 10:22, 11 June 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.

Xedni[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A google search does not answer the question to what language its in. TheChampionMan1234 10:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe it is in an Australian language. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC).
According to its creator, 에멜무지로, who appears to be Korean, “The word "xedni" is "index" spelled backwards but it is pronounced like "Sydney"”. “Xedni” is probably not in an Australian language. Gorobay (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this some weird internet slang? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The hit patterns seem like its being used (regardless of what language it's in), so...
  • Delete The explanation for why it's Sydney makes no sense whatsoever. I don't understand how Xedni could possibly be said Sydney. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't appear to mean Sydney. Siuenti (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has a lot of hits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qhz (talk • contribs) 09:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this word does not appear to mean Sydnay in any language, but there is a Xedni Calculus, which appears to recieve modest discussion in relation to elliptic curve, and particularily elliptic curve cryptography. See this note or this paper. Other non-notable uses I also found: a rare given name, software library for indexing and sorting, several different products, etc. Apparently neither subject is notable enough to warrent deletion per WP:RED, but redirect to unrelated city is misleading, thus qualifying for WP:R#DELETE criterion 2, as readers searching any of those small subjects don't get anything even closely related. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:36, 18 June 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.

Tòquio[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. JohnCD (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be in some other language (see oc:Tòquio) that is not relavent to the target. TheChampionMan1234 10:20, 11 June 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.

东京[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 turn into DAB page as there are several potential meanings. Number 57 18:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is in simplfied Chinese. The Japanese equivalent is 東京. TheChampionMan1234 10:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep these languages are very closely related in written form. For example 日本 is Trad. Chinese, Wuu and Japanese for Japan.
    • In this case the phrase means (as far as I can tell) probably "Imperial Tokyo" or "Tokyo Metropolis" not just Tokyo - the Japanese equivalent being 東京都 - which is given as the "native name" in the infobox and the "official name" (Tōkyō-to") in the article.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC).
I think you're right. I've left a note on that talk page for assistance here. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 27 June 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.

🐇[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. The consensus is that this is a valid redirect. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like anything meaningful to me. A google search returs no results. TheChampionMan1234 09:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep retarget to Emoji - it's a rabbit emoji. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC).
  • Keep. Perfectly valid {{R from Unicode}}. Steel1943 (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Who is ever going to link to or search for this? It's pointless.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Many emoji redirect to articles about what they depict. This is a picture of a rabbit so redirecting to Rabbit makes sense. The page you linked to uses this redirect; that is how it is able to give a paragraph about rabbits. Gorobay (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep why not? It's not harming anything or in violation of any policy (that I know of)... Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: very useful for folks like me, whose fonts don't cover this set – this redirect is used in several lists of symbols to link the glyph with its meaning. Of course, these articles can link directly, but having redirect helps keeping everything in sync. Strongly oppose retargetting unless there is a page explaining the use of this particular emoji ideogram. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:23, 12 June 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.

Ithrö Zhâda[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ]

We'd better stop the bot then before it makes thousands of them. Do you know which bot? Beng Bold, I am going to sep the first one out for separate discussion. 85.238.64.128 (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This bot run (by Eubot) was 6 years ago and in policy. Don't panic. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC).
Retarget to Inheritance_Cycle#Geography. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC).
  • Note apply the same target to Ithroe Zhada and Ithro Zhada. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC).
  • Delete I don't see this in our Inheritance Cycle article, it didn't come up on a text search of the page. If it is a fictional insult, it ceratinly shouldn't be pointing to our insult article WP:NOTGUIDE -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:00, 12 June 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.

Monks (TV series)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page of the actor/comedian Dan Tetsell doesn't mention the series, neither does it appear on his filmography. Google reaveals that Tetsell worked on a series similar to Monks as a writer, but not Monks. See [1]. Therefore the redirect is pointless. Heinrich krebs (talk) 09:50, 11 June 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.

Hispana lingvo[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. JohnCD (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In which language? It is not Spanish, neither side of the Atlantic. Lingvo redirects to ABBYY, a company that does optical character recognition in, to my entire lack of surprise, a number of languages. There's no DAB or hatnote there for it being used for anything else. All my external search leads come back to this company, so is it just a trade name? I mean obviously it is close to lingua or language or slang for that matter or lobster if you want to stretch it, but all I get for lingvo is this company. WP:PROMO? SI Trew editing as IP 85.238.64.128 (talk) 08:49, 11 June 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.

Kastiljski[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. JohnCD (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly Croatian TheChampionMan1234 06:52, 11 June 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.

OS X El Cap[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. This does appear to be a valid possible search. Number 57 18:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this, because it was created speculatively, on the theory that OS X 10.10 might be called "El Cap" rather than "Yosemite", as the banner at the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference had a picture of El Cap, but the name is Yosemite, not El Cap. Guy Harris (talk) 06:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep best target for the term. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC).
  • Keep: plausible search term; if reader comes to Wikipedia in order to identify the OS X release, which was mentioned somewhere as "El Cap", this redirect would be very helpful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification needed. Was the system ever referred to as "OS X El Cap" outside of Wikipedia? Was it a working title announced at the conference, or did someone just speculate based on a picture? Keep if it's the former, delete if the latter. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BDD: Apparently there's quite a lot of usage off-wiki. The first three search results for "OS X El Cap" for me were [2], [3], [4], and there were at least a couple of dozens of similar articles. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:05, 27 June 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.

Physiological and molecular wheat breeding[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 29#Physiological and molecular wheat breeding

Template:Infobox County[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. JohnCD (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an unused redirect, designed to get passed both a capitalization issue (nearly all infoboxes use lowercase) and location type. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: harmless, may be useful. Who knows, may be this redirect was forcefully bypassed yesterday? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough:} Rich Farmbrough had my Hungarian county template deleted some seven years ago by the opposite reasoning, to put it all into {{Infobox settlement}} and not to have seventeen different templates for it (if that is a fair summary). He may have something to say on the matter, hence the ping. Si Trew editing as IP 85.238.64.128 (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: - Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_23#Template:Infobox_Hungarian_county was a deletion I neither proposed, voted on, or executed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC).
  • Keep - harmless, and serves to nudge people away from creating a redundant template of this name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Harmless. Of 64 redirects to {{Infobox settlement}} this is probably one of the less likely to be re-created, and also less likely to be used in error. But it does serve both those purposes. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC).
  • English counties use Template:Infobox England county - would this be acceptable in those, and should the template used in them be merged to Infobox settlement? Peter James (talk) 21:17, 12 June 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.

Democratic and Social Centre – People's 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 keep. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A series of broken nominations from June 8 being fixed here. Original rationale for all: "Democratic and Social Centre was derived from non existent acronym. party name is CDS - People's Party". Ego White Tray (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We don't have the (UK) Labour and Co-operative Party even though that is on my ballot paper. We do, on the other hand, have (UK) Conservative and Unionist Party which is also on my ballot paper. In the UK, the Returning officer eventually decides what is allowed on the ballot paper – and has got more liberal over the years – but a famous result for the Literal Democrats made them tighten it up a bit again. Until the mid-80s, the party names never appeared on the paper, only the candidates' names: technically in the UK you elect the person not the party. Si Trew editing as IP. 85.238.64.128 (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Aight 2009: I disagree with your rationale here. The name party is registered under is a solid candidate for article name or redirect (if reliable sources' references to the party deviate from official name). But it does not automtically disallow redirecting all the other ways the subject is referred. The translation of party's name acronym is very plausible search term – at least I would use it this way if I came across "Centro Democrático e Social" and wanted to get some info about it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 20:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re Literal Democrats, they must be more concerned about similarly of names than accuracy of them. I've created a redirect at Labour and Co-operative Party to Labour Co-operative, as the article already existed. Peter James (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: CDS stands for Centro Democrático e Social (Democratic and Social Centre). The word CDS by itself means nothing, as it is obviously the acronym of the full name. That the party likes to highlight its Partido Popular name over the Centro Democrático e Social is one thing, but as long as it keeps the CDS acronym it is still calling itself as such. Furthermore, a move of such characteristics should have been discussed before the decision to move these pages was even taken, something which has not been done. Impru20 (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are right to keep redirect but only to main article. Aight 2009 (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This should have been discussed, CDS is a Portuguese acronym, by itself means nothing in English. I am agreeing on keeping the old name. — B.Lameira (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons stated above. See WP:COMMONAME. No one says we have to go by the name on the ballot. --4idaho (talk) 17:48, 16 June 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.

Template:Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria/meta/color[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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6: housekeeping. (non-admin closure) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 21:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating after broken nomination on June 8th by unknown editor (not signed). No opinion personally. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Original rationale: "Party name is GERB only. Template was moved to Template:GERB/meta/color. Somebody thought that GERB is an acronym the same mistake was with ANO 2011 or TOP09 from the Czech Republic. Party article is in process of moving as stated in its talk page"
Comment. I'm with Ego as far as the reasoning goes, but is RfD the right place for this or should it go to TfD? I am not standing on ceremony, just not sure if we have jurisdiction? Ego probably knows better before bringing it here. 85.238.64.128 (talk) 09:05, 11 June 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/2014_June_11&oldid=1142587352"