Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 12, 2014.

Thai Grand Prix[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 20#Thai Grand Prix

Several "N'th" Edition redirects[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 without prejudice to disambiguation. Consensus is clear that the redirects are all correct and useful search terms for the current targets, that some or all might be useful search terms for other things as well is not a rational that supports deletion. Rather, disambiguation and questions of primary topics should be discussed individually as whether e.g. 6th Edition is ambiguous to some other topic has no bearing on whether e.g. Seventh Edition is. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turn all into disambiguation pages (and have some redirect to the new disambiguation pages.) Each of these terms are very ambiguous in nature; there are several different publications or works that could be referred to by their edition number. Steel1943 (talk) 07:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Disambiguation is only required or needed when there are multiple claims for a specific title. Are there any? Is there any other page that could & would be called "Fourth Edition"? If so, these two pages should enter the DAB process together (primary topic?, dab page?, add (dab) term? Hatnote?). If no concurring claim exists, there actually is no need for DAB. I know this goes against the grain of "everybody knows that 'Fourth Edition' can mean multiple things", but without an other thing in the wiki, we only need to care for the single meaning. -DePiep (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: DePiep, good point; I didn't provide any examples. So yes, there are also several articles/redirects related to the subject in Dungeons & Dragons that could also be referred to simply by "N'th Edition" titles. Steel1943 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Also, I could see someone making a claim that there are other collectible card game-related subjects that could be referred to simply by an edition number. (Unfortunately, none are coming to mind for me right now, even though I have a bit of knowledge about collectible card games.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, "an example" is not enough. We need actual claims for that same title (each title), and then that existing, conflicting claim has the drive & power in itself to solve it by WP:DAB between them. Or from this angle: exactly what would be the second entry link in disambiguation page Fourth Edition (disambiguation)? To be clear: this for each title (possibly "Fourth" and "4th" could/should be together -- for this too see WP:TITLE, WP:DAB, etc. etc.) Still no RfD case at hand.
Even worse: how can one propose deletion or disambiguation for a page at the same time? Why would it be rightful to exist only when there is a second article for that?
I tend to conclude: no problem in sight, leave them alone. Redirects are cheap, and I don't see any problem. -DePiep (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep & disambiguate when a need exists. From my DAB comments, I conclude this. Keep all, DAB when conflicting title claims exist, and leave redirects alone when not. -DePiep (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Obviously many books and so on go through a "second edition", "third edition", "eighth edition" and so on, I referred to one at RfD last night which is currently at its 10th edition (or was when I checked) so these are overly-specific. Since {{cite journal}} or {{cite book}} has specific fields for specifying an edition, it is ridiculous to think or redirect them all to one particular publication. Si Trew (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonTrew: normally, I would agree with this ... however, there are currently some "N'th Edition" redirects in existence that have disambiguators (some can be found here.) A couple of these examples include 8th Edition (Magic: The Gathering) and 9th Edition (Magic: The Gathering). Since these related redirect titles exist, that leads me (as a reader) to believe that there are more titles that can be referred to as "N'th Edition", and that title disambiguation is possible and/or necessary. Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: Yes, but these are essentially at WP:PRIMARY. Si Trew (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I have no problem with a title referring to a particular edition of a book (or any other media). My gripe is that these all redirect to one particular publication when obviously there are thousands of publications that are the "second edition", "tenth edition" and so on, so it seems overly-specific that all of these redirects are to one specific publication. Si Trew (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @SimonTrew: If you are referring to the redirects (without disambiguators in their titles) currently targeting their WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I would have to disagree. As I stated earlier, these terms can refer to a number of different topics or articles that can be referred specifically by these terms individually. However, I do agree that having all "N'th Edition of a book's publication" listed on a disambiguation page is a bit excessive, but that can be addressed by placing an {{Intitle}} tag in a "See also" section on their corresponding disambiguation pages (provided that the disambiguation page[s] are created). Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) According to the stats from grok.se:
  • Fourth Edition was viewed exactly zero times in the last ninety days.
  • 5th Edition was viewed exaclty zero times in the last ninety days.
  • Sixth Edition was viewed exactly zero times in the last ninety days.
  • Eighth Edition was viewed exactly zero times in the last ninety days.
  • 8th Edition was viewed exactly zero times in the last ninety days.
  • Ninth Edition was viewed exactly zero times in the last ninety days.
  • 9th Edition was viewed exactly zero times in the last ninety days
  • Tenth Edition was viewed exactly zero times in the last ninety days.
  • 10th Edition was viewed exactly zero times in the last ninety days.
I know stats.grok.se fell a few weeks ago, but having checked them all I wonder if it should just be deleleted as unlikely search term. I am going to post this now before I check other stats just so see if stats.grok.se is down and therefore my argument would be moot. But I checked all those stats. Si Trew (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my Internet connexion just dropped. You may notice from the nom's list at my statcheck that 7th Edition redirects to a DAB at Seventh Edition of which the first entry (of two, which doesn't need it per WP:TWODABS is to 7th Edition (Magic: The Gathering). Now, if the seventh edition can be DAB'd/qualified in that way why can't all the others? Obviously something like First Edition is primary to mean a valuable book in the antiquarian book trade etc, but if Seventh Edition is not then why would 8th Edition be? Si Trew (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all preferentially, or alternately disambiguate; There's clearly a lack of imagination going on here. There's even more thinking inside a small box going on, since MagicTheGathering (MTG) isn't the only target with such redirects. Second Edition redirects to a different subject. (Did MTG not have a 2nd ed.?) What happened to RPGs that also have these unimaginative names? ie. Editions of Dungeons & Dragons -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, I just noticed the same with Third edition. At this point, I'm considering relisting this as nominator due to considering adding the other redirects I had missed in my original nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind on that relisting/redirect add for the time being. Steel1943 (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fourth through tenth edition versions of the Magic base sets are primarily known by the names in these redirects (i.e., someone referring to the fourth edition of the Magic base set in a situation where it is clear that they are talking about Magic would call it just "Fourth Edition", without any other words or qualifiers). The same is not true for sets before Fourth Edition or sets after Tenth Edition, all of which primarily had different names and would almost never be referred to with names like "Third Edition" or "Eleventh Edition". The third edition was called "Revised", the second edition was called "Unlimited", and the first edition was called "Limited Edition" but is more generally referred to as "Alpha" (for the first print run) and "Beta" (for the second print run). Calathan (talk) 21:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I probably didn't make myself clear after the Internet drop. Seventh Edition is not listed by the nominator, and I imagine the reason is that it actually redirects to the same as all the other targets. But I find it somewhat a sore thumb. Si Trew (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops I saw a comment by DePiep to let them all stand, and I might have taken it out by mistake when editing another entry. It was at this revision. I don't want to reinstate it without DePiep's permission, but sorry about that, just a blunder on my part. Si Trew (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SimonTrew. From me no objection to adding/removing from the nominated list.I only gave a line of reasoning that could be applied, that's all. (though procedurally changing might be awkward). I won't make it a battle. -DePiep (talk) 06:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But I didn't remove it on purpose, I just made a slip and somehow deleted yours. So it was more in the way of an apology for doing so accidentally and I didn't want to reinsert the comment myself under my name when it was yours: please put it back. Si Trew (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't understand. Not about a nomination then ('7th' I thought). The diff you gave shows my text that is in now - nothing amiss. Pls feel free to re-add my text as you think good. I'll leave this sub-issue. -DePiep (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I got the wrong version. But you made a comment (at least I thought you did) to say let them all stand, and I took it out by mistake, but I apologise it was a genuine mistake I would not take out others' comments on purpose. Si Trew (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or disambiguate as necessary per DePiep. No apparent benefit to deletion. --BDD (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. (A wall of text follows with my argumentation. The TL;DR is that each core set since Fourth Edition is a separate product not known by any other name than those listed.) I believe people are missing significant context here. This is not at all like different versions of a book, or different rules revisions of a game. These are all separate products known simply by the names 'Xth edition'. It's not Magic: the Gathering 4th edition (as it is, for example, with Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition), nor is it 'Core Set 4th edition'. It's difficult to explain to people who don't play Magic: the Gathering, but 'the core set' is a name given to a series of expansion products for MTG that fulfill the functions of being more accessible to new players, allowing cards to be reprinted without the theming restrictions normal expansions have (for example, the most recent sets have taken place on a specific Greek-inspired world, so reprinting a card like Phyrexian Arena would make no sense as there are no Phyrexians in that world), and balancing out the 'metagame' of certain tournament formats as old cards 'rotate out' while new cards 'rotate in'. The following sets are considered the core sets:
  • Limited Edition Alpha
  • Limited Edition Beta
  • Unlimited Edition
  • Revised Edition
  • Fourth Edition
  • Fifth Edition
  • Sixth Edition
  • Seventh Edition
  • Eighth Edition
  • Ninth Edition
  • Tenth Edition
  • Magic 2010
  • Magic 2011
  • Magic 2012
  • Magic 2013
  • Magic 2014
These can be divided into three sections:
  • The early editions of MTG (Alpha through Revised) are practically the same set (and, in fact, Alpha and Beta are exactly the same content-wise). These were simply marketed as 'Magic: the Gathering' and function like normal revisions of games.
  • Fourth Edition represented a departure from the 'main game revision' formula. The set contains 378 cards, but significantly changed from Revised by removing 51 cards and adding 122 expansion cards. Revised had some changes for game balance, but Fourth Edition tried to be a separate product rather than just 'the main game'. Fifth Edition pushed this further: Of its 429 cards, only 235 appeared in Fourth Edition. The booster packs had 'Fifth Edition' very clearly printed on them, as they did with expansion sets, and just as with expansion sets, Fifth Edition cards have a set symbol on them. Ever since then until Tenth Edition, rather than being revisions of the main game, they were separate products consisting of a collection of various cards collected from MTG's history. Compare it to a 'best hits' album in the music industry. They were called 'Xth Edition', were exempt from the design restrictions of normal sets and could only contain reprints, but other than that they were complete products in and of themselves, practically being expansion sets. By the end of it, between Ninth Edition and Tenth Edition, well over half the set changed between "revisions". Out of the 383 cards cards printed in Tenth Edition, only 16 cards remained from the first core set. It was nothing like revisions of the same set anymore; ever since Fourth Edition, each core set had become a completely separate product.
  • Understanding the way the core sets had changed from 'the base game' to a sort of 'best hits collection', Wizards of the Coast (MTG developer) eventually severed all ties to the original base set in 2010 by making two big changes to the core sets (three if you count the changed released schedule, but that's not relevant here): From now on, they would be called 'Magic <year>' instead of 'Xth Edition', and the restriction that all cards had to be reprints was lifted; new cards are now designed for every core set. It's not much of a difference, but it's WOTC's acknowledgement that 'the core set' had changed far beyond just being revisions of the same product.
In conclusion, Alpha through Revised were not marketed as a separate product, and their names were not used in marketing (fans now commonly use the names to distinguish between different prints of the same cards). Fourth Edition through Tenth Edition are all separate expansion products released by Wizards of the Coast with rather awkward names that are far too different to be considered revisions of the same product. However, those are the official product names, and they are not commonly referred to by any other name. When someone talks about the fourth edition of the Dungeons & Dragons system, people specify that they're talking about D&D 4th edition unless it's clear from the context. Not so with Magic; if the context of Magic has to be specified, it's never referred to as 'the fourth edition of MTG' but rather 'the set Fourth Edition in MTG'. If a Wikipedia user would search for information on D&D 4E, they'd search for 'Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition'. If a Wikipedia user would search for information on Fourth Edition, they would simply enter 'Fourth Edition' and hope for a disambiguation page. Failing that, they would try for something like 'list of Magic: the Gathering expansions'; nobody would even think of trying something like 'Magic: the Gathering 4th Edition'. As such, these redirects are vital for allowing people to find information on these sets, and there are no possible alternative redirects for this information. VDZ (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: VDZ sums it all up, but I've got one thing to add: Outside of gaming, who's gonna be searching for just "Nth Edition"? It's always something like "Merriam-Webster's 12th Edition Dictionary" or "Contemporary Music of the Twentieth Century, Edition 3", at least as far as I know. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 03:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. What makes you think that "Fourth Edition" refers to this particular MTG rather than, say, the Fourth Edition of the works of Benjamin Franklin or Donald E. Knuth. This is clearly not WP:PRIMARY and the fact that Seventh Edition goes to a different place and there are gaps and so on surely shows that this is just, as was said, thinking in a small box. I have lots of first edition books, second edition books, and eighth edition books, but I don't go listing them all by their edition on Wikipedia. This is just silly. Si Trew (talk) 20:40, 5 April 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.

Implicit maze[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 Withdrawn / retarget to Return to Ravnica#The Implicit Maze. Thank you Supernerd11 for creating a good section on this article for this term to redirect. If anyone has concerns regarding this result, feel free to consult me. Steel1943 (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is not mentioned anywhere in the section or the article. Steel1943 (talk) 05:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: In the books, player's guide, and prerelease events, the maze is only called the "implicit maze"; Dragon's Maze is just the name of the last expansion in the block because of Niv-Mizzet's involvement. I know, it's only primary sources that have it (as far as I know) and therefore doesn't show up in the article, but it's still significant enough to have its own redirect. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 05:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete subjective term. lots of things are implicit mazes Implicit Maze is not the same thing as "implicit maze" on Wikipedia per DIFFCAPS. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Supernerd11: I don't believe that would be helpful at this point, unless good examples of other subjects/articles that can be specifically referred to as "implicit maze" can be brought to the discussion's attention. Steel1943 (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @70.50.151.11: Can you give us a few examples of what else might be an implicit maze?
Also, I don't know how much it matters, but "Implicit Maze" (the Ravnica thing) is capitalized everywhere I look. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 19:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DAB it?. I would have thought The Adventure Game or The Crystal Maze would qualify (although the latter is in a sense an explicit maze cos it has it in the title although in reality was not a maze at all) but I think the key differentiator here is "implicit", not "maze". Many text adventures by Infocom for example I would regard as implicit mazes and indeed the original "Adventure" game I played at Bletchley Park last year on, I think, a Commodore PET terminal. So perhaps best to DAB? Si Trew (talk)
  • Delete for now, since it's not mentioned at the target page. These other uses sound highly speculative, and "implicit maze" wouldn't seem to be a plausible search term for them. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It did say "Implicit Maze" at one point, but seems to have since been deleted. I went ahead and added it back in. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 16:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm fine with keeping at this point. --BDD (talk) 17:02, 19 March 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.

Three redirects towards Ravnica:[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) 16:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. None of these topics are mentioned in the target article, nor do their article-versions (that were turned into redirects in 2006) look worthy enough to pass an Articles for Deletion discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with other editors' consent, could we combine this discussion with the one immediately above? Si Trew (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I would be highly opposed to doing so, considering that I listed them separately since the one above seemed to have a good chance of a different consensus result than these three. Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Fair play, keep them separate. Si Trew (talk) 16:44, 13 March 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.

Squirrel Nest[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 Drey. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Retarget (provided a good new target can be determined). The subject is not specifically mentioned anywhere in the article; in addition, the redirect's name is very misleading due to sounding ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@70.50.151.11: seems as though there is a need for a disambiguation page to be created? Steel1943 (talk) 07:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the MTG usage significant? If not, wouldn't a hatnote at drey suffice to indicate "The Squirrel's Nest"? -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@70.50.151.11: honestly, from what I am seeing, I don't think there is any implied significance at its current target. If this ends up being a WP:TWODABS situation, I agree just a hatnote would suffice. Steel1943 (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is strange. I just got a level-2 vandalism warning [1] for hatnoting [2] "The Squirrel's Nest". -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:22, 13 March 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.

Sunburst (Magic: The Gathering)[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. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only location on the article where this term is mentioned is in the infobox for "Fifth Dawn" as a keyword. (The redirect used to be an article, but was turned into a redirect due to copyright violations.) Thus, the usefulness of this redirect is very questionable, considering that this may be either the only or one of the few times a "keyword" is used for such an article. Steel1943 (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the name of the set; I had to fix my nomination wording since I referred to the set by the wrong name. Steel1943 (talk) 06:13, 12 March 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.

Juggernaut (card)[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) 16:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of this redirect is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Steel1943 (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Specific cards shouldn't have their own redirects, and as far as I know, juggernauts don't play enough of a role in the story of Mirrodin to get their own mention in the article. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 05:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And anyway, Juggernaut was first printed in Alpha, so if it were mentioned anywhere (it doesn't seem to be), Limited Edition (Magic: The Gathering) would be the best target. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We have no information to present on this subject, therefore the redirect is misleading. Neelix (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for a single, unimportant card when there are hundreds of Magic cards. Nedgreiner 15:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The card seems to be non-notable both in-game and in its lore --Lenticel (talk) 01:43, 18 March 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.

88th, 89th, and 90th Academy Awards[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) 16:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 4#87th Academy Awards UBStalk 01:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Due to how very similar they were, I grouped three separate RfD nominations that were here before, and merged them together into this one entry. The rationale was the same for each of the entries. Steel1943 (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Steel1943, thanks for grouping them, that seems sensible. I don't know what the protocol is for my contributing to this one since I said at the previous discussion that these that you nominate here (and I listed on that discussion) should be deleted by the same token, but they weren't. Wikipedia, the chronophage! Si Trew (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This redirect is stupid, as it includes THREE different years of awards. No one will ever care for or find this redirect or find it useful. Nedgreiner 15:35, 14 March 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.

Jiuzhou Port[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 20#Jiuzhou Port

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_12&oldid=1136083275"