Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 19, 2014.

Diego Mendez[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. Ruslik_Zero 20:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an easy call, but I think a reader would be better served with search results here. A Diego Méndez indeed was part of Columbus's fourth voyage, but he's a pretty minor figure, only mentioned once on the Columbus article. See the search results. We just really don't have enough to say about this guy to merit a redirect. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. BDD: You are impressively fastidious to raise such a question, but you worry too much. If the current mention of Diego Mendez is all that Wikipedia has, then the redirect is critical to help readers use what there is. The alternative is to write a self-standing article on Diego Mendez. Embedding his information into the article on Columbus and providing a redirect for individuals who seek information on Mendez alone is the best compromise, the best alternative. Rammer (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC) Moved from Diego Mendez. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rammer, part of the problem here is that there are other people by this name. Is this one the most notable? Hard to say, though it's certainly possible. Columbus would still be high on the search results, perhaps even still first, so I don't think deletion would be overly burdensome to readers searching for that Mendez, while helping those who are searching for another. --BDD (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. Hinders search. Surely a fairly common name? Si Trew (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:22, 20 September 2014‎
Alternative. BDD and Si Trew: Your arguments are rational and cogent, but if you have other individuals in mind besides this particular Diego Mendez, perhaps the fitting resolution is to create a disambiguation page. But I continue to oppose total elimination of the redirect. That would not help Wikipedia be useful to researchers. This particular Diego Mendez's eruption in world history at a critical point with little known of him does not occasion throwing the baby redirect out with the bath. Rammer (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But if he is not notable (as indicated by not having an article) then that engineer is hoist by his own petard. For me, on WP search I can't get past this redirect to search properly whichever way I try, but a gooo, um, well-known search engine brings me up a character from Grand Theft Auto. (Sometimes Méndez with stress mark on first E, sometimes not; we don't have Diego Méndez in EN:WP but that is easily fixed if consensus is keep). Si Trew (talk) 21:31, 22 September 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.

Columbus - The First Spice Seeker[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. WP:INVOLVED close after over a month of listing with unanimous consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This bizarre neologism started life as a brief essay almost ten years ago. There's a brief explanation at Talk:Christopher Columbus/Archive 3#Spices of what happened. As it stands, it's an unlikely search term and misleading, suggesting, perhaps, a book by this name. But searching "the first spice seeker" -wikipedia indicates that this phrase is not used elsewhere (the few results are pretty clearly still Wikipedia mirrors or derivatives), and that's without even specifically searching for Columbus. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since patently Columbus was not the first spice seeker – he just wanted a shortcut and completely failed to find it, as he failed in almost everything he tried – then in the absence of it being the name of a book or film it is misleading. Si Trew (talk) 04:18, 20 September 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.

Southeastern Ukraine[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 both to Geography_of_Ukraine. Ruslik_Zero 20:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone this redirect of the article [1]. That is an extremely POV redirect, which appears motivated by the ongoing crisis in Ukraine and seeks to give some historical legitimacy to the Russian backed separatist Federal State of Novorossiya. The term "Novorossiya" itself was invented as a propaganda term in the late 18th century. Redirecting "South-East Ukraine" to "Novorossiya" is like redirecting "Southeastern United States" to Confederate States of America (especially if the South was in midst of another separatist rebellion) or redirecting "Southeastern Poland" to Third Reich. It's a form of irredentism. Hence, for sake of actual consensus seeking (rather than "fly under the radar redirect proposal than no one's been informed about") I am reopening this discussion. *IF* we do redirect South-East Ukraine to anything, then the appropriate article would be Wild Fields, as that is the actual historical name of the region. Although I actually don't see a need for that either. Redirecting it to "Ukraine" until someone wants to write a geographic article about its South-East part is sufficient for now.  Volunteer Marek  15:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a procedural matter, I've restored these to point to Novorossiya, which was decided upon through consensus by a recent RfD. As a matter of substance, at least for now, I have no opinion as to where these should point. --BDD (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To call that discussion "Consensus" is a big stretch. For example, on that very page I undid the original attempt at the POV redirect [2]. Yet I was never notified of this discussion. The discussion involved essentially two editors (plus one editor who struck their comment), one of whom was exactly the person who's tried to make this into a POV redirect in the first place. This wasn't "Consensus", this was "sneak it in quick under the radar".
At some point I used to hope that admins who close these kind of discussions would have enough content-relevant background knowledge to be able to ascertain the quality of the discussion or the policy basis of the proposal. After all, that is exactly what policy tells us - Consensus is not a vote and a closing admin should evaluate the policy reasons stated. Since this, at least to me, is just such a blatant attempt at POV pushing, as a closing admin, you should've known better. And now there's a mess to clean up and undo. Volunteer Marek  17:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus isn't a vote, true, but every participant in that discussion, which ran over a month, agreed on that outcome, except for the nominator, who stayed silent after the initial nomination where he expressed uncertainty. Sure, there weren't many participants, so it's fine to have another discussion, but there was nothing illegitimate about the outcome there. I'm not going to looking for evidence of POV pushing before anyone has even brought it up.
And quite frankly, the only sense in which I "should've known better" would have been to not get near any discussion related to Eastern Europe, which are pretty consistently lightning rods for partisan debates. I thought I had found one that was otherwise—so, yes, I should've known better. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. It helps to actually know something minimal about a subject when closing a particular discussion. Otherwise we get embarrassing results like this. Volunteer Marek  04:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. "Bizarre" and "absurd" are about the right words to describe this redirect. That and extremely biased. Volunteer Marek  04:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vehement delete – Absurd redirect. Firstly, this is not an area that exists. The delineations are Southern Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine, &c. There is no "southeastern Ukraine", outside the purely geographical compass directions. What's more, redirecting this to "Novorossiya" (New Russia) makes absolutely zero sense. This is not a name that is used in modern Ukraine, not a region that has any significance or currency in Ukraine at all. Whether this anachronistic region covers "southeastern Ukraine" at all is up for debate, as it includes Odessa Oblast, which is really "southwestern Ukraine" in compass terms. What's more, it also includes part of the Russian Federation and Transnistria, such as bits of Rostov Oblast. Regardless, the first time the word "Novorossiya" was used in recent times was in Putin's diatribe earlier in the year. Prior to that, it had been dead for a century at least. Sure, in the context of the recent war, "Novorossiya" is used by DPR and LPR forces. However, that has nothing to do with geographical regions in Ukraine, and it is heavily disputed. As "Novorossiya" is mostly outside their control, and given that people in areas outside their control do not use the word, it is outright absurd to even think about having this redirect, let alone the fact that "Novorossiya" isn't even geographically-related to a so-called "southeastern Ukraine". RGloucester — ☎ 04:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying participants of the previous discussion:

@Czarkoff, Nyttend, and Petri Krohn: - TheChampionMan1234 07:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the term "Southeastern Ukraine" was commonly used in CIS before crysis, and is now being replaced with "Novorossiya". While I would strongly prefer meaningful description under Southeastern Ukraine title, there is no reasonable hope that until the political situation settles there will be meaningful article under that name, which rules out WP:RED deletion rationale.
    @RGloucester: This redirect links modern terms to its historical roots and context. There is no discussion, or even misunderstanding about territory these terms refer to; article may have no corresponding text, but it is editorial issue.
    @Volunteer Marek: Redirect for POV term (which is the only meaning of phrase "Southeastern Ukraine") will obviously be a POV redirect. So what? At least it makes sense – unlike redirect to the current target ("Ukraine").
    — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 02:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that "Novorossiya" is replacing "southeastern Ukraine" is absurd at face value. Only a small part of the historical "Novorossiya" is controlled by people who use the term. Much of the historical "Novorossiya" isn't even in "southeast Ukraine". Anyway, there is no "phrase" of "southeastern Ukraine". It is just a compass direction, and not a proper now by any means. RGloucester — ☎ 04:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only a small part of the historical "Novorossiya" is controlled by people who use the term.
— User:RGloucester 04:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

These statements have no connection. Term "Novorossiya" has replaced term "southeastern Ukraine" in media, who control no territory at all, and hopefully never will.

It is just a compass direction, and not a proper now by any means.
— User:RGloucester 04:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"Southeastern Ukraine" as compass direction is not notable and does not have its entry. Even if it had, it would not be a primary topic and would have nothing to do with this title. Notable topic is the territory suffering most from particular flavor of Stockholm syndrome.
Note, we are not entitled to judge on merit of political claims – all we are entitled to is just straight reporting of facts. Fact here are:
  1. term "Novorossiya" as described in corresponding article covers exactly the same thing term "Southeastern Ukraine" is used for;
  2. the body described by these two terms is major body of geopolitics in ex-USSR, thus notable topic;
  3. there is no other article on Wikipedia that describes that body.
Ignoring all of this won't make Wikipedia better. Deletion of this redirect won't solve any problem. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and you haven't provided any. --Nug (talk) 07:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which of these claims are exceptional? Don't think I'll have problems with finding sources for any of them (with exception of shift in usage frequencies of "Southeastern Ukraine" and "Novorossiya", which most likely wasn't measured yet), but I see nothing here going beyond common knowledge and thus being exceptional. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this case "common knowledge" == WP:OR. --Nug (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, look this is stupid. One editor created a redirect from "Southeastern Ukraine" to "Novorossiya" as an obvious POV attempt at legitimizing some wacky claims of the separatists in the ongoing Ukrainian conflict. As in "Southeastern Ukraine belongs to Russia!!!!!!!!!!!". It was idiotic, obnoxious, non-encyclopedic, irredentist, nationalist POV pushing. I reverted this. Then this editor or one of his buddies created a "redirect for discussion" without informing me, or anyone else, except possibly their friends, of the discussion. So unsurprisingly a bunch of accounts voted "keep", with one or two uninvolved editors expressing the idea along the lines of "I don't know what really's going on here". Then some freakin' clueless admin (and I'm sorry for using strong language here, but that's exactly what this was) closed this as "Consensus: Keep" based on a count of votes. This was an obvious mistake, since WP:CONSENSUS explicitly states that discussions are not closed on the basis of !votes but on the strength of arguments and how these align with actual Wikipedia policy. The latter part - does it match policy? - was completely ignored. And here we are now with this mess. "Southeastern Ukraine" is NOT "Novorossiya". It is not even a fathomable indirect. Nobody who types in "Southeastern Ukraine" into the Wikipedia search box is looking for this propaganda nonsense of "Novorossiya". If I redirected the title "Vaccines" to "Clinical death" people would get upset. If I redirected the title "Evolution" to "Piltdown Man" people would get upset. Same thing here. It's a ridiculous redirect and NPOV trumps everything else. Per WP:IAR I am undoing this redirect regardless of this discussion and regardless of how one admin closed it. It's just to stupid too persist. Volunteer Marek  02:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Volunteer Marek: I would consider rephrasing that comment, because it could easily be interpreted as a personal attack and a statement of intent to disrupt the project. Separately, please reread WP:RNEUTRAL as being a POV term is not a reason to delete a redirect, indeed widely used POV terms should normally redirect to neutrally-titled articles about either the term or the topic to which it refers (no comment about whether this is widely used, or whether the current target is the correct one if it is). This discussion could do with a toning down the rhetoric from several parties - it does not aid in the determination of the correct outcome or advance the point you wish to make. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Volunteer Marek: You are getting closer to the issue. The term "Southeastern Ukraine" is indeed dirty nationalistic POV. Now, why do you think we should not report it? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think POV is the issue wrt respect to this redirect, but rather WP:POINT and WP:ADVOCACY. We see news of Russian nationalists proclaiming the state of "Novorossiya", but the article Novorossiya is about a historical region that once spanned south-western, southern and south-eastern Ukraine, it has no connection with the current events in Ukraine. This re-direct makes as much sense as Southern Spain → Hispania Baetica. --Nug (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Users typing this term are likely looking for information on the geographical region. Unfortunately, the commonly discussed notable geographical divisions of Ukraine leave us with a South Ukraine and an East Ukraine, but none for this. Instead, we are given a historical entity that is unrelated to the intended target. I can't think of a perfect equivalent, but I guess it would be a case where the South Western United States was not considered a notable topic and so we instead directed it to Viceroyalty of New Spain. Perhaps a retargeting to Ukraine#Geography might also make sense.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Southern Ukraine, Eastern Ukraine, or Ukraine#Geography and let's just be done with it. --BDD (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That'll work. Volunteer Marek  15:31, 31 October 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.

Air Force ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation .[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. Performed by Xaosflux (talk · contribs) with edit summary: "Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 19#Air Force ranks and insignia of the Russian Federation. closed as delete". (Non-admin closure.) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a bit too implausible of a typo. I might accept a full stop at the end of the title as a redirect, but a space followed by a full stop doesn't seem worth keeping to me. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:02, 19 September 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.

Happy Aquarium[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) 23:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be some random Facebook app that we don't have an article on. - TheChampionMan1234 04:18, 19 September 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.

Flag of Donetsk[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 procedural close, as the redirect has been converted into an article. --BDD (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the flag of the city is not the same as that of the province, as you can see from the Donetsk article. We should delete this. There is an article about the flag of the city of Donetsk on the Ukrainian Wikipedia at uk:Прапор Донецька - TheChampionMan1234 03:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep a hatnote can be added to indicate Donetsk the city, where the infobox has the flag. OR, disambiguate between the city, oblast, republic. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 04:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak retarget to Donetsk, the city. Si Trew (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Everyone else should bung in too of course! Si Trew (talk) 06:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Once you're done, I suggest we go to WP:DYK with the hook "... that the Flag of Donetsk (pictured) is not the same as the Flag of Donetsk?". I have got these kinda slightly puzzling DYKs accepted a few times: of course they have to be factually correct but to lead the reader down the garden path is allowable. I used to hang out at DYK quite a lot, and was always making twisty hooks, perhaps because I like cryptic crossword puzzles. For example you can turn marriage into bondage without actually cheating. Si Trew (talk) 06:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, the article has to be over 5000 characters, excluding the infoboxes etc etc. So we might not make that far. After you're done translating or whatever you're up to, I could try to expand it with more info. I haven't done an article for a while so it would be fun for me. Si Trew (talk) 06:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SimonTrew: Think I'm pretty much done, please tag the redirect for speedy deletion, so I can move it there as opposed to copy pasting, however, this is all the information I can get from translating (with the help of Google) from the Ukrainian/Russian wikis. And I am not farmilar with DYK, but form what I understannd by your comment, I think it does require more expansion. Best regards. - TheChampionMan1234 07:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TheChampionMan1234:I see you have already gone CSD, which of course I support and should be uncontroversial to change an R to an articlem so I just mention it here so the folks over at SPEEDY don't think there's some intrigue. Collaboration, certainly, but in the best sense. I think you can move over redirect yourself, can't you? I can and I am not a magician. Si Trew (talk) 08:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SimonTrew:LOL, how can I do that when there is already an RfD tag placed on the redirect, and furthermore, the redirect has history, so I can't do that (I've attempted that before) - TheChampionMan1234 08:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, fair point.
I'll try to expand it once it's moved, which I assume it will be. I just wanted the above in quickly since they don't hang about over at SPEEDY. I think it could be a good candidate – especially since the affairs in Ukraine are in the news a bit at the moment. I wondered if you'd done DYK. I'll hold your hand if you want, but for me to review it would be COI of course. I have had a few over the years, and once I was complimented for always writing "hooky" hooks, that is to say intriguing but not actually misleading. However, obviously the pic would be of the flag and perhaps that might be seen as a bit too politically charged for main page though. But give it a go, eh? I'll try to expand it. Si Trew (talk) 08:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TheChampionMan1234: I've made a number of minor subs at the draft in your userspace (added stub templates, external links, etc, corrected the aspect ratio in the infobox) and used the usual vexillology terminology I hope). Surprised the SPEEDY is so UNSPEEDY today. I changed the SPEEDY as I think you kinda listed it the wrong way round, i.e. you listed the target but not the source... I have asked at WP:HELPDESK#Interwiki links whether to add the Interwiki links since I am not sure if it is wise to add them while in draft, I don't know how the newfangled Interwiki engine would cope with that. Si Trew (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close. No longer a redirect; Was been moved over from your draft into article space just a few seconds ago. I'll close the helpdesk request, then. Si Trew (talk) 09:38, 19 September 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.

Doneck[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. It's incidentally Slovak (the Czech form has a diacritic), but this is being kept as a plausible English form. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity for Czezh/Slovak - TheChampionMan1234 03:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, via usual reasoning. Si Trew (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, "c" is often pronounced "ts" in Slavic languages, so this is a plausible guess at the spelling. Siuenti (talk) 07:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Not convinced with that one. "C" in Hungarian is also pronounced (English) "ts", and that's not Slavic. The original is not in the Latin alphabet. So I see your point, but then I thought of tsunami and tsar.
I'd say the same for Done'tsk and Donet'sk which although used in articles, what is the apostrophe supposed to stand for (to someone unfamiliar with Ukranian)? glottal stop? aitch dropping? Si Trew (talk) 10:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those two look wrong but Donets’k is reasonable, there is a soft sign before the "k" indicating palatization of the 'ts'. Siuenti (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment further to my keep !vote: Romanization_of_Ukrainian#Tables_of_romanization_systems has two systems where "ц" is romanized as "c". Siuenti (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep You've persuaded me. Perhaps I was wrongfotted by the comment "No affinity for Czech/Slovak" where (I think we are all agreed) it is actually Ukrainian. (Naughty Champ!) I think it is unlikely as a search term for most English speakers: but it does no harm. Si Trew (talk) 04:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this title is ISO 9 transliteration of the name of the city. FWIW the fact that letter "c" in several Slavic languages reads the same way as "ts" in English is completely unrelated to this title, because no Slavic language with Latin alphabet has anything to do with Ukraine. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 06:38, 27 September 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.

Sur America[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) 15:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This word order isn't used in Spanish. - TheChampionMan1234 00:47, 19 September 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_September_19&oldid=1142587307"