Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 5, 2015.

Hippocite[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 14#Hippocite

Ice Age 4: Continental Drift 4[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) 18:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant. Name implies it's the fourth movie in a bizarre offshoot series. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:31, 5 April 2015 (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 Ice Age Movies[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 14#The Ice Age Movies

Yartzee[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) 18:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R & H are a bit too far apart on the QWERTY keyboard to make this a plausible typo. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Yes indeed, but I was probably going on pronunciation. R and H in that respect can sound very similar. This is Paul (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plausible guess at the spelling for anyone with a non-rhotic accent. Siuenti (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Siuenti, plausible mispelling. Keep in mind that bad spellings are not only based on keyboards, they are also based on pronunciation. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2015 (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.

Yatsee[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) 18:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few too many typos. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:35, 5 April 2015 (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 Donald[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. I'll expand the hatnote to incorporate this. --BDD (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trump is not the only person named "Donald". Mr. Guye (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. On that note, there should be a WP:CSD criterion for redirects that can't be made to apply to just one subject because there could be many many of them. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Donald" can refer to any number of notable figures, but "The Donald" refers to only one. See Donald Trump#Personal life. Keep. - Eureka Lott 18:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Donald (disambiguation) and add Trump there. IIRC, the head of a clan can be referred to as The CLANNAME and there is a Clan Donald. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Donald because that's where people with that given name are listed. Tavix |  Talk  05:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote target to the dab page and/or the given name dab. Trump is not the only person named "Donald", however "The Donald" fairly unambiguously refers to him. Ivanvector (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and hatnote per Ivanvector. If someone else gets to be well-enough-known as The Donald we can reconsider, but if they're looking for that phrase, they are almost certainly looking for him. Mangoe (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the name does seem to be specific. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 7 April 2015 (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.

Peavey electronics eorporation[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) 14:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo. On the QWERTY scheme, C & E are pretty far apart. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, looks like I originally created this, to fix a typo of my own, so unlikely or not, it seems we have at least one example of somebody doing it. But, whatever. I can't argue with any conviction either way. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely ≠ impossible. It's just not a possibility Wikipedia feels a need to account for. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Looks like the result of an OCR error -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 9-year-old {{R from page move}}; harmless. Ivanvector (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sure, it's old, but it has no incoming links in the article space. If I had seen a considerable amount, I would have been on the opposite side of the fence since it is 9-years old. This is a very unlikely misspelling, given the length of the title. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible per Steel1943. Tavix |  Talk  03:04, 8 April 2015 (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.

Ennialation[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 Annihilation. --BDD (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't for the life of me see how these are relevant to My Little Pony. More confusingly, these are apparently typos for annihilation - which again seems to have nothing to do with the franchise. They were all targeted to annihilation but apparently that caused a double redirect which a bot came by to fix... and retargeted all of them to My Little Pony. More generally, I believe these fall under WP:RTYPO as they are badly-misspelled words. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I figured it was because of some kind of MLP hate. That's part of why I'm doing what I'm doing - looking for obnoxious redirects like these. In any case, I still stand by my WP:RTYPO argument. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I actually no Disagree with your RTYPO argument. Someone who has only heard the word and has no idea how to spell it may spell it like this. The redirect would then redirect them to the correct place (annihilation). --Mr. Guye (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Annihilation per my above arguments. --Mr. Guye (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:RTYPO. I feel like these are spelled a little too poorly to be plausible. Also note that all versions of that list with an a instead of e are red (which IMO would be more likely): Annialation, Annialate, Anielation, Anielate, Anialation, Anialate. We shouldn't create any misspelling we can think of just because there's a remote possibility that someone might spell it that way. Tavix |  Talk  05:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Annihilation (the pre-vandalism target): these are all very old, harmless redirects. Ivanvector (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to original target. ""Annihilate" is a hard word and these are reasonable guesses. Reach Out to the Truth 00:23, 8 April 2015 (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.

WaPo[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. I'll expand the target page's hatnote to incorporate WAPO, though. --BDD (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this one. Google does treat WaPo as synonymous with Washington Post, but that might have been influenced by the existence of this redirect. Newspapers have referred to themselves with shortened names. HuffPost comes to mind. But WashPost already redirects to The Washington Post. This rediirect was created in 2005 as a very short article that read:

Short hand for The Washington Post. The term is typically used by political bloggers.

It was then redirected to its current target by another user. I have no evidence to suggest that the short article was true. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This redirect likely has very little to do with Google's rankings. Quick searches on Twitter and Google News show how commonly it's used. Keep as a blatantly obvious nickname. - Eureka Lott 18:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to WAPO since it is a variant of its spelling AND The Washington Post is also linked there. --Lenticel (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I like the retarget idea, but the Washington Post is the only one of those to use "WaPo." Therefore it's not ambiguous in my opinion. Tavix |  Talk  05:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm okay with Keep as well.--Lenticel (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I'm with Tavix. I've seen this usage very often on Twitter; wapo.st is a shortlink for www.washingtonpost.com. Ivanvector (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2015 (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.

^ω^[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) 13:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was somewhat recently created (March 26, 2015). The creator's edit summary was "Happy Emoji redirects to happiness". Implausible. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now. I can't find a mention of it in both the emoji and the emoticon articles. --Lenticel (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think this is a Japanese emoticon. It looks like one, with the use of the omega, which you can find in Japanese emoticons. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to wiktionary (convert the redirect to a direct statement ^ω^ is happieness or something), and transwiki that) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Emoticon, which is the target of a long list of emoticon redirects including (-:, 😈, ^-^, and so on. Note that emoticons that start with a colon can't be linked for technical reasons, or they would be in this list too. Ivanvector (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the fact that it isn't mentioned anywhere. We could retarget, but it wouldn't help because someone is probably looking for details about that specific emoticon, not about emoticons in general. Tavix |  Talk  16:33, 10 April 2015 (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.

Bangladesh Islami Chhatra Shibir(Islamic Students Forum)[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) 13:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from unlikely search phrase Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as this is all kinds of implausible. Tavix |  Talk  05:20, 6 April 2015 (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.

Sam etic[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 and retarget, respectively. With a sensible, unambiguous place to retarget, that argument is stronger. --BDD (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It doesn't make any sense to have two redirects of the same term to different articles (Lisa's Substitute and Dustin Hoffman). Also, the two letters ("S" and "E") will appear in capitals regardless of which case is typed. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Retargeting has easily been done here by editing. However, I still agree with deletion. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2015 (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.

Untitled Batman Project (2012)[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) 13:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not untitled anymore (obviously). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, unlikely redirect, given that it is not unnamed anymore -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2015 (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.

IBlow[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) 13:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to refer to a lewd decal that can be applied to any Mac laptop (and no, retargeting it to Macbook is just as silly an idea - one, it's just a lewd joke, and two, sticking "i" in front of something parodies Apple products in general, not just their laptops). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While Wikipedia is not censored, the redirect seems to not serve a reasonable usage. It's not a synonym for a MacBook Air, it's unlikely to be internally linked to, it only seems to be linked to on pages related to deletion discussion, and per WP:RFP#Delete, it's offensive and disparaging to the subject matter it targets and doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic value. Wugapodes (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2015 (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.

MacBook touch[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) 13:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not an actual model that exists; other than that, intended meaning of the term "touch" is vague and useless. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE - RADERA per above + WP:CBALL (This product is not announced and not leaked by any Apple officers) + This redirect misleads readers. The article do not have any information. Let them go to another sites to search for rumors by showing them a "Page does not exist" page. User:Andra Datormolnet Talk
    CloudTracker     14:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this does not exist and the redirect can easily be recreated if Apple ever announces such a product.--67.68.161.242 (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a misleading redirect. --Lenticel (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Apparently, even Apple admits in the press that they will never release such a product as the one titled in this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2015 (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.

BillyG[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) 13:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any evidence that he actually goes by this name. This was created at the same time as StevieJ to Steve Jobs... Also note that Billy G is red. Tavix |  Talk  03:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a joke redirect. Its creator doesn't seem to take Wikipedia seriously if you look at their talk page. Useless redirect. --Mr. Guye (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as possible vandalism/joke. --Lenticel (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2015 (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:Harvrefcol[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 resolved. See below. --BDD (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at Cite LSA, I'm proposing undoing the result of the TFD which was to rename {{harvrefcol}} to {{Cite LSA}}. I hope to put this revision back on the {{harvrefcol}} page with a notice that it is deprecated. The reason is that historic uses of harvrefcol are being broken by updates to Cite LSA which is problematic because those historic uses used it to cite in the Harvard style while the template at Cite LSA cites in the style of the Linguistic Society of America (which is substantially different from Harvard style). The {{harvrefcol}} used many non-standard arguments and had complex logic that makes it difficult verging on impossible to make backwards compatible. and current and future editors of {{Cite LSA}} shouldn't have to worry about how updates to the template will affect historic usages of an unrelated style that is connected because of a confusing name choice a few years ago. I am proposing this here because the previous TFD discussion makes me feel that an attempt at larger consensus should be gained before undoing it. Notifying users from previous discussions: Gadget850 started previous TFD, Ling.Nut3 created template, Jonesey95 discussed this with, Plastikspork closed previous TFD. Wugapodes (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. {{harvrefcol}} was at some point repurposed to support LSA-style citation, but development was abandoned before that work was complete. The template was then renamed to {{Cite LSA}}, as nobody appeared to be using harvrefcol for whatever its original purpose was. Wugapodes has done good work to finish this Cite LSA development work, but maintaining backwards compatibility with the half-built {{harvrefcol}} is neither reasonable nor sensible. {{harvrefcol}} should be restored to the state recommended above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(I would also support restoring {{harvrefcol}} as described above, then substing its twenty or so existing transclusions, and then deleting it completely, but that may be a second discussion.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that this should be a TFD discussion, but no matter. You should be able to fix this without changing around the redirects. Just restore an old working version of the template from the history at {{Cite LSA}}, substitute the transclusions you want to substitute, then revert your edit to the template. Make sure you leave good notes in your edit summaries to the template so that everyone else knows what you're up to. Ivanvector (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the input. I'll consider putting it on TFD, I was originally unsure where to post because while it's a template, it's also a redirect. Anyway, the problem I have is that most (all?) of the transclusions of {{harvrefcol}} are talk page posts and archives. I'm a rather new editor so correct me if I'm wrong, but I always assumed that editing others talk page posts and archives was generally bad, which is why I brought this up in the first place. Would this be the kind of situation where ignore all rules would be applicable? Wugapodes (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In general, editing other people's talk pages and archives is considered impolite, but in this case, the edits to the template have broken people's talk pages, so in effect, we have already edited those talk pages. What we're talking about here is fixing those edits. I think the suggestion above could work. We could move the current code to the sandbox, change any existing intentional transclusions of the template to use the sandbox (so that those article don't break while the substing is happening), change the template code to the old code, subst the old usages, and then restore the updated (new) Cite LSA template code. Then fix the articles to use the regular template instead of the sandbox. At that point, harvrefcol will be unused and should be deleted, along with all references and links to it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, this is a rename request? That indeed should've been brought up at TfD, though we can try to resolve it here. --BDD (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unsure. It's not renaming, it's removing a redirect which was created because of a TfD rename decision, and TfD says that template redirects should be listed here. In terms of resolving this issue, I'm agreeable to Jonesey95's suggestion above where we subst existing legacy versions and then delete the old template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wugapodes (talk • contribs) 06:02, 14 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
So you want {{Cite LSA}} to remain and {{harvrefcol}} to be deleted? Is everyone else clear on that? --BDD (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. Not to take up too much time but to be clear with the issue here's the backstory and what we're trying to decide:
There was a template, {{harvrefcol}}, that was used in a number of articles and talk pages to cite in the Harvard style. It was removed from a lot of pages then moved to {{Cite LSA}} per a TfD discussion creating a redirect to {{Cite LSA}}. The template was very non-standard in its parameters and difficult to maintain backward compatibility due to how it was written. I have been developing it to cite in the LSA style, per its name, however it breaks previous transclusions of {{harvrefcol}} because of the redirect. So we are trying to find the best way to make old transclusions work while also allowing for Cite LSA to cite in the LSA style.
So the reason it is posted here is because it is a redirect. I would like it to no longer point to {{Cite LSA}} and have it restored to the state it was before it became a redirect. After that happens, there can be a separate discussion as to whether we ought to delete it, but that's not a discussion for here. Wugapodes (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the narrative immediately above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I think I'm clear on that point now, but I'm not sure how to bring it about. Cite LSA has all the history of harvrefcol, so we can't simply restore an earlier version of the latter. It has been three years since the renaming at TfD, which didn't really have any more participation that this discussion. So... I could reverse the move and leave it to someone else to independently develop a new Cite LSA? --BDD (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Wugapodes and I can carry out the steps above by ourselves. We just came here for a consensus. I believe that we have found it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Proceed as you will. --BDD (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2015 (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/2015_April_5&oldid=1136083140"