Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 14, 2015.

Umbrella Revolution[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 21#Umbrella Revolution

Aa.com.br[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep. Deryck C. 21:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the spirit of WP:RFOREIGN. While this isn't a foreign language in its strictest sense, I believe foreign top level domains to fall in line with the same rationale. American Airlines is an American company and it's only affinity is to America. It's website is aa.com (and americanairlines.com redirects there too). Since we are the English Wikipedia, it doesn't make sense to create redirects to websites in a different language, the same way we don't create redirects in a foreign language. Tavix | Talk  01:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - plausible search terms, unworthy of their own articles (I believe, anyhow). Since the "spirit" of RFOREIGN is "Let's go out of our way to fuck the filthy mongrels who don't even have the decency to be good white anglophones", it's not a good reason to do anything. WilyD 08:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I rather think interlanguage links, Wikidata, and other language Wikipedias facilitate speakers of many languages, also abrogating the need to try to make any given Wikipedia navigable in any given language. And at best, you could call this bias towards anglophones. It's hardly about race. --BDD (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-foreigner bias isn't strictly identical to racism, but they're Siamese twins; recall that it's Anglophones who speak white, eh? WilyD 09:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't make it about race. That isn't what this is about and you know it. It's that these are "novel or obscure" redirects that confuse people. Someone searching for this is looking for a foreign website, not a general article on American Airlines. Tavix | Talk  14:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you invoke racist essays to support racist positions, you make it about race. I can't help but follow suit when you've got down that rabbit hole. WilyD 09:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The main creator, User:WhisperToMe, hasn't been notified. I'm extending the discussion and notifying the creator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For if not, let us list all of them in its website= field of its {{Infobox airline}}. which would be absurd. Si Trew (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(And I am also not sure WP:RFOREIGN is much relevant, but I think can be safely cast aside). Si Trew (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and per WP:RFD#DELETE #2 (misleading) and #8 (unrelated foreign language redirect). These are websites for foreign affiliates of American Airlines (I think) and the article they're redirecting to is not about the foreign affiliates, nor is there anything about American Airlines which is especially relevant in any of these foreign languages. Ivanvector (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they are affiliates as such but just registered domain names for American Airlines proper, in different parts of the world, rather than flags of convenience kinda thing used by affiliate/allied airlines (such as Copa Airlines did with Continental Airlines). Si Trew (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. You seem to be right, they are just redirectors for translated versions of their English page. I think, in that case, that if someone were to type one of these URLs into the search box on this here English Wikipedia, then the information that we have for them is the English American Airlines article, since we don't do cross-language soft redirects. I am striking my !vote but consider me neutral unless I comment again. Ivanvector (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see RFOREIGN applying to this. Top level domains aren't different in other languages, and many times the foreign branches of company websites (say the Japan site of Emirates Airline) are available in both English and the local language. They are subsidiaries of the original American company. There are US citizens applying overseas who need to use foreign websites. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • RFOREIGN aside, these are still implausible search terms that do nothing but confuse. Using your example, if a U.S. citizen abroad wants to book a ticket, they're not going to type in the name of a website into Wikipedia. Besides, they wouldn't get what they are looking for, just a general article on American Airlines. They will end up disappointed. These websites aren't mentioned at the targeted article. TL;DR: these are confusing, unhelpful, and implausible search terms. Tavix | Talk  22:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. I checked three sites fairly randomly: www.americanairlines.fr is French-language, www.americanairlines.de is German-language, but www.americanairlines.ch, the Swiss site, defaults to me to Swiss German-language, but subpages such as the Reservations page come up for me in English: I don't know if that's because it detects the preferred language settings for my browser, or detects that I am in Hungary so probably don't speak Swiss German, or what: that's it's own affair and nothing to do with us. I can't see how our redirects at Wikipedia would help a U. S. citizen abroad. I would imagine they would go to aa.com instead. In any case, it is not our job to sort out American Airlines' website navigation, which appears mostly to work off the ?locale= part of the URL, such as http://www.aa.com/homePage.do?locale=es_NI will get you the Spanish-language Nicaragua website, but http://http://www.americanairlines.com.ru/intl/ru/index_en.jsp uses a different way to distinguish between Russian- and English-language versions. All are tied together eventually, but we shouldn't mimic AA's own internal website structure. Si Trew (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, stats for all these well within noise level (1 or 2 hits max/day with most days empty), except for Americanairlines.in, which had quite a peak of 15, descending to 12 and so on, in the middle of May this year: perhaps some ad campaign in India? Don't know. Si Trew (talk) 05:36, 15 June 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.

Snootch[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 both. The discussion below leaned towards the conclusion that it is unhelpful to have these redirects because these phrases aren't mentioned on the target page. Since these are also plausible typos of phrases with other meaning, it's best to delete these redirects. Deryck C. 21:17, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jay has several nonsense catchphrases, but I don't know if these are the most notable (my vote would be for "snoogans"), and they're not mentioned at the target article. n.b. "Snootchie bootchies" was redirected at AfD back in February 2006. For those of you who weren't there at the time, the standards were rather different than today, to say the least. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the standards in those days were to say "different from" not "different than", (because one thing differs from another, it doesn't differ than another) but even H. W. Fowler realised that was only a sturdy indefensible. 23:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
And apparently I only started as an ed (having been an IP before) in August 2008. Seems such a long time ago, though... Do you remember the days when if you wanted to change the TV channel you had to get up and walk three feet to the telly? Si Trew (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Snootchie bootchies, but Snootch is rather close in pronunciation and typing to Smooch → Kiss, well closer than I am to getting a kiss, that I was going to suggest a hatnote or two but both are redirects. Smootch and Snooch are red. Si Trew (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)I got a present, an AZERTY keyboard. Woohoo, but I ain't plugged it in yet.[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per WP:CHEAP. Whether they're the most notable catchphrases or not is not the relevant consideration - these are clearly Jay's catchphrases and there is no potential for confusion, neither with another character who uses these phrases, nor a misspelling of a much more common term. This would be deletion for deletion's sake. Ivanvector (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the second stet my rationale before deltion, for the first.
Oh, I think there is potential for confusion. I have never heard of Jay. Wouldn't know if that was a man or woman. Might as well redirect it to jay or jaywalk as far as I am concerned, not everyone has heard of (a fictitious one hit wonder in a double act). And don't forget Whispering Bob Harris. Si Trew (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand that rationale at all. If you don't know who Jay (of Jay and Silent Bob, a well-known comedy duo) is, but you come here looking for information on his catchphrase, you'll find out who he is right quickly. If the article is ambiguous as to which Jay it's referring to (it isn't) that is not the fault of the redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, as it turns out neither of the phrases are actually mentioned at the target, which I didn't notice in the nomination statement, apologies to BDD. In that case they should clearly be deleted. I am also adding Snootchie to this nomination, which targets sex organ and was likely created as a joke. Ivanvector (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cancel that, I'll add it as a new nomination. There's been too much discussion here already. Ivanvector (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but then I think there is confusion, if you yourself list Snootchie (but not Snoochie) after I said, not quite explicitly, that Snooch was red but a likely misspelling. I think there is. Whoever they are, I have never heard of them: which does not mean to say others haven't, but if I were accidentally to type "Snootch" I would not expect to end up here. Si Trew (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did see that, and I agree it's potentially confusing, but I disagree about the action. If you type the exact name of one article when you meant to type a different one, how is the search engine or our hatnotes supposed to deal with that? Snot and snout are very close in spelling, but we don't disambiguate between them because anticipating all such possible exact-target misspellings would be a ridiculous and neverending task, and the hatnotes would be endless. Ivanvector (talk) 18:49, 16 June 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.

List of Serbs of Užice[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. The discussion below has shown that "Serbs" in the redirect title is completely redundant and this could lead to confusion. Deryck C. 20:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, proper redirect is List of people from Užice. Annoyingly coming up when searching for "List of Serbs" (which lists ethnic Serbs of the former Yugoslav republics). Zoupan 19:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So? Are we talking about ethicity or just Serbia as it stands today? Si Trew (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, @Zoupan:. Despite what you say, do you want it deleted or retargeted to List of people from Užice? A retarget would seem to me more sensible. Si Trew (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - one redirect does not preclude the existence of another. It's a plausible search term, that probably shouldn't have it's own article. WilyD 08:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The target lists people from Užice, some of whom are Serbs and noted as such. The redirect would make more sense if the target separated the people by ethnicity; it might be a borderline delete if it didn't note ethnicity at all. The target isn't a literal list of Serbs, but it should satisfy readers. --BDD (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - This is a very suspicious redirect. Užice is IN Serbia, and is 99 percent Serbian, so why would someone add this to the search term? Would you approve a redirect of "List of Russians from Moscow" or "List of Scots from Glasgow"? It doesn't make sense. No, the list of of notable does not break down who is Serbian and who is not. It's just grouped by occupation etc. "List of people form Užice" could be plausible. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really, @Wikimandia:, when List of people from Užice just redirects to Užice#Notable people (I've marked it as {{R to section}} without prejudice to this discussion). It would be hard for an English-language user to type the diacritic on the top of the Z — I can do it on my Hungarian keyboard ž (I just did it, AltGr+3 and Z, but then I also have áéíóőöűúü with one keypress each): but would be hard for people on a standard UK or US keyboard layout (and probably on an Australian or English Canadian one, but I don't know). So for the English Wikipedia this is a bit WP:RFOREIGN. Since there are no demographics at the target, I don't think we need to discuss whether it is 99% Serbian or not: it's WP:RFD#D2 confusing because there is no info at the target. (And perhaps WP:RFD#D5 "makes no sense".)
Also, we don't have List of people from Užice as an {{R from title without diacritics}}. I'm not arguing the facts — I have no doubt you are better informed than I am if you say it is 99% Serb ethnicity — but the target doesn't say so, therefore it's misleading. Si Trew (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With redirects, it's not a question of "approval" anyway. It's whether they are useful or harmful. We have Užice -> Užice, for example, for those who cannot do the diacritic. That's pretty standard.
But in short, this is WP:RD#D5 nonsese, because the target is not a list of Serbs from Užice. Si Trew (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't know what the above argument is about. This has NOTHING to do with the diacritics and has NOTHING to do with WP:RFOREIGN (a proper name is not a "foreign" word). The reason why I said strong delete is because the word "Serb" is in there and it's totally unnecessary. Again, this is a city IN Serbia. The demographics of the city are on the page. And click - how many of them are say, Croatian? Looking at the names, I'm guessing zero. How about List of Romanians from Bucharest! List of Canadians from Halifax! List of Californians from California!! That's why I think it's a very bizarre redirect in the first place, and nobody is ever going to use it, so delete. Zoupan knows what he's talking about. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can't follow a reasonable argument, that is not my problem but yours. The demographics are not on the page. Do you think I should say so without looking at the page first? I am a fool but not a damnfool.
    I checked before and I checked again. If you don't like it, that is just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Incidentally, someone linked from Hungarian Central Statistical Office yesterday, so having translated that artricle many years ago I might have some idea about how to WP:RS something. I double-checked the author's edit's too, which were correct. Si Trew (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, that is why the French call the capital city of England Londres, and there are variations for Bruxelles and Brussel and Brussels depending on which language you speak. You are hoist with your own petard with Canucks from Halifax, because (I assume, having flown over it as a waypoint many a time but never landed there it would be derived from Halifax, West Yorkshire: As many New England and Nova Scotian names are. (After all, "Nova Scotia" means "New Scotland"). Variations are OK, but this is the English Wikipedia, and while if it has affinity it doesn't deserve WP:RFOREIGN, it has a balance of useful versus harmful, as I said above. I am not sure why you don't understand that. We have a redirect for Peking, for example. Si Trew (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't think it was difficult. It's not mentioned at the target, so it is confusing on the English-language Wikipedia. Much more clarity is beyond me. Si Trew (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to have to ram the point home. There is Užice#Demographics which is a possible retarget, but that is not WP:RS or indeed sourced at all. Si Trew (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, "Serb" is mostly redundant here, but people often make redundant sentences when they form sentences because people often don't know how to make sentences non redundant when making sentences on the fly. So "people" is better than "Serbs" for an article title, but of course a person might search for either, so they're both suitable for redirects. Sure, the article should be at List of Haligonians, but I'm probably going to forget how to spell Halucinogins and end up searching for List of Canadians from Halifax or List of people from Halifax or List of people from Sunny Vale Trailer Park & Environs instead. The purpose of RFOREIGN is to make the encyclopaedia as hard to use as possible for non-Anglophones, so of course it can be invoked to delete properly spelled names with accents only non-Anglos are likely to employ. Doesn't mean it's a good idea, but that's why it applies. WilyD 09:19, 16 June 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.

Debut album[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 as follows:
  • Refine Debut album and Debut (album) to Debut#Music
  • Delete Début album as the phrase "début album" with é is not commonly used in English
  • Delete all others as potentially confusing, as the target page does not discuss those phrases.

It too me a while to tease out the discussion below as additional links were added to the nomination as it went along. Thanks for the patience. Deryck C. 12:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no entries called "debut album" on the dab page this redirect is pointing to. There are albums called "debut", but they are already served by the redirect "debut (album)". As a result, this redirect is creating the false expectation that such an article exists. Midas02 (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep there are albums called "Debut" listed, thus a viable search term because it is normal English (unlike parenthetically disambiguating a search term) -- 70.51.46.11 (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Debut (album) → Debut too. Refine both as {{R to section}} Debut#Music. User:SimonTrew 07:58, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Readers don't necessarily understand Wikipedia's parenthetical disambiguation scheme, and in any case they don't necessarily use parentheses in the search field. A redirectwithout parentheses is a good thing. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 13:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My problem with this redirect is that people searching for this are probably not looking for an album by the name of "debut" but a general concept article on a "debut album". For example, look at the article for Debut novel, but read it in terms of music instead of literary terms. The problem I'm having is that I'm not seeing any material covering this subject. Tavix | Talk  14:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly. I cleaned up the links to that dab page, and *all* of them were from editors who had wikilinked "debut album" in articles. Since there is no article on the concept of a "debut album", it should show up in red, so that editors would understand there is no such article. I find the argument of users searching for debut album to be false. If they are entering such a search term, they will not be looking for an album called "debut", but for the debut album of such and such artist. And in that case, they will likely add it to the search string (e.g. "debut album Madonna"). In the current situation, just typing "debut album", makes them end up on the dab page, from where they're not getting any further either. --Midas02 (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. I'm adding it to this nomination, as we surely don't want this pair out of sync. --BDD (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice find. I am with BDD and Tavix, they patently should go to the same place ({{R from title without diacritics}} and {{R from title with diacritics}} are sadly inappropriate since the title substantially differs). First album is red. as are First recording and First record. (And, to complete the circle, Debut recording, Début recording, Debut record and Début record).
In the meantimtlx|e (without prejudice, as always) I've marked Debut album as {{R to disambiguation page}}: It was and still is also marked as {{R from move}} but the history belies that as far as I can tell: It was created on 12 January 2014 by User:Tbhotch and slept peacefully ever until this RfD. Si Trew (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also added. --BDD (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that was appropriate. The reasoned opinions on "debut album" does not mean they apply to the other uses. These should be nominated separately, and not together, since they represent different values, different targets, and different possible disambiguations. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose we could have a musical equivalent of List of directorial debuts, where Directorial debut and variants redirect. But can you imagine how unwieldy that would be? --BDD (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If either the album or the artist isn't notable enough to garner an article, we can use that as a cut-off and not allow entries where the entry('s artist) would fail WP:NN. Though it'd haven't to be a split-up list by letter. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unless we discuss the idea of debut albums somewhere. --BDD (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/retarget debut album and debut studio album to debut (or to #Music section) which lists a few (studio) albums which are called "debut". Delete début album because the accent is not used in English and there are no albums which use it either. Neutral on the "self-titled" redirect; on one hand we don't have any discussion about the subject, but on the other hand they discourage people creating redirects to their favourite artists' debut or upcoming albums that we keep having to delete. Ivanvector (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least separatesplit Self-titled debut studio album and Self titled debut studio album from the ones starting "Debut". If anything, the nearer for those last two would be vanity publishing → vanity press. Neither was marked as {{R to section}}, doing so without prejudice to this discussion, as always. Si Trew (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and the "Self styled" ones were not marked as being at this RfD, so I did that, too. Si Trew (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? We're talking about self-titled, not self-published. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, I think, i.e. that they are eponymous. The Beatles (album) I suppose is a good example. But it was the music company that chose the title, not the group, so I would say it is not "self-" titled. That may be a distraction from the main thrust here which is for "Debut..." which is why I suggested to split those out.
Début -> Debut as {{R from title with diacritics}} so I see no great problem with redirects for the albums using the French E acute, although it is perhaps a little WP:RFOREIGN and a bit of an affectation (We have Débutante -> Debutante, if I want to come out) but since it is still pronounced with a vague nod to how the French pronounce it, and not to rhyme with "rebut": and although old, it has never become entirely naturalised into English pronunciation, I'd say, in the way that e.g. chaise longue has. Si Trew (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{{R from misspelling}}, then. Ivanvector (talk) 21:56, 15 June 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.

Mura, Saint[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 accept new target Saint Mura; WP:NPASR. Deryck C. 20:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Mura doesn't have an article yet, and who searches for "Mura, Saint" anyway? The only other possibilities are to redirect to Fahan or Mura#People. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The target in English, and in its French version, both state quite clearly in there ledes that "Mura" is the Hungarian and Croatian name for this river: So far so good. (Mura is a DAB for which Mura (Drava) → Mur (river) is the first entry). Hungarian for saint is Szent, so it would be "Szent Mura" if anything, but patently isn't, and it is not like Old Man River that it has any special significance in a religious or historical sense, just happens to be a natural border between countries. Checking, it is not named as a cognate or anything for Saint Muriel, and the article gives no etymology: but it is certainly not a common or abbreviated name in Hungarian according my primary source. Si Trew (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Create a stub for Saint Mura and redirected this to there. The reason for the redirect is that the Catholic Encyclopedia tended to have these, and so redirects were created for these. JASpencer (talk) 12:22, 19 June 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_June_14&oldid=1138580310"