Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 12, 2015.

Add[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) 18:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Addition per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and WP:DIFFCAPS. Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Retarget to Addition. Amazed it would go anywhere else. I checked subtract -> Subtraction, [multiply -> Multiplication, and Divide is a DAB, the article at Division (mathematics). subtrahend is an R to Subtraction, as is minuend, dividend is an article with a hatnote to division (mathematics). obviously somewhat ambigiguous, divisor is an article in its own right (or wrong). These are a bit unbalanced, then, like improper fractions, but WP:NOTPERFECT and all have a long history. Si Trew (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually idiot that I am I didn't think to check addend, which goes to addition. I am just wondering now where adder would go cos I was just assuming it would be a DAB (phew, it is). augend is an R to addition, and is mentioned there. Si Trew (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom sstflyer 13:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom --Lenticel (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. I feel like we discussed this earlier this year. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cogito ergo sum, then. We're having a lot of (edit conflict)'s tonight IV. Keep plodding on eh. Si Trew (talk) 19:53, 14 September 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.

Circle Bakote Gakhar[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) 18:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created POV fork based on a Facebook page. It was redirected but in reality there is no support for this community being anything much at all. Circle Bakote is a place, and if we allow redirects for castes in each town etc then we really will be creating a maintenance nightmare for no gain. There are sometimes good reasons for having specific articles for regional etc variants of a caste but this doesn't fall within them. Sitush (talk) 18:43, 12 September 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.

Janet.[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) 17:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, it is redirected to the Janet Jackson album. "Janet." was proposed but rejected twice or thrice as the article title. As it looks almost ambiguous (unless you are very familiar with Jackson herself), shall it be redirected to Janet (disambiguation)? In the light of Talk:Gangsta., I fear that someone would use it to oppose this proposal. George Ho (talk) 17:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actually, this seems like the most logical thing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which other uses would typically be referred to with a period? --BDD (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since this either the only thing known as "Janet." or is by far the most prominent. Any other use can be solved with a hatnote to Janet (disambiguation). -- Tavix (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix and BDD. Rubbish computer 22:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • REtarget to the disambiguation page. Anything just Janet can be described as Janet PERIOD or Janet. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the lack of ambiguity the period adds. Steel1943 (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean that the period (full stop) serves to disambiguate. I disagree, it's too subtle a way to disambiguate. Si Trew (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Janet (disambiguation). Si Trew (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The hatnote on Janet (album) is sufficient to direct users to the disambiguation page, and people typing in a period at the end are more likely to be looking for the album. sstflyer 13:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and maintain the hatnote pointing to the disambiguation page. "Janet." is technically the title of the album, so it should point there first. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@209.211.131.181: is the full stop/period at the end of Janet technically part of the title? If so it it should definitely go there, but I don't think it is, however I have been known to be wrong. Si Trew (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, it's certainly there on the cover art, which is the best source for what the title actually is. Wikipedia is not alone in omitting it from the title, however. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I withdraw my retarget suggestion. Perhaps it was just my screen or my glasses but I couldn't see the full stop/period. Si Trew (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and maintain the hatnote on the target page, as per what IP 209 suggests. JaykeBird (talk) 00:00, 14 September 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.

Jones v. Bush[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 30#Jones v. Bush

Anybody but Bush[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 given the size of the backlog and unanimous consensus after 2.5 weeks. --BDD (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's some use of "Anybody but Bush" in a few articles, but not the target article, and I don't see a good retargeting option. The longer variant may be a Wikipedia invention. Also, the section the first redirect targets no longer exists. --BDD (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I think we should just get rid of both of these as unhelpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the second is weird as being "anybody except Bush, except Kerry", which seems rather a bit of Alice in Wonderland mislogic, if you accept (but not except) that "but" and for that matter "save" in this context mean "except" (I think this is treated in Fowler under pairs and snares, but I'm just going from memory there). Oddly one would expect save to be the English word and except to be the Latin one, but I think actually it's the other way around. Anyway it is WP:RFD#D2 nonsense. (Fortunately we don't have Save Bush or Anyone Save Bush or things like that. I am not expressing a political opinion here, just an opinion about Wikipedia.) Si Trew (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there appears to be no suitable target. Rubbish computer 22:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. perhaps WP:SNOW delete, but I am not an admin so can't take it meself. Even if it stayed, surely it would beWP:RFD#D2 confusing as it could refer to George W. Bush or his son. Declaration of interest: when Bush got elected president, I was living in Texas, but for obvious reasons did not have a vote there, as a foreigner. Si Trew (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete seems to be an obscure political slogan --Lenticel (talk) 00:13, 14 September 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.

Presidential election results[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 given the size of the backlog and unanimous consensus after 2.5 weeks. --BDD (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of which presidential election? This was created in 2005 as a redirect to the 2004 US presidential election and has been updated since, but it still seems to reflect a massive about of WP:BIAS. BDD (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:XY and WP:WORLDWIDE since the redirect does not specify which government's presidential election. Steel1943 (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943. Rubbish computer 22:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and this requires a news bias to make this equivalency. And that this would have to be the U.S. Wikipedia. There is a world outside of the last election cycle and the world at large exists beyond the U.S. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are more presidents than just the one in the United States. On the other hand that is the most obvious one, like The Queen does not to my surprise go to Elizabeth II though I am pleased to say we do have King Zog -> Zog I of Albania, who was president before he was King, and if you want to be a monarch you can't beat a name like that. Si Trew (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Zog is an R to ZOG. I'll mark it after checking, Shame shame. Si Trew (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Already marked, no work for me then. Si Trew (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kneel before Zog! --BDD (talk) 17:58, 21 September 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.

Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2016[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 1#Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2016

Chrissake[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) 17:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are examples of minced oaths, but the redirects are not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of these redirects is questionable since the subject of the redirects isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless good retargeting options can be found for these redirects, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor really a misspelling but an abbreviation or other spelling. We don't have For fuck's sake, though Si Trew (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an abbreviation or misspelling that isn't worth putting here. Having something like Christ sake makes sense, as its actually how its meant to be, but not this. Wikipedia isn't meant to correct people's spelling mistakes. JaykeBird (talk) 00:57, 13 September 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.

Gawt deem[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) 17:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is an example of a minced oath, but the redirect is not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of this redirect is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless a good retargeting option can be found for this redirect, (Nominator opinion change: see below. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)) I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or (Nominator opinion change: see below. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)) delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Doesn't exist on Wiktionary. Probably doesn't meet inclusion criteria there either (wikt:WT:ATTEST). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to goddamn since this is a variant spelling, and that page leads to the article damnation and wiktionary -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rwtarget' to goddamn, with 70. 51. I did think vaguely of carpe diem but that is well wide of the mark. Si Trew (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to goddamn per above. Rubbish computer 10:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:R#D2. Do we have any evidence that this is a common variant spelling? Goddamn is a dab, and none of the entries there are known as "gawt deem" so the retarget proposal doesn't make any sense to me. -- Tavix (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: Agreed. If anything, this phrase looks like the "got eem" meme that has been flying around these days. In fact, given this, I struck out some of my nomination statement. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seem to be about seven people per year using it on Twitter [1]. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unlike gosh darn this isn't established in use. Deem put simply is to "to hold an opinion" or "judge", I don't view it as a plausible misspelling of damn, and it is a defined word. Gawt is much more similar to got, not a plausible synonym of God. In my opinion this equates to "Got deem" (reminds me of Got Milk?), which isn't good grammar or a proper usage, and has no good target.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was going to suggest goddamit but that is red, goddam is blue though, but that's A DAB, so I am not sure that is much help.
Winter is Icumen in
Lhudle sing goddam
Buck starteth, muck farteth
Lhudle sing goddam
Si Trew (talk) 14:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the same reasons as Tavix. This spelling seems weird; I've never seen it before. If there's evidence of widespread use, that'd be a different story, but until I see any, I think this should be deleted. JaykeBird (talk) 00:51, 13 September 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.

Jeez[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) 17:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is an example of a minced oath, but the redirect is not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of this redirect is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless a good retargeting option can be found for this redirect, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Blasphemy#Blasphemy in Christianity since that is where Christ sake leads to -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per 70. Rubbish computer 10:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. or DAB irt to include Jesus creepers. a type of sandal, but we don't seem to have that as slang ot anything else. Something with this Christianity redirects is very fishy... I state exőélicitly, I have edited a few on the way when we have been doing the R's, but I am not a christian, I am just .Church of England, where you only häve to go there for hatch, match and dispatch. Nit KJesus wppuéd ne a good Wikiőőedoam cps he just said basically try to be mnice to other pepőeé. forgive them their sins, cos you have lots yourseéf- In that sense I am a Christian I just don't think there is Santa Claus upstairs, but it makes my life work do as Jesus said. Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sinned against us. And lead us not into tepmtation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, foreverf and ever. Amen. Si Trew (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This one is weird in that Wikipedia has no information about the word, but there are a couple of minor usages that appear as part of a phrase. The most prominent of which are: "BLK Jeez", a nickname for Sabian (wrestler) and the catchphrase Jeez, Wayne. I don't think this would make a good dab as those are WP:PTMs, but search results would be able to catch those looking for either use, and other people will note that we don't have anything else and might be compelled to create something. I will note that wikt:jeez says that it's an alternative form of geez, and that's a redirect to Ge'ez language. -- Tavix (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Jesus, as an blasphemy (I am not religious). Si Trew (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the redirect, as per the same reasons brought up by the creator of this discussion, Steel1943. Jeez is an example of a minced oath, not synonymous with it. This redirect shouldn't exist. JaykeBird (talk) 23:57, 12 September 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.

Ovaloid[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 21#Ovaloid

BALLON ANGIOPLASTY[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) 17:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an implausible search term due to the ALL CAPS and the misspelling of "balloon" -- Tavix (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 08:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 09:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't have balloon angioplasty, although that is a well-known technique to inflate the ventricles or auricles of the heart with a little bit of incision, so I am not sure what to do with this one. Delete as confusing, WP:RFD#D2 I should say, as if we haven't it then it doesn't do our readers any good. Angioplasty has it in lede, though, in the second sentence. Si Trew (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE PER NOM. STEEL1943 (TALK) 15:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 🎈💥 Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely cocked up mine there then. But yah, del as I said. Just the kb was giving me trouble, sorry. Got all three working properly now I think, so any mistakes are my own and not the hardware. I don't think it is a misspelling of balloon, or perhaps it is, but the French spelling of balloon is exactly that, so it's a bit {{R from other language}}, but still seems rather unhelpful, and the French for "angioplasty" is not "angioplasty" (it's "angioplastie", not a million miles away), but all things combined this is just WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Si Trew (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:17, 14 September 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.

Campaign 2008[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) 17:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I don't think there's an appropriate target for this. There are other campaigns that aren't political in nature. -- Tavix (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to 'Electoral calendar 2008' as that would be helpful to people looking for additional information on any political campaigns held anyplace in 2008, but otherwise I'd delete CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete WP:BIAS This is not the U.S. Federal Government wikipedia. There is a world out there beyond the U.S. federal election cycle, even if the politicos in Washington never act like there is a real world beyond the beltway. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIAS. Rubbish computer 08:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is my struggle, and why I perennially try to plug my atlas Countries That Are Not The United States, to no good effect. What is even more odd, even if this is a bit US centric, is that elections other than Federal elections happen all the time, at least in Springfield. So even if we said OK, it's a bit US centric but that's all right, then you have to list x knows how many local, municipal, district and whatever elections that happened in 2008, and that's never going to happen. Si Trew (talk) 05:00, 13 September 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.

US 08 Election[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) 17:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few more redirects I missed from this discussion. It's a WP:RECENTISM violation because they could just as equally refer to an Election of 1908 or Election of 1808. -- Tavix (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Given the ambiguity, these are problematic. The 1908 and 1808 elections have both attracted historical attention over the years, the former in particular as that's the year that good ol' Teddy Roosevelt left office with ambiguous circumstances as to what Taft could accomplish without him. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:59, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 08:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ambiguous as to the century.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 12:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't since there was not a US election of 1908 nor a US election of 1808, and I think in 1708 we owned it but there was a bit of a debacle, something of a how's -your father or little disagreement somwehere along the line in that century, but I forget the details. Somewhere around 1793 I think. Si Trew (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: United States elections, 1908 and United States elections, 1808 could both be referred to by the redirects in question.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that makes more sense to do that. My KB was playing up, sorry, so I managed to kinda cock up the link to US election of 1908 by leaving the U outside the link, purely my cock.up. So now we are left with a red white and blue because to have and have not we don't have U.S. Elections of 1908, US Elections of 1908, nor United States elections of 1908 (and I shall not enumerate farther, you get the point.) Actually I may have hit the nail on the thumb, it should be WP:SINGULAR to say not "Elections" but "Election". Si Trew (talk) 05:09, 13 September 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.

Wikipedia:WPC[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 30#Wikipedia:WPC

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_12&oldid=1037880651"