Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 July 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 29, 2016.

First Lady of Arkansas[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. I'm not going to clean-up the links, however, since WP:REDLINKs encourage article creation. I think we can all agree that these types of lists would be a desirable thing to have for every state. -- Tavix (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These redirects all lead to articles/lists where there is not even a mention of, let alone any information about, first ladies and I can't find any other relevant places to retarget to. It's worth noting that redirects also exist at First Lady of Alaska, First Lady of Minnesota, First Lady of Nevada and First Lady of Oklahoma but these all point to relevant articles/lists, showing that it is possible to create the relevant content (and they are not nominated for deletion or retargetting). Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS there also exist articles/lists at List of First Ladies and Gentlemen of Texas, First Ladies and Gentlemen of Wisconsin and First Ladies of North Dakota without existing redirects from "First Lady of...". Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the above redirects, but first tidy up the links to them. Arkansas and California have the most links. Once the links are cleaned, I think they could be deleted as G6. Technical deletions. And...ahem...I'm the person who created List of First Ladies and Gentlemen of Texas, and what's on it is substantive and sourced. Much like the Featured Article List of First Ladies of the United States. I hope your mention of that and the others is just to point out those lists serve a purpose. Redirecting the term "first lady of..." to the governor of the state serves no purpose. — Maile (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, my mention of the Texas list was intended to show that it is possible to create good, sourced content on gubernatorial spouses and so show the redirects to be bad. Standardising the naming of the various state lists is something that the wikiproject might wish to discuss though. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2016 (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.

Indian Magna Carta[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 6#Indian Magna Carta

Survivor: Game Changers[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 until such a time as when there is an official announcement about the official title of this future season. Deryck C. 15:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This season won't be announced for quite some time and no one will be searching for "Game Changers" as a relevant name because most of the general public wouldn't know what that is or where it comes from. Chase (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is getting up to 70 hits a day from humans, which rather invalidates the argument that nobody will be searching for this. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete page for now. This page has no references other than an 'Inside Survivor' website and the page is an orphan. Fbdave (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. Until there's content specifically about "Survivor: Game Changers," a redirect will do nothing but confuse or mislead. -- Tavix (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I created the redirect in response to someone creating the page for a rumoured upcoming season of Survivor. Until the season is officially announced in December, someone will inevitably recreate the page, so let's keep the redirect as a placeholder until the announcement. If the official season title is unrelated to Game Changers, then we can delete this then. - Katanin (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Katanin: Redirects should not be created from rumors. See WP:CRYSTAL. If it gets recreated before an official announcement, then we can apply WP:SALT. -- Tavix (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: The page initially featured information gleaned through non-reliable sources; I had consulted WP:CRYSTAL before redirecting the page and it said nothing about redirects. Thanks for the clarification. - Katanin (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt not an official title. Revisit after official announcement. Is Inside Survivor a reliable source? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AngusWOOF: No. Inside Survivor gets most of its information through unrevealed sources; while its proprietor has an incredibly accurate track record, it's not perfect, and thus not reliable. - Katanin (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. A disappointing redirect while there is no reliable information at the target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that we shouldn't have redirects from just mere rumors, particularly when there's no information at the target about this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2016 (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.

Kyuss (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 retarget to Kyuss / Queens of the Stone Age. It seems like everyone is at least somewhat in agreement here. -- Tavix (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The band Kyuss had four albums; there was no Kyuss album, and it doesn't make sense to redirect "Kyuss (album)" to any of the four. There was, however, a split album, Kyuss / Queens of the Stone Age, which "Kyuss (album)" could be confused with. Morfusmax (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per Thryduulf's suggestion. A logical name for the split album. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Acceptable, if retargeting in general is really better than deleting. Morfusmax (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • When the redirect is a plausible search term or otherwise serves a useful purpose, it is almost always better to retarget than to delete. The only significant exception is when a redlink to encourage the creation of an article at the redirect title (see WP:REDLINK) is seen as desirable (e.g. recently we deleted the redirect Crime in Uganda for this reason). The corollary to that is that a redirect can discourage the creation of an article at a title where we don't want one, e.g. there is no album called "Kyuss" so there is no scope for an article at this title. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 4 August 2016 (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.

Star Wars: Episode X[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. Salting might be a little too preemptive at this point, but if it gets recreated again before an announcement is made, then that might be something to consider. -- Tavix (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Episode X hasn't been announced yet. In fact, Disney only plans to make VII, VIII, and IX. So this redirect represents a Wikipedia:CRYSTALBALL. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given the existence of I though IX, X is a very logical search term for people who don't know how many there are (or are planned to be), and indeed it is getting a steady trickle of hits, so we should definitely retarget it somewhere. My first thought is List of Star Wars films and television series#Saga films but I'm open to persuasion about better targets, particularly from those who've actually seen more than about 5 minutes of the films. Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt until an announcement is officially made. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly salt, until there is a revelation from the Force. — Gorthian (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2016 (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.

Cinderella (2014 film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 7#Cinderella (2014 film)

The Racketeer (2015 film)[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's mention at the target of a possible film in the works, but since 2015 has already passed, it's impossible for it to be a "2015 film." -- Tavix (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2016 (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 Daily Reckoning[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 The Agora#Books and newsletters. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to Bill Bonner (author), where the topic is only mentioned tangentially. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • retarget to The Agora#Books and newsletters where there is as much information as we have about The Daily Reckoning and that includes a link to the current target (and other authors). It's prominently mentioned on several pages (but never in any more detail) which makes me wonder if there is the potential for a stub, I've not looked in detail at this though. Thryduulf (talk)
  • Keep Article needs to explain he and his colleague Addison Wiggin founded the financial blog website. It's a bit hard to reference directly as the site is blacklisted (www.dailyreckoning.co.uk/author/bill-bonner/) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either retarget to The Agora#Books and newsletters, or write as a full article if the subject is notable enough for an own article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:56, 1 August 2016 (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.

Mrs Denis Thatcher[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 Margaret Thatcher#Early political career.  Sandstein  13:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Following a first discussion, a deletion review decided to relist this discussion. The issue is whether this term, apparently formerly used according to outdated social convention to refer to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, should redirect to Margaret Thatcher#Early political career or to Denis Thatcher#Marriages. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral.  Sandstein  09:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants of the first discussion: @Oiyarbepsy, Neve-selbert, Patar knight, AngusWOOF, Siuenti, and 210.6.254.106: Please offer your opinion (possibly updated) again after reading the previous discussion and the deletion review.  Sandstein  09:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notified 210.6.254.106 on their talk page; pings don't work for IPs. — Gorthian (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before the first RfD, it was getting between 11 and 12 hits a month from real people. As Tavix noted, we do have comparable redirects when reliable sources cover the usage of this naming convention, in HRC's case at Hillary_Clinton#Later_Arkansas_years. This RfD is not a carte blanche for creating similar redirects when no reliable sources indicate usage of this naming convention. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Margaret Thatcher#Early political career; no hatnote necessary. (Maybe create an anchor, to protect against possible renaming of the section?) Now that there's explanation in the target article, backed up by reliable sources, this makes the best sense. — Gorthian (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per the reasoning of DGG at DRV, plus the situation with Mrs. Bill Clinton for Hillary Clinton.--Neve–selbert 01:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wherever the retarget goes, most likely the section under Margaret Thatcher, there should be a hatnote to the other Mrs. Denis Thatcher. I know she's not primary topic but still of interest given his multiple marriages. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 10:33, 31 July 2016 (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.
  • (edit conflict) Sandstein closed the discussion while I was typing my comment. I would've suggested we delete this redirect because we have a situation of WP:XY here with Denis Thatcher's two marriages. The use of "Mrs Denis Thatcher" to refer to the late prime minister was dated even at the time when it was used, and is simply archaic in today's English language, so I would rather not apply WP:Primary topic. But well, even if me in the headcount there would still be a majority favouring the original target, so I won't challenge the closure. Deryck C. 14:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Begging And Beggars[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. Not an easy close, but there are strong arguments on the delete side. In particular, there's the presence of a book by this title and an indication that the Jewish Encyclopedia pattern isn't used elsewhere on Wikipedia. Gorthian, in a "lean delete" comment, suggested the book is unlikely to get an article since Martin Luther wrote so much else. On the other hand, Luther's involvement may well be enough for it to be notable, or at least likely to be searched. Keep votes were typically couched as weak, also. --BDD (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What a bizarre phrase. I can't see how this would be helpful to our readers. -- Tavix (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It has received 8 hits by humans this year so far, which indicates at least some level of interest and if someone does look this up they will find what they are looking for at the target. As for why it exists, Google searches for the exact phrase turn up quite a few hits in sources related to Judaism, including the Jewish Virtual Library and Jewish Encyclopedia so my guess is that the interest comes from users who have been reading about the topic in one of those sources and are turning to Wikipedia for more information and/or a different perspective. Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does ~1 hit per month signify interest? As far as I'm concerned, that's bot-level noise, where the hits are from non-human activity such as web crawlers. Just last week, you suggested 5 hits/90 days to be at levels below human interest, which is ~3x as many hits as this one is getting, so I'm a bit confused why you changed your mind so dramatically. -- Tavix (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because these are only human views (which I wasn't aware of when I made that comment) - activity by bots and spiders is counted separately (based on user agent string I believe) by the current page view stats tool, which was not the case for the old one. Thryduulf (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If those are counted separately, then where would I be able to see this separate count? I only see one count. That's besides the point though: don't use pageviews to support your keep argument when the page views are statistically insignificant. It doesn't help your case, it just goes to show that this redirect isn't being used by any meaningful population. -- Tavix (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Too see the other counts, click on the "stats" link above then choose "All", "User" (the default), "Spider" or "Bot" from the list in the "Agent" drop down box (the rightmost in the row of boxes). As for the argument about the redirect, I see no reason why more than 1 person a month should be told they are "not meaningful" or "insignificant" - what harm is this redirect doing? Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. I see that now (I'm still learning how the new tool works). I think it comes down to WP:R#D8 since it's a novel or obscure way to refer to a beggar. Using "Begging And Beggars" isn't an intuitive way to search, link, or use the concept of begging. To get into your final question, I think it comes down to one's philosophy on the usefulness of redirects. Not unlike the inclusionism vs. deletionism philosophies you'll find at AFD, at RFD those philosophies can be summed up with the WP:CHEAP vs. WP:COSTLY debate. While the nominated redirect isn't harmful in the traditional sense, there's still a burden that goes along with having a whole lot of useless redirects lying around. Redirects should have some kind of value to them to overcome this burden, and I'm not seeing any kind of value with having a redirect that says "Begging And Beggars." To sum up my views on the matter: Redirects are cheap, but they're not free. -- Tavix (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep the search term appears to be barely popular enough and barely plausible enough to keep it around. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep per above. Does get some searches from real people. Since the search string "Begging a" doesn't knock off any other search results, on the balance probably more useful than costly. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This looks like a title of a book, which isn't that notable. There isn't a "skating and skaters" or "farming and farmers". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:11, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFF applies to your second sentence, and this isn't about a book, so your first sentence is also not relevant. Please see my comments above about actual use of this phrase in reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish Virtual Library also uses "Banking and Bankers", "Architecture and Architects", "Coins and Currency", "Ossuaries and Sarcophagi", "Ships and Sailing", "Shewbread or Showbread", "Translation and Translators", "Travelers and Explorers", "Vows and Vowing", "Weights and Measures", "Lydia, Lydian", "Weights, Measures, and Coins" [1] So these are in the context of subject groupings for chapter and subject headers, not a specific term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning towards delete. This is a common phrase according to Google, but the capitalization makes it unlikely as a search term. The phrase is used in all kinds of contexts: sociological studies about begging, advice to Christians, personal anecdotes, and that one entry in the Jewish Encyclopedia that Thryduulf noted. I did find one book with the title (in translation): Begging and beggars. Luther, M., ed. The book of vagabonds and beggars; with a vocabulary of their language: edited by Martin Luther in 1528, now first translated into English, with introduction and notes by John C. Hotten. 1860. No article about it, and likely not to be, given the vast volume of works that Luther produced. — Gorthian (talk) 17:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AngusWOOF unless a plausible target related to the Jewish Encyclopedia can be demonstrated. Begging is the second search result when searching the phrase, the first being an article which references the Jewish Encyclopedia chapter itself, which may actually be of more use to the user searching the term (similar to WP:R#D1).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is an WP:XY title but beggar already redirects to begging so no matter which one a reader is searching for they will find the same article. "Because nobody uses it" is not a valid reason for deletion, it's a reason to do nothing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Welcome back! I have to disagree though. If a certain term is not used by anybody, that would make it a "novel or obscure" term. Obscure terms are deletable under WP:R#D8. -- Tavix (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: Thank you! I counter that neither "begging" nor "beggars" are obscure search terms. Both together are, possibly, but not so obscure as to warrant deletion, considering there seems to be only the one plausible target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete anyone searching for this sentence will get a prominent suggestion to "Begging" by the search engine - 3rd one on the list as I see it, 2nd not counting the redirect. We do not need to have redirects from every conceivable variation of the terms. Redirects are useful when they link not-so-obviously linked terms, this is not the case. - Nabla (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should people have to go via the search results page? Depending on how they reach this redirect, the search results may be one or two clicks away (and they may have to enter their search term again) and the position of any specific article in the results can never be guaranteed. There is only one plausible target for this redirect, and it's not in the way of anything, so we really would be inconveniencing readers for absolutely no benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The awkward capitalisation, and the fact that this is a book title, both point toward deletion being the appropriate course of action. Deryck C. 15:48, 10 August 2016 (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.

Faculty of Fine Arts[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 Fine art#Academic study. Deryck C. 12:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This should become a Disambiguation page, as there are some other Faculties of Fine Arts around the world. Mhhossein (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambig per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined to delete this. There are only a tiny handful of existing articles on fine arts faculty at academic institutions, but just about every institution with courses in the fine arts will have fine arts faculty (of one form or another). This is a common term, used in partial title matches rather than as a standalone name. older ≠ wiser 11:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2016 (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.

All cross-namespace redirects of the following type[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 6#All cross-namespace redirects of the following type

Trilogy ring[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 converted to an article and so now out of scope for RfD. This is without prejudice to an AfD of the article if anyone desires. Thryduulf (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This type of wedding ring isn't mentioned at the target article, and is probably not notable. --BDD (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a stub for Trilogy ring. A quick google search convinced me that it is clearly notable. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2016 (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.

Russian Wedding Ring[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 boldly retargetted to Russian wedding ring, a new article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only content about Russia at the target article is the fact that Russians traditionally wear wedding rings on their right hands. This does not seem enough to justify a redirect. This used to be a one-sentence article before being merged, but that content is no longer there, and is unlikely to ever be again. --BDD (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also stubbified. This design is still notable, albeit a little less so. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The stub has been written at Russian wedding ring and this redirect boldly retargeted there. As the deletion rationale is now outdated and it is unlikley anyone will object to the new target I'm closing this discussion. This is without prejudice to a new nomination if anyone does desire. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2016 (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/2016_July_29&oldid=1088109609"