Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 4, 2016.

Green-Wood[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 (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 08:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest retarget to Greenwood, a disambiguation page. There are so many things called Green Wood that there is no reason to assume that people are looking for a cemetery over everything else. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the cemetery is not "Greenwood", it's "Green-Wood", which is why the redirect should point there. Please name me another notable place called "Green-Wood" (not "Greenwood"). BMK (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with BMK. Would you also retarget Green-Wood Cemetery to Greenwood Cemetery, because there are so many of them? Obviously we wouldn't be here if Nx. didn't create this; please give it a rest with the ones that aren't variants of "Greenwoody" and such. However, given this gets less than one view/day, I'm not averse to deletion. Just don't annoy a reader who goes to the trouble of typing a hyphen and then uses their shift key, by sending them to a page which is void of hyphens for the desired target. wbm1058 (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with the above logic is that a lot of the time people don't know if there is a hyphen or not, and they are just guessing. Just like a lot of people looking for the Brooklyn cemetery will type in greenwood without the hyphen, a lot of people looking for something else will include the hyphen thinking that it's there. BTW, I don't want deletion, I want to target it to Greenwood, the disambiguation page. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, wikt:green-wood, just created a month ago. I suppose it comes down to whether hyphenating this simple compound is still common. Perhaps it was common in 1838 when the cemetery was given its name, I doubt it's common today. As I said < 1 page view/day, while the Greenwood form without the hyphen gets 20. wbm1058 (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the Ngram, the hypen hasn't been a common form since the early 1800s. Maybe it fell out of use when people switched from wood to coal. wbm1058 (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, small details are enough to distinguish between topics and the cemetery is the only notable thing with the "Green-Wood" spelling. Everything else would be a misspelling, and the hatnote is useful for collecting that crowd. -- Tavix (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:54, 6 June 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.

Place where the light shines first[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While this phrase is the meaning and origin of the name, it doesn't appear to be used as a nickname. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per all the previous discussions (e.g. "South of the passes" last October) concluding that literal translations of proper nouns are not helpful as redirects when they're not used as actual names on their own. (Not to mention, a huge number of such alleged translations for placenames in North America are plain old made-up or wrong, and this exact wording doesn't show up anywhere besides WP:SPS.) 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the IP's remarks above. Maybe we could retarget this to First light (astronomy), but this is already a fairly implausible search term. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think that we should follow previous precedent as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Newfoundland and Labrador Heritage, it was named after an Abenaki word [1], and the Abenaki do not live in Newfoundland [2], so keeping this based on local usage is moot.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:17, 8 June 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.

Playright[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 split decision: I find consensus to delete all of them except for play rights, where there was no consensus between retargeting and deleting. I'm going to retarget that one to performing rights with no prejudice against an individual speedy renomination. -- Tavix (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this word is a legal term for the right to perform a play. Not clear what the target should be. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:04, 4 June 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.

Christo-[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 13#Christo-

Today's music[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. -- Tavix (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does this editor mean by "today"? Does he/she mean by the date of this nomination or does 1st January 2010 still count as today? Arbitrary sums up this redirect. Donnie Park (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Could be the Toyota Concert Series as produced by the Today show. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:24, 4 June 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.

VICTORIAN WORKING CLASS LEISURE[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 03:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RCAPS as there is no reasonable connection between this capitalization and the subject. -- Tavix (talk) 06:30, 4 June 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.

Tutch[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. -- Tavix (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the connection between Tutch and Buongiorno. There are a couple companies and software programs named Tutch in the word, but none seem connected. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't retarget to List of new wave of British heavy metal bands, which is in severe violation of MOS:LISTS. Not to mention the fact that Tutch is best known as the tech company, not some obscure and probably defunct band. Softlavender (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I agree that the list violates WP:SALAT and probably WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that. It's that per MOS:LISTS every item should have a Wikipedia article, and almost none of them do. Softlavender (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they did have their own articles, I think the list is too expansive to be useful. In any event, my retarget suggestion was a bit of a throwaway and I have stricken it from the record. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:44, 7 June 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.

Enero[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 03:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOR, January has no affinity with Spanish. -- Tavix (talk) 06:18, 4 June 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.

One law for the rich and another law for the poor[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The target article doesn't discuss this concept, and I'm not seeing a good alternative article. -- Tavix (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete idiom is not easily attributed to someone and does not have its own article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red link I think this phrase could be the subject of its own article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oiyarbepsy, can you clarify what you mean by "Red link"? Softlavender (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Softlavender, Red link means to delete it, so it will appear as a red link in other articles and encourage someone to write an article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oiyarbepsy, in that case could you therefore change your !vote to "Delete", so as not to confuse the closing admin? !Votes should be either "Delete", "Retarget", or "Keep". Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need. RfD regulars no exactly what it means. And administrators are expected to actually read the discussion and not merely count votes. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:30, 5 June 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.

WCSNM[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. -- Tavix (talk) 01:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that anyone uses this abbreviation Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and WP:DABACRONYM. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is mentioned in one book, but that doesn't seem to go beyond a list-of-abbreviations kind of use. On the web, the two phrases "WCSNM" and "Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers" seem to appear together only on wikipedia mirrors [3], so maybe best to delete. Uanfala (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, so WP:DABACRONYM seems to be relevant for mentions on dab pages, but not for redirects? Uanfala (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As long as it is unambiguous, it isn't a harmful redirect. The book it is listed in is specially about "Subject index, abbreviations and acronyms".—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Godsy, mainly because the book mentioned was published in 1992, predating Wikipedia. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - acronym not in use outside Wikipedia; invented by its creator. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector, it's listed in at least one published book of abbreviations, a link to it is already given above. Uanfala (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for drawing my attention to that, I missed it and it didn't come up in my search. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:59, 7 June 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.

Charleses[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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is target here because this person wrote a book that made up a bunch of kings named Charles who never existing. Seems like a silly use of a redirect. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book title is not mentioned in the target article. No common use by news articles or books as with Joneses. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:23, 4 June 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.

2014 Eureka Earthquake[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. This doesn't necessarily end any relevant content discussion, but while the earthquake isn't included on that list, there can be no redirect either. --BDD (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no longer any related content on the target article. The list has really been refined over the last couple of years and we're no longer listing inconsequential events. Dawnseeker2000 03:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Widely covered magnitude-6.9 earthquake with uncommon characteristics, so clearly notable. Should be reintroduced to the list, too. --PanchoS (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not meet WP:Earthquakes' notability requirements, and it doesn't have any "uncommon characteristics". This is a large strike-slip earthquake that was not felt strongly anywhere. Its maximum Mercalli intensity was V (Moderate).[1] This is below what WP:Earthquakes considers notable. Also, these types of shocks are a dime a dozen in that area. One scientist (Robert Yeats) states that "in a 50-year period, the area including the Mendocino Fracture Zone at the southern flank of the Gorda Plate generated about 25 percent of all seismic energy unleashed in the state".[2] So this large, low intensity earthquake (that didn't do any damage and that didn't hurt anyone) is one among many. They don't matter and we don't need to document them. Dawnseeker2000 21:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's please do this with uniformity: 2005 Eureka Earthquake – Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 2#2005 Eureka Earthquake – (closed as delete) Dawnseeker2000 01:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, since the event doesn't meet the requirements of the list. -- Tavix (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ USGS. "M6.8 - 78km WNW of Ferndale, California". United States Geological Survey.
  2. ^ Yeats, R. (2012), Active Faults of the World, Cambridge University Press, p. 83, ISBN 978-0-521-19085-5
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.

Contra (Swedish magazine)[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. Consensus here is that the magazine is probably notable enough for an article, and should be deleted to encourage a proper article to develop. I don't think the question of a redirect reversal has been fully answered. If anyone wants to pursue the issue further, they may do so via WP:RM. -- Tavix (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect's target doesn't seem to be the same subject as the subject of the redirect. Since the target article is unreferenced, there is no immediate proof that these subjects are the same. In fact, with the little information provided, the redirect should probably be deleted per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete OR Turn into article + Reverse redirect per this source [4], it seems like the Contra journal is probably the more important of the two and as the target article currently says, it carries on the spirit of the Democratic Alliance. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - My gut response is that both the magazine and the political group are notable enough for their own pages. Thus, we should follow WP:REDLINK. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from related topic}} {{R with possibilities}}, with the possibility of reversing the redirect. It's mentioned in the article. Deryck C. 11:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:58, 4 June 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.

Schwarz Gelbe Allianz[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now this one is on the cusp (Neelix). In German this has a hyphen in it, apparenly in English it does not. WP:MADEUP I think but tnot 100% sure. Si Trew (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Dropping hyphens is an entirely reasonable redirect especially for foreign translations. Adding non-existent hyphens is not as reasonable. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And how is this a foreign translaton? It's German. The article should probably be at Shwarz-Gelbe Allianz but that is not my fault. Not a "foreign" translation at all it's German to a German company. I've already speedily kept the English translations. Si Trew (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's plausible because how many English speakers really know when German uses hyphens or not? Ich spreche Deutsch, and the usual pattern is to cram is all together in a single compound word (Schwarzgelbeallianz). So, keep. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not ambiguous at all, and a reasonable variation. --PanchoS (talk) 18:46, 4 June 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.

Monaqeseh[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, noting that the fate of this redirect is going to be tied to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monagheseh. If the target article is deleted, this variant will go via G8. If kept, consensus here shows that this is a plausible variant. -- Tavix (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - apparently to address some Arabic romanization item, but the stub it points to was created by the same SPA, and since the article doesn't even explain what it is, it is highly unlikely that anyone is going to look for it. MSJapan (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait for now. The target article is currently at AfD, if it gets deleted then the redirect will get deleted as well. There's no need to discuss it here unless the article is kept. In that case, my opinion is that the redirect should be kept as a spelling variant (q and gh are interchangeable in Farsi). Uanfala (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close per Uanfala; bring it back here if the base article gets kept and you still think it seriously meets one of WP:RFD#DELETE criteria. If the target isn't kept then let WP:CSD#G8 handle it. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 06:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait and see - valid redirect if the target is notable, which I suspect it isn't, but deletion of the redirect would be premature. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:06, 6 June 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.

Equilibrium (systems)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausable redirect. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - ambiguous disambiguator. Could equally refer to many of the topics listed at balance. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think I did Equilibrium (balance) the other day that's still open. Si Trew (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to List of types of equilibrium ("R with possibilities"). This page gives a generic definition for systems, hence it is the best target for this disambiguator for now. Equilibrum is a generic property for the generic concept of "system". The article is badly missing and this page title is good. I stumbled upon the page now while tying to tie up a wide gap in wp's "web of knowlende", creating temporary redirects: transient process, transient system, steady state process, etc. - üser:Altenmann >t 02:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - overly precise. If equilibrium is a generic concept, it's not going to differ in broad terms from one usage to another. Where it's going to differ is in specific applications, and since (apparently) we don't have an article on this, we don't need a redirect. MSJapan (talk) 00:49, 4 June 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.

Conundrum (song)[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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 08:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Common song name. Should either be disambiguated or deleted. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Searching on Spotify for "Conundrum" brings up a few results, but I get it that if they don't have a page they don't matter. Should this get withdrawn or let it play out? Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a Spotify account. Are any of the results you get by notable artists, or on albums listed here? May be good candidates for disambiguation, if so. The Jethro Tull song on a live album doesn't seem all that important, yet here's the redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I understand it's R from song, but this isn't a useful redirect. The only viable target for this is where it is now, but the fact of the matter is that "Conundrum" (the song) is an instrumental track on the B-side of the album. It's not notable in its own right, nor is it talked about in the album article. We can't be having redirects and dabs to every single instance of a potential song title in an album tracklist (per WP:IINFO, IMHO), and just because someone made it and it could go someplace, doesn't mean we have to keep it. MSJapan (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I wasn't able to find any other songs mentioned on Wikipedia named "Conundrum." -- Tavix (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel and Tavix. Although there isn't much information on the song at the target, the tiny bit of information that we do have is located there, and there aren't any other potential targets. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:08, 6 June 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_June_4&oldid=1146663819"