Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 13, 2017.

Alphington A.F.C.[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 Alphington and Teignmouth, delete the others. --BDD (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per rationale #10: the redirects could plausibly be expanded into articles [if they passed WP:GNG], and the target articles contain virtually no information on the subject. These are non-notable football clubs being redirected to league articles which contain no information on those clubs, and will become outdated when these clubs are promoted or relegated. NB: the redirect Vospers Oak Villa F.C. was recently retargeted to another article; whether other editors would like to retarget these redirects somewhere, I don't know. Some might be possible, others not. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bretonbanquet: What about retargeting them to List of football clubs in England? This would avoid it becoming out of date. Jolly Ω Janner 08:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with retargeting them to List of football clubs in England is that they're not on that list, and can't be on it because they play at too low a level. There's no point in directing readers somewhere if that club isn't in the target article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the 'town#sport' article sections as applicable. GiantSnowman 17:36, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to reveal the search engine as there's a couple valid articles these could redirect to and a prospect for an article at these titles. I oppose retargeting to the list as they aren't mentioned there. -- Tavix (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Alphington and Teignmouth as suggested by Thryduulf, delete the others as there is no information on them on Wikipedia. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fort frolic[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 List of characters in the BioShock series. --BDD (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional place barely mentioned in List of characters in the BioShock series and nowhere else that I can find. We don't have any info on it, so it needs to be deleted. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort frolic.) — Gorthian (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Barely mentioned means it is there, it is a simple binary question, is it there or not. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article can be beefed up with this news article in PC Gamer, which states how it is the most memorable level in the game. [1] And here's another interview with the designer in Vice magazine [2] Also mentioned in multiple reviews for other games. [3] [4] [5] [6] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC) updated 18:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 'List of characters in the BioShock series' and that article can be expanded with additional information (as pointed out above). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Military cementery number 398 – Bieńczyce[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. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from implausible typo —S Marshall T/C 20:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note Info has been merged[7] so this should not be deleted per WP:MAD. AIRcorn (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for typo "cementery". If history needs to be preserved, move to correct spelling. Also consider deletion of Military cementery number 398 - Bieńczyce with the - version. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete: it used to be the title of an article for the first half of last year – too long a period and too recent for there to be no likelihood of breaking external links. Also noting that in this context, cementery isn't that implausible as a typo: the Polish word for "cemetery" is cmentarz. – Uanfala (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with an attribution notice. I don't think the entry should be mentioned at List of cemeteries in Poland. It seems like it's only of trivial interest: What's the smallest 'cemetery' in Poland?!? If there's consensus to remove the entry (which I'd be in favor of), there's a WP:MAD work-around that RfD has employed in the past for situations where an article's been merged, the merged content has been removed, and it wouldn't make sense to move the history. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 29#Qantas Flight Numbers for details. -- Tavix (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Israelo-russe[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) 22:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to have this alias in French for a page about Russian Jews in Israel. The original article was a dictionary definition. Largoplazo (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this is speedy deletable under WP:R3, since the language is not pertinent to the topic. --HyperGaruda (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was created as an article and redirected by another user, so R3 would not be within the spirit of the rules. The original article was a one-sentence dictionary definition, which roughly translates as "a person with Israeli and Russian nationality", it doesn't duplicate any existing articles (the closest is probably Israel–Russia relations#Expatriate communities) nor can I find anything at fr.wp (although my French is limited) and there isn't an entry by this name (in either language) in either the English or French Wiktionaries, so it doesn't seem to meet any speedy deletion criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article incarnation would have been speedy deletable under WP:A3. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • A3 explicitly excludes non-English content, and I would not speedy delete it if it were in English as it is a definition of the title not a rephrasing of it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Clarification: A3 notes that content in another language is still content. In this case, yes, A3 wasn't applicable because it would have been inapplicable even if the text had been in English. But being in another language doesn't exempt an article from A3 in cases where A3 would have been valid if the same text had been in English. Largoplazo (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert redirect and transwiki to fr.wiktionary. We certainly don't need an article or redirect at this title, nor would this really help start an article in English (I don't know whether we need one, but I have my doubts), but as a coherent French dictionary definition it seems worthwhile offering to that project for them to do as they wish with it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The definition of "israélo-russe" is not idiomatic and is therefore unlikely to be included in Wiktionary; see Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Idiomaticity. Moreover, israélo-russe (note that the title is even spelled incorrectly) does not only apply to people, as "Personne qui est de nationalité israélienne et russe" conveys, but can indicate anything both Israeli and Russian. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is the criteria for inclusion in the English Wiktionary, who would not want to receive a definition written in French. I am proposing to transwiki this to the French Wiktionary, it may or may not meet their inclusion criteria but we should let the editors there decide that. There is no requirement to accept a transwiki, it's more a request to consider something that was posted to the wrong project. Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whatever the French inclusion criteria may be (I assume they are pretty much the same), the entry as written would still be incorrect spelling- and definition-wise. --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can't comment about the spelling of the entry (but this can be tidied up by a French speaker if necessary), but based on google translate and my limited French the definition is correct. I don't think it is correct for the English Wikipedia to determine whether a dictionary definition of a French term written in French meets or does not meet the inclusion criteria for the French Wiktionary - especially when we don't actually know those criteria are. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. -- Tavix (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Zenti-[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. With a lack of English language sources, the WP:RFOREIGN argument prevails. -- Tavix (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No indication on the target page that this spelling is ever used. PamD 15:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED is an essay misrepresenting WP:R#DELETE by not taking the overriding nature of "note also the exceptions listed below this list" into account. In either case, #8 applies only half-way, as the redirect is not "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name", therefore the "particular" part does not really apply. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the Rcat indicates, Zenti- is an alternative spelling for Centi-, an SI prefix. As this is an international standard some readers will run into the term studying international literature. Therefore, it makes sense to redirect Zenti to Centi, so that users will find the corresponding article, when they enter it into the search box (after all, Wikipedia is an international project). This matches several of the purposes for why we should create redirects as listed in our guideline WP:RPURPOSE:
  • Alternative names
  • Closely related words
  • Alternative spellings or punctuation
  • Likely misspellings (if you take "Zenti" as misspelling rather than spelling variant)
Also, per WP:R#KEEP, "avoid deleting redirects if":
  • They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc.
  • They aid searches on certain terms.
  • Someone finds them useful.
  • The redirect is to a closely related word form.
Since the redirect serves a good purpose in line with our editing guidelines and because it is not in the way of an article about another topic, deleting it is not beneficial to the project in any way, in fact, it would be counter-productive and a waste of precious resources (the time and energy to create it).
If it helps reaching a concensus, I could support adding the Rcat "R unprintworthy", but I can't agree with deleting this.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Matthiaspaul: Please add a sourced statement to Centi- explaining "Zenti-" and any other equivalents in other languages which seem redirect-worthy. This came to my attention when I noticed that the redirect Zenti (no hyphen), which you created in 2015, had been retargetted from Centi- to a new stub for Girolamo Zenti. I probably came across it while stub-sorting him. If that redirect was valuable, then we need a dab page there now (or a "redirect" hatnote one way or the other, if either the man or the abbreviation can be considered to be the Primary Topic). But dab page rules, if not redirect ones, specify that the term has to appear in the page to which the dab entry links. Add it there, sourced, and I'll happily !vote "Keep", and create the Zenti dab page. PamD 17:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This book lists zenti alongside centi. If this is truly prevalent in the field, then that's an argument to keep it.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if explicitly listing the spelling variants in the article wouldn't put undue weight on them, but here are some refs: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14]
Regarding disambiguation, I'm fine with either hatnotes or a disambiguation page.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant delete. This is only a german spelling. A google search finds no hits other than in the German language. Note that this prefix is no different than the german "dezi-" (for deci-), "mikro-" (for micro-) or "piko-" (for pico-). I have never agreed with the position that foreign-word redirects are bad for the project but that is the current consensus and I can't see any way to distinguish this one from the many other foreign redirects that have been deleted. Rossami (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Matthiaspaul. If it's common to find this in reading literature in the relevant field, we should keep this. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This might not be relevant, but I've converted Zenti (the version without the hyphen) into an (admittedly lean) dab page. – Uanfala (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf. The only sources that have come up in this discussion are themselves German, which is hardly surprising. I would not want to see a proliferation of redirects like these in all sorts of languages just because SI is an international standard. That's nowhere near FORRED criteria for me. --BDD (talk) 22:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Organic dye[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 withdrawn. Primefac (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is unnecessary redirection. First, there is no specific section on organic dyes in dye, and second it's just as easy to type organic [[dye]] as [[organic dye]]. Primefac (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • 50+ instances and counting. There should be a section. On my exploration I find 'organic dyes' are the subject of a specific textbook byRudolf Nietzki. if someone can write an entire textbook on them, I'm sure they deserve a little section here. What surprises me here is you'd put effort into deleting a simple redirect (what, are we short of hard drive space or something??) rather than looking for more possibilities. SURELY it is better for wikipedia to be able to give you more specific information. If it was an issue of space, these kind of redirects save space, because they allow a certain block of context to be repeated. Now I wish I made a redlink , instead of a redirect. But people seem to complain more about redlinks, which is why I took to making anchor links instead.Fmadd (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • So in the last hour you've created fifty links to "organic dye" when you could have instead linked to "organic dye". This is the definition of a POINTY response. Primefac (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
organic dyes are clearly a noteworthy subject. I created the link because it intuitively seemed like there should be significance to the concept. Digging around, lo and behold, there was. I really dont understand why this is so controversial. Every term someone enters communicates connotations about what they're looking for.. the more words are grouped, the more specific it gets. SURELY more information is better. This is a software system, not a printed encyclopaedia, the software can use the information given to search Fmadd (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but maybe retarget). "Unnecessary" is explicitly not a valid reason to delete a redirect. Whether or not people could type a link differently is irrelevant. Redirects exist (in part) to catch those instances where they did not. This redirect is harmless and meets none of the recommended criteria for deletion listed at the top of this page.
    Qualifier: I know just enough organic chemistry to believe that we could eventually have a quality article at this title. However, I don't have the expertise to start that article and the fact that we still don't have even a stub after all these years suggests that it would could be a long while still. That argues against redlinking.
    I'll also note that natural dye is not exactly synonymous with "organic dye" but the concepts are similar (and more than a few websites do wrongly use those terms as synonyms). I would have no objection to retargetting until something better can be identified. Rossami (talk) 08:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yeah i thought so. i would have easily confused 'organic' and 'natural' and an anchor allows clarification. I tried to fill out a bit here but I'm not an expert Dye#Organic. Part of the hope of making these redirects is "someone somewhere knows more", and further elaboration can be given. There's entire textbooks on 'organic dyes', I presume like anything else there is immense depth to discover if you look .Fmadd (talk) 11:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current target informs readers (albeit in a very short section) that "[m]any dyes are organic compounds," etc. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is a short and cited section about organic dyes in the target article --Lenticel (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not unusual at all to make a distinction between organic and inorganic (in the chemical sense) dyes. "Organic dye" is a plausible search term, and the content at Dye#Organic is an appropriate target. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I really don't understand why this was proposed for deletion. I think a lot of people would be searching for "Organic dye," and it could also show up within articles. I know the proposer is annoyed with a lot of the Redirects being made, but in this particular case, I think it might be useful. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • BeenAroundAWhile, originally there was no subsection "#Organic dye" and (as stated in the nom) typing "organic [[dye]]" was just as easy. However, both redirect and article have been improved, so I'll withdraw. Primefac (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Submultiple[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. With the term now defined at the target article, though, there's at least been an improvement. --BDD (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is wrong (the word cannot be defined in the target). It is also an orphan. As "submultiple" is used in several articles (all about units of measurement), but never defined, it will be less confusing for the reader to delete the redirect. So, a reader searching for the word would be directed to an article using the word, instead to be sent to nowhere. D.Lazard (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I added a description of the term at the target article. Another option would be to discuss this term at the divisor article, if you think that is more appropriate, since the term "submultiple" and "divisor" are very closely related. In any event, this should not be deleted. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Submultiple". Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Merriam-Webster. 2017. Retrieved February 1, 2017.
  2. ^ "Submultiple". Oxford Living Dictionaries. Oxford University Press. 2017. Retrieved February 1, 2017.
  • Comment: As far as I know, the term "submultiple" is no more in use in mathematics since more than one century. As it has been replaced by "divisor", it could be mentioned in Divisor, in a sentence like "In some old mathematical texts, the word submultiple is used in the sense of divisor." However, the Wikipedia articles that use the term "submultiple" show that the word is still in usage for referring to units of measurement whose names begin by deci, centi, milli, .... This seems not sufficient for a dedicated article, and I do not know where to give the definition of this meaning of "submultiple". Probably in Wiktionary? D.Lazard (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If "submultiple" is simply an archaic word for "divisor," then I think the best solution is to include a sentence (like the one you suggested above) at the divisor article to explain the relationship between the terms. If readers come across the word "submultiple" in an old textbook (see this one, for example), then I think it would be most helpful to our readers to direct them to the article with information about that concept. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final (?) comment: I have edited Divisor for including submultiple. I have also redirected submultiple to this edit (anchor Divisor#submultiple). It appears that the lead of Multiple (mathematics) required some edits (better distinguishing between multiples that are integers and other divisors). After these edits, Multiple (mathematics) becomes a better target for submultiple. So submultiple redirects now to Multiple (mathematics). IMO, this allows closing this discussion. D.Lazard (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

General Belgrano[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 disambiguated by User:Wbm1058. --BDD (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Argentine politician may not necessarily be the primary topic for this term. There are seven matches for "General Belgrano" at the Belgrano disambiguation, and arguably the most renowned in English-speaking contexts is the sunken Argentine warship. This redirect might as well be better suited as redirect to the disambiguation. --Nevé–selbert 11:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Never commented on one of these, so I hope that this is done in the correct context. Historically Manuel Belgrano as one of the founding fathers of Argentina would be the primary topic for this term - and I'm positive members of wikiproject Argentina would agree with me. In a British context, the warship is more likely to be known as a result of the war but I'm not convinced that other English it would have the same significance in other English speaking countries. WCMemail 11:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the disambig. In Britain ARA General Belgrano (C-4) is overwhelmingly the primary topic, but based on We Curry Monster's comment it seems like in Argentina it is the person ship was named after, so I think overall there is no primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the disambig. I just disambiguated two links to ARA General Belgrano (C-4) and one to General Belgrano, Buenos Aires. wbm1058 (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. The seven "General Belgrano's" on the dab page of Belgrano are confusingly interspersed among the rest of the entries, so I'm wondering if it wouldn't be best to create a separate dab page over the redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also support going to the disambiguation page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Neve-selbert, Thryduulf, Wbm1058, Uanfala, and CoffeeWithMarkets: "Retarget to Belgrano" or "Convert General Belgrano into a disambiguation page"? Seems the latter would be preferred since that will avoid WP:PTMs at Belgrano. With that being said, I'm "Convert General Belgrano into a disambiguation page". Steel1943 (talk) 01:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uanfala: Disregard my previous ping since you've already made your opinion clear, and I didn't realize it until after I pinged you. Steel1943 (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, make General Belgrano a new disambiguation page. wbm1058 (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to make a new disambiguation page. My only question is, should The Belgrano redirect to it?--Nevé–selbert 12:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Neve-selbert: I'd say leave The Belgrano as is since "The" is an article and "General" is not. See WP:THE. Steel1943 (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: I'm convinced by Uanfala's arguments in favour of a separate dab page far more than the avoidance of partial title matches, but why I now favour the separate dab is less important than that I do. As for "The" I'd say point it at the General dab as I don't see anything on the main dab that would be plausibly referred to "The Belgrano" that is not a "General Belgrano", but there should be a prominent link back to the main dab page - probable a "redirects here" hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 30 can be closed. Any uninvolved closer who can assess consensus can close this without having to wait 7 days. (See WP:RELIST.)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Upper-atmosphere impact[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) 22:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Originally proposed at AFD by Isambard Kingdom. I have copied the original proposal (and one rebuttal) below. Primefac (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of a bazillion links that Fmadd is inserting into Wikipedia with little necessity. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking around I find many places talk about upper atmosphere asteroid impact/ airburst. Isn't it nice how wikipedia can find highlight/find relationships between things beyond the original article? With bigger articles, isn't it nice to have a more direct contextual link? Don't links increase wikipedias value as a resource, giving the text more context (e.g. value as a tool for training AI, whatever). List_of_meteor_air_bursts [[upper atmosphere airburst] upper atmosphere impact Fmadd (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note While Upper-atmosphere impacts links to a different page, I've added it to this nomination since it's only one letter different. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - can't see any reason for these, they don't seem to be widely used. Flat Out (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - these both have a bit of a "surprise" element to them, in addition to being rather strange targets (I don't see how one can logically get from "upper-atmosphere impacts" to "airbursts"). Primefac (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bicycle rider[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 withdrawn. Primefac (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This just seems like an implausible redirect. Primefac (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean 'implausible'. "bicycle rider" appears many times (i went through and found them), there should be somewhere in wikipedia to point at that describes a "cyclist", or "bicycle rider". Why do 2 terms exist.. any subtle difference in connotations? Fmadd (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fmadd, in edits like this you specifically removed a wikilink and turned it into a redirect. That is absolutely pointless. You've been doing this all over Wikipedia, and frankly it's ridiculous. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EH? Yes, I replaced "[bicycle] [Cycling|riders]" with "[bicycle rider]". That's more compact. The phrase 'bicycle rider' appears so many times (~20) - ( that it deserves a redirect, surely? And even if it DIDN'T exist multiple times, the existence of the redirect would be there for subsequent users to find. whats the problem with redirects??? both the articles bicycle and cycling go on to mention a 'cyclist' pretty quickly; with the redirect we can figure out which is more useful Fmadd (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's just a synonym of Cyclist and Bicyclist; we do not have an article on the topic. I would avoid links to all of these as WP:OVERLINKs to everyday words. We have articles about bicycle, the vehicle, and cycling, the activity and sport, but no article specifically about the people who ride the vehicles or engage in the activity. If you've already linked to bicycle and cycling, then links to these redirects are redundant and should be avoided. wbm1058 (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we add a feature to the platform to de-emphasise 'over links', instead of wasting human time arguing over what should and shouldn't be linked. Fmadd (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plausible search term. There has been somewhat of a push lately amongst road safety advocates to "humanize" cyclists by calling them "bike riders" or "people on bikes" instead. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. See , different terms carry different connotations (@ Primefac) . Thats why I like redirects and links. The point is to explore and discover what you didn't already know , or didn't even know you were looking for Fmadd (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- reason: I made an anchor to the point in the text where it actually says 'cyclist/rider' etc. If a section ever appears in future, it can be sent there. Fmadd (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

1st Presidential Inauguration[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 will take a bit to implement, and I plan to use a Twinkle batch deletion. Please let me know if this causes any errors that will need attention. --BDD (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the list
Discussion[edit]

Delete. This is a blatant failure of WP:WORLDWIDE. It's highly misleading to imply that the United States is the only country to have Presidential inaugurations. Several other countries have Presidents, and those Presidents get inaugurated too. Similar terms like 1st president are red for good reason. It's also important to note that most articles don't even mention what "inauguration number" it is. -- Tavix (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. There are just too many possible targets for these, e.g. "Second presidential inauguration" could refer to the second inauguration of any given president or the inauguration of the second president of any country that has had at least that many presidents. Thryduulf (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: This is interesting. Note the capitalisation, I was not trying to undermine WP:WORLDWIDE at all. The inauguration of Trump was officially billed as the "58th Presidential Inauguration", see here and here (and 58th Inauguration). I just presumed the others were billed as such also.--Nevé–selbert 04:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That just shows that "58th Presidential Inauguration" may be a good search term for the inauguration of Trump, not that it isn't an equally likely search term for the inaugurations of other presidents. Taking another number a random, the 7th, it seems from a quick google that the primary topic for that is the 2013 inauguration of Robert Mugabe as president of Zimbabwe or the 1971 inauguration of Park Chung-hee as president of South Korea. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am involved so this is a procedural relisting only, to allow the 27 January log to be closed. An uninvolved admin may close this at any time
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
List of Presidents of Mexico would disagree with you. -- Tavix (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Champion: Which ones, specifically, do you want to keep or retarget? As you are the only person so far not to make the same recommendation for all of them, talking of a train wreck is rather premature. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have not evaluated all of them yet, but I would not be opposed to a "delete all" for the reasons described above. At least the single digit ones should be deleted, for it may refer to the 1st, 2nd, etc. inauguration of any particular president. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lets maintain a world view please. Flat Out (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Does not have an article[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) 21:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this target Wikipedia:Red link? Steel1943 (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a procedural relisting only, as I am involved, purely to allow the 23 January log page to be closed. An uninvolved admin may close this at any time. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This label is vague as to whether or not we're talking about "a topic that should have an article but doesn't" versus "a topic that shouldn't have an article and we ought to keep things that way". I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

22 Things I Learned This Year[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) 21:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A former article, which copied from this website (archived); read further and then see why. Also, the target article, "Smallville", does not mention the character Chloe Sullivan's journal entry. No other article has mentioned "22 Things..." Either retarget to Chloe Sullivan, which also doesn't mention the journal entry, or delete. George Ho (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this isn't particular to Smallville. Searches indicate this is a list people make in for occasions like turning 22 or life events in general. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

+1.202-456-1111[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) 21:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, and should not per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, not a plausible search term. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There's an entire RCAT dedicated to phone numbers ({{R from phone number}}), so I'd caution against making any blanket statements regarding phone numbers. -- Tavix (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks like many (though not all) of the phone number redirects that are tagged as {{R from phone number}} are phone numbers that are used in some sort of advertising scheme or are phone numbers that are closely associated with a brand name (see, e.g. 1-800-GOT-JUNK → 1-800-GOT-JUNK? and 1-800-CALL-ATT → AT&T). I am hesitant to create precedent where we allow any phone number to become a redirect, as I think that would violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. For those reasons, I am voting to delete these. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep these have been in the recent news, but these are pretty old redirects (created 2007 or 2011) that might be worth salting. It doesn't matter if they are in use or not if they have been historically connected to the white house. There are books that cover the history of appliances and stuff installed in the White House, like the first phone number being "1", the first flush toilet, and first refrigerator [15] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • AngusWOOF, did you mean to vote "keep" here? You said these might be worth salting, so I just want to make sure. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, keep for now. Salt only if they have been abused. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only reason I can think of for having phone numbers as Wikipedia articles are in examples such as "1-800-GOT-JUNK?" and other businesses that use phone numbers as their names. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of United States First Ladies by Longevity[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) 20:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Target does not contain such a list. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 07:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the list does contain the age at present/death of first ladies but not in a manner that can be sorted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the list were sortable by the length of their life spans, then I would vote to keep, but that isn't the case. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as potentially confusing redirect --Lenticel (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Politics of Taiwan[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) 21:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination might risk a rehash of Taiwan vs. Republic of China. However, past discussions at Talk:Politics of the Republic of China, especially the failed recent RM that I created, prove how messy the political topic is. In 2005, the move request resulted in "no consensus" to change from "Politics of Taiwan" to "Politics of the Republic of China". However, the article was renamed without discussion, and the article changed over the years. Also, the Politics of RoC article has maintenance issues. Nevertheless, the recent RM says not to rename back to "Politics of Taiwan". Maintenance issues aside, majority says that the article should be always about the de facto government, Republic of China, which originally started as the mainland Chinese government. Rather than re-propose the same thing, I instead propose that the redirect be retargeted to History of Taiwan. That "History of" page has details about politics inside the Taiwan island and political and regime changes of the island. Some might say that the island has "no politics". However, the island has history, especially of politics, and the proposal is something that I can come up with. I know the proposal seems ridiculous, but I believe this would work okay. George Ho (talk) 07:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, what about retargeting to Political status of Taiwan? George Ho (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • retarget to History of Taiwan at least until a new article is created in its place. There is political history of Taiwan that is unrelated to the ROC.--Prisencolin (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added two more, Prisencolin. George Ho (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Issue here is with the target article's name. Start a RM if you disagree with where the target article should be. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Patar knight, I did the RM in December 2016. The consensus opposed changing the target's name back to "Politics of Taiwan". George Ho (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Anyone searching for any of those three terms will almost always be looking for the information contained on Politics of the Republic of China. This proposal is ridiculous: it is a clear disservice to any interested readers who would be looking for information on politics and instead find themselves in a general history article. It would not "work okay". CMD (talk) 07:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Opinion I have not studied the issue so I have not opinion but I am grateful for the notice. Geraldshields11 (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "redirecting to 'History of Taiwan'" is not good choice, how about converting to a set index article? Would that do? George Ho (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC) (As nominator) 22:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I made the draft in the sandbox for the proposed SIA. George Ho (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC) (As nominator) 22:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The redirect clearly takes people to exactly the information they are looking for. RfD is not an end run around RM so we should not move the article based on this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Http en.wikipedia.org w index.php search gazi paita[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, obviously. (Shouldn't even have made it to RFD. Likely, should have been IAR deleted/speedied.) —Tom Morris (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect from page move. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Exceedingly implausible. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Astonishingly the article was created at this bizarre title (the URL of the search results for gazi paita but with the slashes replaced by space) but it was moved 5 minutes later. As usual the pageviews API can't cope with this long a title, but it's exceedingly unlikely to get used. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. probably created by mistake. --Lenticel (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nigerian prince[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6#Nigerian prince

Violent Talent[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) 21:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Another film that is still in development. If the film ever progresses to production, then an article can be created. Until then, this title should be red. -- Tavix (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Age of Reptiles (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. --BDD (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misleading. The target is a comic, not a film. -- Tavix (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't find any evidence that a film by this title exists or is planned. IMDB reports that there is a 1960 short film The Age of Reptiles but it doesn't appear to be notable. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 07:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Harker (2014 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. --BDD (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More WP:CRYSTAL redirects for a film that is still in development according to IMDb. -- Tavix (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

KellyAnne Fitzgerald[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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous surname. Not even a former surname, so this possibly a WP:BLP issue. Steel1943 (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK with me to delete - I created a whole bunch of redirects for alternate iterations of the name of Kellyanne Conway, whose maiden name was Fitzpatrick. Not sure what I was thinking when I did Fitzgerald. KConWiki (talk) 02:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

WIKI/KCAfricanAmericanArtists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 22#WIKI/KCAfricanAmericanArtists

Additional Economical Information and Dates of Empire of Japan[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) 21:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like the many "other"/"additional" redirects have have been nominated in recent days, there is no need for the "additional economic information" qualifier. Notecardforfree (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is a very old redirect from a move (2005) and so probably the only record of the move that exists. The redirect is harmless and so there is no reason not to preserve the editing history in situ. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2017_February_13&oldid=1090658887"