Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 30, 2021.

Sussy (meme)[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) Qwerfjkltalk 12:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted this close first because it was an inappropriate early close (per WP:SK) and then a second time as an inappropriate non-admin re-close, but have re-closed it myself per WP:SNOW. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 13:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable redirect. Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 22:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Mentioned in the article, could help people who want to know the origin of the meme. Whether it's "non-notable" should be worked out at the article itself, not here. We can revisit this if it ultimately is removed from the article. Mlb96 (talk) 22:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mentioned in the target, gets a significant number of pageviews, and the nomination statement makes no sense - the concept of notability does not apply to redirects. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect, sussy has worked its way into everyday language for people my age, so keeping it as a redirect to among us for its continued popularity and cultural significance only makes sense. -GoatLordServant ☂ (Talk - Contribs) 12:17, 3 September 2021 (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.

Motle[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. MBisanz talk 19:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that this is a plausible misspelling of Motel, a google search suggests to me that this should probably be targeting Mottle. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2021 (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.

Hafter[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. [(non-admin closure) Disambiguated by IP.] BilledMammal (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a surname of Khalifa Haftar and a Playboy model that does not have her own article. Neither one is exceedingly well-known as Haftar. Delete as confusing. MB 18:14, 30 August 2021 (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.

Hivemind (Game show)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 6#Hivemind (Game show)

Think Mark, Think[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. MBisanz talk 19:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target, delete unless a justification can be provided. signed, Rosguill talk 17:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: Added info on the "Think Mark" meme at Invincible (TV series)#Popular culture section. GoingBatty (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2021 (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.

Pre-Colombian Africa[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. signed, Rosguill talk 03:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

a) "Pre-Columbian" is misspelled. b) "Pre-Columbian" only applies to the New World. c) Google search only finds 18 instances of this misspelling/solecism. Macrakis (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - while "Pre-Colombian" is a plausible misspelling for "Pre-Columbian" (Columbus' Italian name was Cristoforo Colombo) there is not a demarcation in African history for his arrival as there is in the Americas. Europeans had been trading African slaves for a couple centuries before Columbus got involved, and so Columbus' involvement in that trade in the 15th century was not a significant development in that continent's history. We separate American history before Columbus from American history after Columbus because his arrival began a cataclysm which killed off (by some estimates) 90% of the Indigenous population within a few decades, and is probably one of the most singly genocidal events to have happened in human history, notwithstanding the deliberately violent atrocities some Europeans carried out against Indigenous Americans in the centuries since. It's also nonsense that this title redirects to a section on African prehistory, which refers to the evolution of modern humans several hundred thousand years before Columbus' time. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 18:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading per Ivan. Once we are done with this, we need to list (the correctly spelt) Pre-Columbian Africa as well. Not bundling it here as a) and c) in the nomination are about the misspelling, unless Macrakis wants to reword the nomination and include this. Jay (Talk) 16:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete that one too, per my rationale above. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 17:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Pre-Columbian Africa should be deleted. It seem to be intended to mean "pre-Columbian contact between Africa and the Americas", but would anyone actually enter that term? Even if they did, the typeahead result for Pre-Columbian Africa-Americas contact theories comes up. --Macrakis (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Bundled, as this is no longer about a misspelling. Jay (Talk) 18:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories, which is a thing I didn't know was a thing, but these titles are clearly suitable to refer to that. That article explains many different theories on human contact and migration from Africa to the Americas prior to Columbus' popularly-described "first contact", and includes links to more detail on some of the more prominent theories. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the large number of redirects to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories, of which 3 have the word African and one has the word Africa-Americas, all 4 of them are indicative of the new world, whereas Pre-Columbian Africa would still be meaningless and misleading. Jay (Talk) 16:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only way this would make sense to me would be in the context of the Columbian exchange and its effects on Africa. For example, pre-Columbian Africa would be cultivating sorghum and millet instead of maize and cassava. To that effect, I would oppose Ivanvector's suggested retarget. -- Tavix (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could see scholars starting to use this term in the context Tavix describes, or maybe in a particularly in-depth exploration of what Ivanvector discusses. Absent such scholarly usage, or even notable non-scholarly usage, though, it seems misleading to maintain redirects along these lines. Thus delete both. (I'll note that I see the typo as a non-issue, though. In high school I attented a world-affairs trivia contest where the organizers, who worked for a foreign policy magazine, managed to misspell Colombia three years in a row.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:24, 2 September 2021 (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.

EMD SD35形ディーゼル機関車[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. ✗plicit 12:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is from a Japanese related phrase to an article that has nothing to do with Japan Qwerfjkltalk 12:20, 30 August 2021 (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.

Morlach army[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. MBisanz talk 19:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article this redirect goes to is about a military group of the army of the Republic of Venice composed by ethnic Morlachs. It isn't about the army of a Morlach country or a particularly Morlach independent military group, no, so calling it "Morlach army" is excessive, as if the Morlachs had never participated in another army that wasn't this one. To give some context, the Morlachs were an Eastern Romance people, related to the Romanians you could say (perhaps the same people as the Istro-Romanians). By the way, "Morlach army" gives 0 results in Google Scholar and all its results in Google are to Wikipedia mirror sites. Super Ψ Dro 11:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: I'm not going to !vote because I have no experience with this, but I wonder: does this not fall under the 'reason for not deleting' listed at WP:RFD#KEEP redirecting a misnomer to a correct term? People who are not familiar with the subject or have only basic English might type in Morlach army and still arrive at the right place that will properly explain what this irregular military group was about? ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 16:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But this redirect may make an assumption to readers that this is the one and only Morlach army ever to have existed, when there could have been other groups that could have fallen under the name "Morlach army". Super Ψ Dro 12:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we assume for the sake of the argument that "Morlach army" is a proper designation for the Venetian irregulars... We should definitely have either a redirect to the Venetian troops if they are the only plausible target with a Wikipedia page, and a disambiguation page if there are multiple of them. That would therefore not be a good argument for deleting the redirect.
This being said, the nomination argument makes me lean delete. I feel that if we need to keep the redirect, Morlachs#History would be a better target; but "X army → X history" really looks like a poor idea for a redirect. TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 15:48, 31 August 2021 (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.

Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastes Paracelsus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 6#Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastes Paracelsus

WeatherTech[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 procedural close. Waddles has turned this into an article, with a clear consensus behind him. (non-admin closure) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WeatherTech is a company that makes automotive accessories. It does not make sense for its page to redirect to the page for the IMSA SportsCar Championship, a racing series WeatherTech happens to sponsor - it is confusing and unintuitive. You would not redirect the page for Xfinity to the NASCAR Xfinity Series, and the same principle applies here. Derache123 (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. WeatherTech is a private company with no parent. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget or create an article - I expect there's enough coverage for a stand-alone article; they did run ads on the broadcast of the last Super Bowl. If not, perhaps the CEO David MacNeil is notable. It is kind of silly that his son Cooper MacNeil has an article because he is a race-car driver sponsored by WeatherTech. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or create article - Keep or create article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now that we have an article at the title. Thanks to WaddlesJP13 for getting it started. - Eureka Lott 20:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can create an article for WeatherTech. It's a very notable company, I've heard of it thousands of times, and I didn't know that it did not have an article on Wikipedia. I'm positive there's many reliable sources that could be sued to create one. Waddles 🗩 🖉 18:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: I've drafted a short article at WeatherTech. I plan to add more content and references, but anyone can feel free to help contribute if they want. Waddles 🗩 🖉
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.

DigiBlast[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 6#DigiBlast

Wikipedia:FH[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. signed, Rosguill talk 06:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One final nomination, I don't believe this project page, that contains details about Wikipedia workshops at Fordham University that occurred several years ago, warrants a redirect. I doubt that any reader will be looking for this internal information page or use a redirect to locate it. Not every page needs a redirect especially in project space. There is a similar situation with Wikipedia:KTW. Liz Read! Talk! 04:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not including the shortcut and links related to this RfD the target page has a total of 3 incoming links. A page with so few links does not require a shortcut redirect. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the creator of the redirect, I personally hope to found the shortcut to other positions. You can try to search for it and if you found a better target, you can let this shortcut redirect to there.--Here's 28 and did I make a mess? 13:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - absent any indication that this would be better off as a shortcut to a different target, it's harmless and there's no pressing need to delete it. If there is a more suitable target, anyone can retarget it there. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Q28[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 deleted per criterion WP:G7 by GB fan. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Individual editors don't need redirects from project space to their user account page. Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a useful redirect. The chance of someone confusing Wikipedia space with user space is miniscule, and this editors username is potentially confused with wikidata properties. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:MZ[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. signed, Rosguill talk 06:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This WikiProject has an existing abbreviation (WP:MOZ) and doesn't really need another. Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't think to make this a multiple deletion request but similar situation exists for Wikipedia:KG, Wikipedia:KH and other WikiProjects. And this editor recently created 11 separate redirects for one section of Wikipedia:Redirect. Sorry for the untidiness of these proposals. Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's harmless. Shouldn't have been created, but bringing it to RfD makes hassle out of something that doesn't deserve it. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 23:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J947. Ivanvector's squirrel (trees/nuts) 15:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:KI[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. signed, Rosguill talk 06:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to Equatorial Guinea, this redirect was created and then added to the WIkiProject as an abbreviation. I think this is unnecessary for little visited WikiProjects like this one. Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:GQ[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 6#Wikipedia:GQ

List of product failures[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. signed, Rosguill talk 06:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No list at the target. Was merged in 2003 into an article which would eventually be renamed to List of miscellaneous commercial failures, and then deleted by AfD in 2007. This redirect survived because a bot corrected a double-redirect to Flop, and then Deathphoenix (talk · contribs) changed the target to its current location. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:15, 30 August 2021 (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.

Pearl shell[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 Nacre. czar 13:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if this redirect needs to retargeted to either Nacre or the Pearling DAB page. There seems to be quite a lot of confusion on the pages referring to pearling too (harvesting pearls vs shells), so I am going to try to have a look at that too. But this target seems a bit specific for "Pearl shell" (also redirected as one word). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Webster's defines pearl shell as a nacreous or pearl-bearing shell : PEARL OYSTER. Since a number of kinds of bivalve can create pearls (including the current target), I say retarget to Bivalve shell, which discusses the formation of pearls. A hatnote can be added there pointing to nacre. We'd lose any link to the current target in the process, but I'm not sure that's actually a problem. If it is, a more complex hatnote can be devised, I suppose; or a link there can be added to the body of the article. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both, agree Margaritiferidae is too specific. Per the dict def quoted above, a pearl shell is a pearl-producing shell (pearl oyster). Bivalve shell mentions mother of pearl, the material from which pearls are formed. But it doesn't talk about pearls at all. I suggest Pearl#creation is better since it is about pearls and discusses their formation in the shell. Also note that pearl oyster is a redirect to a saltwater genus, but that is too specific also for pearl shell. MB 00:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist, since there seems to be consensus that the current target is not appropriate, but there's no consensus on what to do with this. Is Bivalve shell or Pearl#Creation preferable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hog Farm Talk 02:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with Pearl#Creation is that it says "Pearls are formed inside the shell of certain mollusks...", implying the round form. I would prefer the target to be nacre, which is the pearly substance, or (probably better) the DAB page Pearling. In nearly all of the articles I have used referring to pearling or pearl shell, I've had to dig further to find the most appropriate link. The articles I've worked on relate to obtaining or trading in pearl shells and pearls, mostly northern Australia and Torres Strait Islands. Pearl hunting (which perhaps should be moved to Pearling, as a better title?) refers to both the round pearls and pearl shell, as does Pearling in Western Australia. A quick google, and the abalone and nacre articles, suggest that it's not only bivalve shells that have nacre that is used for decorative purposes. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pearl § Creation per MB. Both nacre and mother-of-pearl are mentioned at the start of that section. I did not understand the nom's concern with implying the round form. Jay (Talk) 16:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jay The problem with that target is that it is all about the round objects that are commonly known as pearls, which are formed inside a sac within the creature within the shell (usually oysters or mussels). Pearl shell refers to the type of shell which has a pearly finish inside (also formed by/with the same substance, nacre/mother-of-pearl), which can be made into all kinds of decorative objects, having a curved but flattish shape. Pearling and pearl hunting articles refer to the harvesting of and trading in both of these, which is what leads to the confusion in linking. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So what I get is: the iridescent shell is sought after even though it may or may not have a rounded pearl inside. If Mother of pearl (which redirects to nacre) is what Pearl shell refers to in the pearling industry, and meant for human consumption, then Retarget to nacre. Biologically, Pearl § Creation gives information about the pearl's shell, and I assume the reader wouldn't need a disambig page or hatnote to go to the Pearl page to know more about the shell. Keep Pearlshell (without the space) as in Wikipedia at least, I see the term refer to only the organism. Jay (Talk) 07:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Nacre. This seems the most likely subject being sought by a reader using the terms. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of highways numbered 28-29 Link[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. signed, Rosguill talk 06:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect, their cannot be a list of highways with this name if only one has had this name so far. Hog Farm Talk 02:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of highways numbered S1A[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. signed, Rosguill talk 06:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As there appears to only have been one highway named S1A that I can find evidence, this redirect is useless, as there cannot be a list. Hog Farm Talk 02:07, 30 August 2021 (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/2021_August_30&oldid=1046003790"