Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 28: Difference between revisions

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 575: Line 575:
*After this settles, I think I'm going to move [[List of premodern combat weapons]] to [[List of premodern weapons]]. Does "combat" add anything? --[[User:BDD|BDD]] ([[User talk:BDD|talk]]) 16:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
*After this settles, I think I'm going to move [[List of premodern combat weapons]] to [[List of premodern weapons]]. Does "combat" add anything? --[[User:BDD|BDD]] ([[User talk:BDD|talk]]) 16:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
**{{reply to|BDD}} I think a move would be reasonable. The only thing I can think of is maybe it's meant to distinguish between weapons used for fighting other groups of people (i.e. one of the meanings of combat) from those used for [[hunting weapon|hunting]] (when they don't overlap) or other purposes (e.g. [[:Category:Ritual weapons|ritual weapons]], [[ceremonial weapons]], or a [[yubitsume|yubitsume knife]]). <small>—&nbsp;[[User:Godsy|<span style="color:MediumSpringGreen;">Godsy</span>]]<sup>&nbsp;([[User_talk:Godsy|TALK]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Godsy|<span style="color:Goldenrod;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 05:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
**{{reply to|BDD}} I think a move would be reasonable. The only thing I can think of is maybe it's meant to distinguish between weapons used for fighting other groups of people (i.e. one of the meanings of combat) from those used for [[hunting weapon|hunting]] (when they don't overlap) or other purposes (e.g. [[:Category:Ritual weapons|ritual weapons]], [[ceremonial weapons]], or a [[yubitsume|yubitsume knife]]). <small>—&nbsp;[[User:Godsy|<span style="color:MediumSpringGreen;">Godsy</span>]]<sup>&nbsp;([[User_talk:Godsy|TALK]]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">[[Special:Contributions/Godsy|<span style="color:Goldenrod;">CONT</span>]])</sub></small> 05:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

*Throwing up some ideas.
:Blade(d) weapons are swords, knives and bayonets but not all swords, knives and bayonets are bladed.
:Not all blades are weapons. Not all blades are swords, knives and bayonets.
:Not all edged weapons are blades. Edged weapons are a larger set that includes axes, poleaxes and other edged weapons.
:Sythes etc are tools that are bladed and/or edged, that have been used as improvised as weapons.
:Not all bladed or edged weapons are premodern. Bayonets knives and machetes persist in the modern era as do other edged weapons (some improvised) particularly but not limited to trench warfare.
:A redirect to premodern weapons is not specific since many are not bladed or edged. It may be better to link to specific headings within the list.
:
:I suggest a short article [[Edged and bladed weapons]] with redirects from "Edged weapons" and "Blade(d) weapons". The article would essentially be a disambiguation page, although, I suggest it might be more appropriate for it to be written as a prose article (with multiple links) along the lines of the ideas I have identified, rather than as the more usual format for a disambiguation page.
:
:For consideration [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 08:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


====Rough sex====
====Rough sex====

Revision as of 08:45, 8 April 2017

March 28

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 28, 2017.

M. Johnson

Poor title, two incoming mainspace links are for two different people, neither of whom is or was a ballet dancer in New York or anywhere. DuncanHill (talk) 20:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sharp

Too generic of a name to make a useful redirect. Not mentioned at target, so causes confusion when linked to or searched. ansh666 18:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a very recent news article about a UN worker named Michael Sharp who died in the Congo. [1] [2] So that will attract all the recent searches, but whether the worker meets WP:BLP1E is still to be determined. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperexcitability

Deletion – "Hyperexcitability" is a very poor synonym for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Moreover, all the incoming links to the hyperexcitability page are about either neuronal excitability or muscle excitability, and neither of these are relevant to ADHD. The only options that I can think of which address one or more of these problems are to delete all of the incoming links to the page, create a DAB page (this also necessitates deleting all the incoming links), or deleting the bad redirect. Deleting the redirect is the only option that addresses both problems. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excitability is mentioned in Muscle contraction and Neuron, but neither article talks about hyperexcitabiity. There is already a dab for Excitation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recycle a laptop

the rest of the list
Discussion

This is a list of 219 redirects created by John J. Bulten to Computer recycling, in what appears to be every permutation he could think of. Similar to the Neelix situation, I consider these to be obscure forms of the article title. -- Tavix (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing admin: I've included a raw list on the talk page. This should make the closure very simple with Twinkle's d-batch tool once the redirect(s) that will be kept are removed. -- Tavix (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep some just the most likely used phrases recycle/recycled/recycling laptop/laptops/computer/computers. Keep laptop recycling. That's about it. Remove all the weird proper noun (capitalized) phrases and hyphens as nothing pertains to those versions. Computers don't have to be old to be recycled. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iiga

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 International Island Games Association. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo with no incoming links and the term is not found on target article. Senator2029 “Talk” 13:34, 28 March 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.

National Airport

Is this suitable as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT? There are many airports named National Airport. Should this be converted into a disambiguation page? feminist 07:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think Set index is better than a disambiguation page, but I agree with you that the airport in Washington DC is not the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 08:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have previously worked on Draft:National Airport, which may be a good place to start from. I stopped pursuing that because of the large number of airports named "National Airport". feminist 14:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There may be dozens or hundreds of airports with "National Airport" as part of their name, but as far as I know, only one airport is referred to simply as "National Airport", and that is Washington National. Add a hatnote to the top of that article that "National Airport" redirects there and to see a disambiguation page for a list of national airports. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looking more closely at the google results, it seems that the airport serving Washington DC is the primary topic. The set index/dab should be hatnoted from the target though as there are others that are referred to in this manner. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hemanshu/sandbox239

Redirect to a non-existent target, seemingly invalid target. Nothing besides this in the page history. User has not edited since 2015. G8 doesn't apply to pages in the userspace. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It shows up on User:R'n'B/Redirects and User:Godsy/R to special. -- Tavix (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personal user lists like that do not carry much weight in my opinion, and certainly not enough to justify deletion, as anyone may create any list with any (or no) criteria. Certainly for Godsy's list simply excluding userspace will resolve most of the list. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Red plains texas

Delete, connection is unclear, along with incorrect capitalization. -- Tavix (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I oppose a retarget to Osage Plains. -- Tavix (talk) 18:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Osage Plains or delete. Some Web searches have convinced me that "Red Plains" is sometimes used as an alternate name of the "Rolling Plains", which in turn are that portion of the Osage that extends into Texas. That makes this a barely plausible search term. However, the region is barely discussed at the target, and the more plausible Red Plains and Rolling Plains are both redlinked, so it may be better not to get readers' hopes up. In any case, the current target makes no sense. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Osage Plains as used in books discussing the rolling red plains [3] and this one which says Rolling Plains is the same as Red Plains and lists the counties affected. [4] and this article [5] which quotes "The Rolling Plains include 21.7 million acres east of the High Plains in northwestern Texas. The area lies west of the North Central Prairies and extends from the edge of the Edwards Plateau in Tom Green County northward into Oklahoma. The landscape is nearly level to strongly rolling, and surface drainage is moderate to rapid. Outcrops of red beds, geologic materials, and associated reddish soils have led some scientists to use the name “Red Plains.” Limestone underlies the soils in the southeastern part. The eastern part contains large areas of badlands." It doesn't make sense to point to a highway system unless the highway is named as such. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 05:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black English

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. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the page history for a sense of what's going on here. I propose restoring the article (something like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_English&oldid=763629814 this version) or making a tighter disambiguation page. Redirecting to AAVE seems like a massive WP:WORLDWIDE fail. If nothing else, Black British are overwhelmingly English. BDD (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. An appealing idea, but I'm now too sleepy to think straight. (For one thing, I don't understand "Black British are overwhelmingly English" in this context.) I'd be interested in Aeusoes1's opinion. -- Hoary (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand "Black British are overwhelmingly English" See the infobox at Black British. By my calculation, 97% of Black British are from England, making them "Black English". -- Tavix (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect As shown by the diff linked to in the nomination, the article was nothing but a completely unreferenced, highly indiscriminate list of dialects - not all of which are spoken (primarily, or at all) by any ethnic grouping traced from an African diaspora. To restore the article to the state that the nominator suggests would require proof that the term meets the General Notability Guideline and the sources just aren't out there. While I agree that the title of the target is not ideal, that doesn't make the redirect any less valid. If anything, a RfC could be opened to discuss the target's title but the redirect itself should remain a redirect. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect. I've never seen "Black English" refer to anything other than the speech of African Americans in the United States. If the nominator feels that they can produce a quality article that is referentially distinct from the AAVE article we have, I suggest creating a draft in their user space. What exists in the history is not worthwhile for the project, IMHO. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate to include the linguistic usages and Black British, at the very least. -- Tavix (talk) 20:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a highly implausible usage of the term - can you provide a single instance in a reliable source of this usage? I only ask because I'm in the United Kingdom and I've never encountered the term used as a demographic descriptor. That'd be a prime target for a Deletion Discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be a prime target for a Deletion Discussion. What, Black British? You think that should be deleted? -- Tavix (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not, I'm referring to the use of "Black English" as some kind of demographic identifying term. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with "being a prime target for a deletion discussion"? -- Tavix (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, is "Black English" used as a descriptive demographic term in any reliable source? It's a straightforward question. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's an unrelated question than the one I asked. However, to address this question, see below where I address another part of your argument and my reply to Hoary for more info. -- Tavix (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For your "I've never heard of it" argument, see English people#Current national and political identity for an answer why you specifically might not have heard it. The relevant sentence is Today, black and minority ethnic people of England still generally identify as British rather than English to a greater extent than their white counterparts; however, groups such as The Campaign for an English Parliament (CEP) suggest the emergence of a broader civic and multi-ethnic English nationhood. It's all sourced. Enjoy. -- Tavix (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of "Black English" there. Never mind. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a discussion of Black people of England, which would be Black English. The logic is no different than the (slightly wider) Black British, or (significantly smaller) Black Scottish. -- Tavix (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions. I'm open to the idea of resurrecting this as a disambiguation page. Let's look at this earlier version, as has been suggested. Of all that are listed here, I think that AAVE and Black British English are at times called "Black English". What about the others? I'm very willing to be persuaded that the term is used more widely than I realize, but is it? (To pick an example at random, is Saint Kitts Creole called "Black English"?) Meanwhile, Tavix seems to be saying that "Black English" would be a reasonable sort of term for Black English people. It would indeed, but are they so called, to a significant extent? -- Hoary (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've found no sources that use "Black English" as a term to describe black people born/living in/from England. Redirects are cheap, but disambiguation pages aren't redirects - if the term doesn't meet the GNG then there's no justification for the creation of the disambiguation - basically, there's a risk of creating a disambiguation based purely on the opinions of editors - original research. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the abstract, "Black English" may have more than one meaning, but in the real world it appears to have only one. Without some sources, reliable or not, that indicate real-world usage of the phrase with any other meaning, I don't see any reason to change the redirect. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Datum. Tom McArthur ("T.MCA.") provides an entry for "black English" in The Oxford Companion to the English Language (ed Tom McArthur, OUP, 1992): "BLACK ENGLISH [Late 20C]. A controversial term for the English of people of African origin or for English in Black Africa. In the US, the term generally refers to the vernaculars of descendants of slaves, some called dialects, some creoles. In the UK, the term generally refers to the usage of West Indian immigrant communities. . . ." (No, he doesn't say who uses the term, or where it's used, or what the controversy is.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit unclear at the end there. Does it say it's used to describe a demographic of people? Exemplo347 (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear. I can guess, but that's all I can do, so I won't. Certainly McArthur doesn't explain. (Incidentally, he also has an entry for "White English". He doesn't call this controversial; but I'd guess that the only reason he has an entry for it is that he was surprised or amused when he noticed a single [jokey?] use of it by a movie critic, which he reproduces.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:02, 28 March 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.

Blade weapon

These should point to the same place. Is there a more appropriate target that describes bladed weapons in general? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Blade#Uses.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some modern weapons are bladed, such as a bayonets or ballistic knives. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need a consensus on where to redirect these.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throwing up some ideas.
Blade(d) weapons are swords, knives and bayonets but not all swords, knives and bayonets are bladed.
Not all blades are weapons. Not all blades are swords, knives and bayonets.
Not all edged weapons are blades. Edged weapons are a larger set that includes axes, poleaxes and other edged weapons.
Sythes etc are tools that are bladed and/or edged, that have been used as improvised as weapons.
Not all bladed or edged weapons are premodern. Bayonets knives and machetes persist in the modern era as do other edged weapons (some improvised) particularly but not limited to trench warfare.
A redirect to premodern weapons is not specific since many are not bladed or edged. It may be better to link to specific headings within the list.
I suggest a short article Edged and bladed weapons with redirects from "Edged weapons" and "Blade(d) weapons". The article would essentially be a disambiguation page, although, I suggest it might be more appropriate for it to be written as a prose article (with multiple links) along the lines of the ideas I have identified, rather than as the more usual format for a disambiguation page.
For consideration Cinderella157 (talk) 08:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rough sex

Ungentle intercourse isn't synonymous with BDSM. The redirect has some history that is quite old.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you suggest the term redirect to? There is barely any decent scholarly content on the topic...under that specific name. And when quality sources do discuss rough sex (meaning by using the term rough sex), they usually do discuss it in the context of BDSM. It can refer to different types of sexual activity (not just intercourse). The term could redirect to a section in the Human sexual activity article, if reliable sources are gathered for it, but mention of BDSM would still be in that section. I'll post a note about this discussion at Talk:BDSM. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This probably shouldn't be deleted, but I don't know exactly where it should point at the moment. I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality inviting comment, so hopefully that and Flyer22's note will bring some ideas. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The term is rather vague. I don't know that such an article could consist of much more than a dictionary definition; unless the term has a notable usage, it isn't different than other adjective preceding "sex", e.g. gentle sex, fast sex, or pleasant sex.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to sex as the general topic. I'm not supportive of the status quo as the terms aren't synonymous. I think there's less likelihood of astonishment by a redirect to sex over BDSM. I don't buy the "expand into an article" idea. I'd be surprised if there's enough coverage for an article here, and perhaps having the redirect would discourage one from being created. -- Tavix (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shon pan

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) 16:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this spelling is too implausible to be considered helpful. Stats are negligible. -- Tavix (talk) 00:57, 28 March 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.

Grease witherspoon

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 14:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this could be seen as a WP:BLP violation. -- Tavix (talk) 00:53, 28 March 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.

Little Boy (2013 film)

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 14:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and misleading redirect since the film was not released in 2013, nor does the article make any mention of the year. -- Tavix (talk) 00:42, 28 March 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.

Our Kind of Traitor (2014 film)

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) 16:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to IMDb, there are no 2014 films by this name. -- Tavix (talk) 00:34, 28 March 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.

USSR Virus

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) 00:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable, not a single reference to russia or USSR within the article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CoffeeWithMarkets: I could see it being retargeted, although it does seem like a bit of an unlikely search, its borderline. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:04, 28 March 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.

Ford Library

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 disambiguate. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, should this be retargeted to Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library instead? I'm wondering if it is ambiguous. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: The Ford Library is now mentioned at Fuqua School of Business. -- Tavix (talk) 21:26, 6 April 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_March_28&oldid=774414130"