Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 16 September 18 >

September 17[edit]

Luxembourg (city)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename, revisit if the main article is renamed. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
rationale: Per main article about city, Luxembourg City. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – the article was renamed in 2015 so the category should follow suit. Oculi (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This is an appropriate translation of the French and German terms used. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the Dublin precedent. It is used to disambiguate from Category:Luxembourg (canton) and from Category:Luxembourg District. The criteria for an article using WP:common to get away from a tricky disambiguation issue does not necessarily arise in the case of categories. They are primarily there to assist navigation. A greater degree of precision is therefore necessary. The current name suggests that similar entities of the same name exist, which is indeed the case. It would be a pity to camouflage this reality by renaming as proposed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fail to see the connection with Dublin. In the case of Dublin, the issue is whether or not to disambiguate; in the case here, the issue is how to disambiguate. I say we disambiguate the same way as the article - and the same way as we do (currently) with New York/New York City and their categoiries. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you will be aware from the Sao Paulo discussion a few days back, the Dublin precedent is a very real and live precendent. It disambiguates Category:Dublin (city) from Category:County Dublin. The same is true for the cities/counties of Waterford, Limerick and Galway. The analogy with Luxembourg and its many administrative divisions of the same name seems pretty obvious to me. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The precedent cited refers to the names of categories, not of articles. That's why the precedent is good. BTW, Dublin City is a disambiguation page, which by all rights, the Luxembourg page should also be. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Laurel Lodged: I don't think you understand my point. We work from a basic premise that whenever feasible, category names should be the same as article names. Any divergence from this principle is typically because some users regard article names to be "too ambiguous". So "Dublin (city)" is used for the category name because the article name is the undisambiguated and thus ambiguous "Dublin". But in this case, the article name is completely unambiguous: "Luxembourg City". Why then would we need to adopt a precedent from a situation for which an entirely different consideration applies? Easy answer: we don't need to. Here, the usual procedure of matching the category name to the article name does not result in ambiguity, so there is no need to adopt the parenthetical which is added to resolve an ambiguous name. To apply a "precedent" in this way, you need to have a similar situation vis-a-vis the ambiguity of the adopted article name. Here, the situations are entirely different: one article name is ambiguous, and one is not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Good Olfactory: I understand the point but I disagree with it. The proposal would not have energed had the article name not been changed. It now has a Wiki name that has no basis in reality. Nobody uses the term "Luxembourg City". So then, we are presented with an essentially false proposal. Had the article not been renamed, there would have been no need for this proposal. It's quite clear that the current name of the category is superior to the current name of the article. So this proposal should be rejected followed by a swift renaming proposal for the article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Laurel Lodged: Where are users getting this idea that the name has no basis in reality? As noted below, when I do a google search of "Luxembourg City" and omit the Wikipedia hits, I get over 1.2m hits. The name is used extensively by the English-language edition of Luxemburger Wort, a newspaper in Luxembourg. So where does this opinion and view come from? I see plenty of evidence that contradicts it, and it's evidence that's easy to find, through casual Internet searches of various databases. There are even official government organizations that use "Luxembourg City" in the English-language version of their names: eg, Luxembourg City Tourist Office, a body created by Luxembourg statute. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Luxembourg City" is a Wikipedia made-up name; it's not used in the real world. "Dublin City" is a real term; it's a football (soccer) team. Accuracy should trump ease of spelling. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Carlossuarez46: Why then when I do a google search for "Luxembourg City" and omit the hits from Wikipedia pages do I get in the neighbourhood of 1.2m hits? I also get a fair number the hits within the website of the English-language edition of Luxemburger Wort, so it's even used within the country itself when English is used. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Good Olfactory: I get about 300k hits, about the same as a search for "England City" or "Italy City" or "Russia City" or a few other "<country> City" combos I tried. Given your logic we should move London to England City, Rome to Italy City, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)\[reply]
        • @Carlossuarez46: Outside of Wikipedia hits, I consistently get more than 1.2m for "Luxembourg City"; "England City" gets in the 300,000 range. (All I can think of is that you might be working behind some sort of filter which is excluding a number of hits, but I don't know your digital set up.) In any case, regardless of hit numbers, I don't think you'll find reliable sources calling London "England City". There are plenty of reliable sources that use "Luxembourg City" to refer to the capital city of Luxembourg. I get hundreds of hits for the name in the Factiva database, and likewise in Lexis/Nexis. The name is even used in English by a number of government entitles created by Luxembourg law. I don't know where your theory of it being a Wikipedia creation is coming from, because it's certainly not borne out by the evidence that I'm finding quite easily. If you seriously think that "Luxembourg City" is as obscure and made up as "England City" is for London or "Italy City" is for Rome, I'm speechless, really. I know standards for making claims are relatively low at CFD these days, but really ... Hundreds of hits in Google Scholar ... hundreds in Google Books ... everywhere I search I can find it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Good Olfactory: how many of the "Luxembourg City" refer to the city, rather than the country? Nearly every other language's category has city in quotes, including German and French, 2 of the 3 official languages of the country; in Letzebuergish, the category is "Stad Lëtzebuerg" despite the article being at "Lëtzebuerg (Stad)", so if the editors at the lb wiki were to undertake the rename to conform cat to article, all three official languages of the country would have the city part in parentheses, as we ought to do. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Carlossuarez46: The majority refer to the city, as far as I can see. We could comfortably eliminate, say, 300,000, on the basis that that's roughly how many "England City" hits there are (assuming that similar sentence constructions for Luxembourg will be as common), but that still leaves me with 900,000 hits. All of the Factiva and Nexis ones I am finding are for the city. The process in deciding the name in English WP is not to look to other language usage, whether in Wikipedia or outside of it. We look to what the common name is in English. I'm just not clear what the foundational argument is here—is it that the name is made up? Or is it that we need to conform to the other format found in the non-English WPs? Or is it a personal preference on formatting? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that Google Trends is much more indicative of what people actually search for, As you can see here, of the 3 comparitors, "luxembourg" on its own trumps "Luxembourg City" by a factor of 37. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The goalposts are moving here. The original claim was that "Luxembourg City" is a Wikipedia made-up name. Are users backing away from that now? I don't think the google trends comparison is at all convincing, since "Luxembourg" is the name of the country and is far more likely to be searched for in combination with other words than the city is. It's not a big city, and the country itself is small. What matters is what is the common name for the city, in English. At the end of the day, the dispute is based on what the article name is. So why are we debating this in a CFD? If the article name should be changed, someone should propose a WP:RM. I'm betting there would not be consensus for the change, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that the above objection is valid since the Google Trends criteria specifially included +city to outrule country-only searches. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak rename per main article name. In fact I'd rather have the article name reverted. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also my comments on the Sao Paulo CFD. Had it not been for the bad renaming decision of the article, none of thess category proposals would have been necessary. The cat names are correct; let's fix the real problem here - the article name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • When people speak colloquially, do we know if they speak with intentional capitalisation or not? So we hear "Dublin City" but couldn't it also be "Dublin city" that was intended? The latter is an implicit dismbiguator in in effect. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:25,----
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

29 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Purple Heart medal[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's rationale These categories go against our guidelines for award categories. They are not defining to the person. Being killed in war is probably defining, but there is no reason to differentiate it in that way. Being wounded is not going to be very defining in some cases, and the exact line as to when a wound qualifies for a purple heart is not even consistently applied over time. An award given for happening to get hit by enemy actions is not defining in any way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background This category was nominated for deletion in 2012 and the result was no consensus. I just created Category:Purple Heart to hold non-biography articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Toward Delete per WP:OCAWARD. The Purple Heart has a lot of cultural importance in the US as an award as a concept. But, despite the extreme notability of the overall topic, that doesn't seem to translate to be defining for individual recipients of the award. I looked at 5 articles closely (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and military service is often defining for career soldiers and politicians, but this award is not. Perhaps I clicked on the wrong articles? RevelationDirect (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The award (for being killed or wounded in action) has been awarded too frequently for this to be useful as a category. OCAWARD clearly applies. The exception should apply to awards infrequently given. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've been trying to get this deleted for a while. Not awarded for any merit. Awarded for being unlucky enough to be wounded. "Awards" for bad luck are not worth categorising. Many other countries don't even give wound badges, which is essentially what the Purple Heart is, despite the reverence with which it rather bizarrely seems to be treated. Note that there are already categories for American service personnel killed in action. To be honest, if this category is kept it will really show that WP has pro-American bias, given similar categories for service medals for other countries have been deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Khouw family of Tamboen[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Can be reconsidered if an article is written. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, possibly convert the page to an article. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge and articlise. The question with the two articles will need to be whether the target should be Jakarta or Batavia or both. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's potential for growth for this category as the Khouw family is associated with the development of significant parts of Jakarta and Bekasi, with important historic landmarks in both cities (all with Wikipedia articles in Indonesian), and other prominent family members — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaraElisaOng (talk • contribs) 14:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC) ClaraElisaOng (talk)[reply]
  • Definitely needs an article. Category can be recreated once enough articles exist to be populated.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or instead of an article on the family, it might be more pertinent to have an article on Khouw Tian Sek, who was the patriarch and founder of the family fortune. I can write it once I have more time GanSioe1975 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Order of Sultan Qaboos[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The Order of Sultan Qaboos is the 4th highest civil award of Oman and these two categories only have two articles total: the main article and Queen Máxima of the Netherlands. I don't see how a Dutch monarch is defined by a souvenir she received while on an official visit to Oman. That one recipient is already "listed" here. – RevelationDirect (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified notified Mimich as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Oman. – RevelationDirect (talk) 09:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the Fiji Independence Medal[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:ARBITRARYCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The Fiji Independence Medal was automatically given to any prison guard, forest ranger, soldier, police officer or fire fighter who was employed by Fiji on 10 October 1970 (Fijian Independence Day). If you retired on October 9th or started on October 11th, you would not receive this award. The recipients of this award are currently listed here. – RevelationDirect (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified notified Asalrifai as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Fiji. – RevelationDirect (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background We recently deleted a category for a similar Canadian anniversary award here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Commemorative or campaign medals are too widely awarded to be useful in defining an individual. EricSerge (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete medal is not defining to the recipients.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American women of Indian descent in politics[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization on a non-defining intersection of otherwise unrelated traits. Bearcat (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no Disagree for the reasons that

  1. in fact, avoiding to categorize individual wikis by now 6 categories;
  2. sic, logical sub-subcatogory of its parent-categories
    1. Category:American women of Indian descent
    2. Category:Politicians of Indian descent
    3. Category:American women in politics
    4. Category:Indian women in politics
    5. Category:American politicians of Indian descent
    6. Category:American women of Asian descent in politics;
  3. i.e., about nearly 30 entries of about 100 wikis within Category:American women of Asian descent in politics are categorized by Category:American women of Indian descent in politics;
  4. which, btw, was established in 2012;
  5. sic, among others, WP:OCAT fails.

Roland zh (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC) / [edited ] Roland zh (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no Disagree because
  1. NARROWCAT also fails, ...In general, intersection categories should only be created when both parent categories are very large and similar intersections can be made for related categories...;
  2. as pointed at 3) and 4) 28 of 95 related wikis;
  3. 2012 parent category
@other interested wikimedians, please take a minute for reading my imho logical arguments above mentioned, thx Roland zh (talk) 06:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: one again, there are no 'delete'-related arguments that seems to follow usual logical criteria:
 Question: hence, you argue that WP:xxx, honestly, recommends to categorize each related wiki by 6 categories, instead of much user-friendly to categorize by one single valuable category – that seems haphazardly/gratuitous, and missing logical and IT-related principles, and to make it impossible to categorize logically at WP-EN...

For WP-rookies like me, and probably the majority of EN-WP users who may be interested, please argue logical, and explain why, for you WP-focused guys, my imho rather logical arguments might fail?
... especially, as I remarked  Comment: User:Bearcat's re-categorization (2016-09-17 ~06:00) of a small-dimensioned category like, for instance, Category:Horror fiction television series (France, for instance, 3 entries :() ...

 Question: ... but sub-categories for Category:American politicians of Asian descent, hence, and, in fact, the huge parent categories Category:American politicians (women/men separated) and Category:Indian politicians (women/men separated) are not valuable, although logical... ?

Finally, not wasting more time to argue as frustrated by 'just' WP-votes and tilting at WP-windmills, but interested to read logical arguments and explanations, at least, to learn by that deletion-related topic, Roland zh (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Television series categories are always subcatted by nationality wherever possible, because the country a television series comes from is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the series — please note that WP:OCLOCATION says that national subcategories can exist, regardless of size, if that is part of an accepted overall subcategorization scheme where subcategorization by country is expected. And furthermore, I did not create any of the national subcategories in that tree; I merely recategorized a handful of series that were sitting in the parent category despite the fact that a national subcategory already existed for their country of origin.
The size of a possible category is not the only determinant of whether it's an appropriate basis for categorization or not: there are situations where a one-item category is perfectly acceptable and not a WP:SMALLCAT, and there are situations where a category with hundreds of possible entries is not acceptable. The category system does not exist as a way to create lists of topics grouped on every possible characteristic that happens to apply to two or more articles: we categorize topics on characteristics that are central to their basic notability, not on every individual characteristic that they happen to have. You could create a category for Category:People with missing toes, for instance, because we do have a considerable number of articles about people who happened to be missing one or more toes — but those people aren't defined by that fact in any substantive way. You could create a category for Category:People with blue eyes, because every human being in existence has one of only a very small number of possible eye colours and so thousands upon millions of people could be added to an eye colour category — but people aren't defined by their eye colour. But conversely, films are defined by the fact of who directed them, so even a one-item subcategory of Category:Films by director is allowed to exist.
We actually have a policy document, WP:CATEGRS, which exists to clarify when categorization on "identity" characteristics like ethnic background are warranted and when they're not. One of its conditions is that the grouping has to itself represent a WP:DEFINING characteristic. American politicians, for example, are legitimately classified as being defined by the general fact of being "African-American" or "Asian" or as women, as it is an occupation that has historically been impacted by racism and sexism which have created barriers to the participation of women and non-whites — and while thankfully that's changing, even today women and people of colour still aren't actually represented in politics in anything approaching the same percentages that they represent of the general population. But within the "African-American" grouping, that racism does not further distinguish whether the politician's black ancestors were from Gambia or Uganda or the Congo or South Africa, so their career in politics is not defined by any individual ancestry beyond the basic fact of being African-American — and within "Asian-Americans", politicians are not subsequently treated more differently based on whether they're Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Thai, Indian or Burmese, so while "Asian-American politicians" is an acceptable and appropriate and defining level of categorization, which individual ethnicity they have below that fact is not defining in conjunction with their political career. EGRS, in fact, specifically cites politicians as the example of a category where subcatting by individual ethnic background is not warranted. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete way too much overcat to make this category workable. Note that Category:American women of Indian descent should be a container category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential keep -- Despite being a multiple intersection it is well enough populated to be kept. My concern is however with the name. None of the three whom I looked at were politicians as such. One was a political activist; another had held a governmental office, probably a presidential appointment; the third was US attorney for a State, which I presume to be an appointed (not elected) position. Rename somehow, better to reflect its content. I think that Indian immigration to USA is more recent than most African-Americans, so that an ethnic category may be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bearcat thank you for your explanations, as done yesterday by the related wiki tool at the version history :-) btw: I did mention that you just re-caterorized. Honestly, im a too simple-mind-structured standard-wikimedian Gnome to be able to really understand these WP-xx topics, but respect the argument of potentially racism. Although 'Indian descent' imho is country-related not by race, as imho at that case implemented just 'country-related', please see p.e. the American-people-related subcategories that also include categories of 'Indian' social groups, among many others Bangladeshi [sic], Malayali (Kerala), Marathi (Maharastra], Punjabi (India and Pakistan), and many more. Kindly regards, Roland zh (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peterkingiron, thank you :-) just remarked as cross-editing before saving: I love logical arguments, kindly regards, Roland zh (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. back to the last recent topic: ... but WP-xx arguments, quotation "...to make this category workable..." are not helpful, Honi soit qui mal y pense, instead of a simple re-caterization of that xxx category started in a good manner, and spending much time :(((
  2. or the categorization by descent of Category:American women of Asian descent in politics - just hours ago, not be me – are of a very negative connotation, and supports my initial logical arguments :-((
As by that categorization my lots-time-spending personal task 'Indian-American' and 'Indian politicians' months ago was finished, that tiny sub-task will be completed accordingly within just one single minute, it's just fair, doesn't it :( bye, Roland zh (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete combination of nationality, race/ethnicity/career OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: "Indian" is not a "race", it's a country :) –> see p.e. "American" = USA, etc etc, Roland zh (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Indian is a country, i.e. Nationality as I said. If you cannot read, please don't post snarky comments. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_17&oldid=1074817487"