Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 10

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 converted to disambiguation page so out of scope for RFD. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Scottish Students → Scotland national women's rugby union team (links to redirect • history • stats) 

I found this redirect looking for a Scottish students' organisation. I am not aware of "Scottish Students" being a nickname for the women's rugby team, and as searching online does not bring up any connection I would assume it to be some kind of joke. The Celestial City (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Doing a bit more investigation, I found there was apparently a team competing under the name "Scottish Students" in the plate competition of the 1994 Women's Rugby World Cup, which was hosted in Scotland, presumably now defunct. The team was not the same as the main women's team, which competed separately in the competition and came fifth. Redirect may be worth keeping, I'm not sure. The Celestial City (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 boldly retargetted to NuGet. The concerns of the nominator have been met. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nuget → Nougat (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete. Microsoft have released a new package manager tool called NuGet. This redirect prevents search results returning this article by redirecting to Nougat. Also, is "nuget" a plausible miss-spelling of Nougat? Teh klev (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. I do not recall why I redirected this. :) --BorgQueen (talk) 11:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 to delete. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Madison-Woolford, Maryland → Madison, Maryland (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete. Madison, Maryland and Woolford, Maryland are separate communities, and they aren't combined for census purposes, as neither is part of a census-designated place. The redirect is left over from a pagemove but doesn't really serve a purpose. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 08:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - "Madison-Woolford" is a name formulation used locally; see here for example. Consequently it is a plausible search term. The fact that it may not be strictly correct is a different, and not relevant, issue. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• replace with disambiguation page BEARinAbasket (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - note that the above comment was made by a now blocked sockpuppet of User:Aisha9152. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Bosox baby → Boston Red Sox (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Implausible redirect 2 says you, says two 06:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the stats link (wow! 2 whole hits on the 11th!) --NYKevin @314, i.e. 06:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - what matters is whether the redirect is is some way harmful. In this case there is no mention in the article, and it doesn't seem meaningful so it would be confusing to a searcher. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Haha, I must have been completely new when I made that. Deleted.   JJ (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Nominator has been confirmed and blocked as a sockpuppet, and while other delete votes were made in good faith, the clear consensus is to keep this redirect. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Gay Nigger Association of America → Goatse Security (links to redirect • history • stats) 

this does not make sense at all SunHwaKwonh (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Note, SunHwaKwonh has been confirmed as a sockpuppet of User:Aisha9152 --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the 30 AfD requests on this article name. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So under WP:IDONTLIKEIT? LiteralKa (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Salt because of the 30 AfD requests on this article name. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. 2 says you, says two 06:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Tag historical, delete, and then salt per WP:DRAMA (or you could skip the tagging part...). --NYKevin @313, i.e. 06:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was not aware the topics were related. --NYKevin @963, i.e. 22:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. On the surface this looks like vandalism, but if you read the sources in the target article, it actually appears to be legitimate. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The name was already salted, but apparently I inadvertently removed the protection when I created the redirect, which I did per a request on my talk page, now archived at User talk:RL0919/Archive 2010#Creating GNAA redirect. I've re-protected it to correct that mistake. --RL0919 (talk) 12:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I alone can't stress enough the connection between Goatse Security and the GNAA. I would also like to point that the 30 AfD requests were discussions on whether an article should exist; they weren't discussion on whether a redirect should exist. At least two users stated that a redirect should exist during the last constructive DRV, and none of them stated that a redirect shouldn't exist. Those 30 AfD's could be used as a reason to support the deletion of an article, but I don't believe that they're a valid reason to delete a redirect. I also see that an user mention WP:DRAMA. As RL0919 pointed out, the redirect was unprotected for over a month, and yet there wasn't any vandalism, and the Goatse Security article was only defaced once. The "drama" isn't coming from trolls or vandals; the drama this time around is coming from the AfD's, the DRV's, and the RfD's. This RfD appears preemptive. Discussion are generally problems in search of solutions, but this RfD is a pre-conceived solution in search of a problem that doesn't yet exist and may never exist. The problem always lay with GNAA articles, not GNAA redirects. There isn't any problem with GNAA redirects. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The association to Goatse is very tenuous and weak IMO so this re-direct serves no purpose here. Whose Your Guy (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep None of the Delete !voters are establishing a reasoning based on policy; it seems to be a simple knee-jerk reaction to anything related to this topic. riffic (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment he say not canvassing[1] when notifying this user [2] so this doesnt add anything SunHwaKwonh (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have known of this discussion if Michaeldsuarez hadn't notified me; for this I thank him. riffic (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

then he should have notified everyone on wikipedia who might vote on it right? no i dont think so. thats why they have watch list and afd listings. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification, this states that it is appropriate to send notices to inform of a particular discussion 'On the talk pages of individual users, such as those who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed.' I was notified simply because I've participated in other related discussions regarding this topic. riffic (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i did read it has something about partisan vs nonpartisan. since he only notify 2 people who he must have known would vote keep it sounds like canvas to me . if he did right he would notify people who vote delete on afd too. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions – for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then similar notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. " SunHwaKwonh (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only noticed two users because it would've been extremely time-and-energy-consuming (in other words, impractical) for me to notify the hundreds of users when participated in all of the part AfD's and DRV's, especially since I don't have access to a bot. Your demands on me are unreasonable. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think so you violated policy pretty obvious even if you dont mean to SunHwaKwonh (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, he followed the precedent. Please do not throw baseless accusations. LiteralKa (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what precedent? where? SunHwaKwonh (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, there's precedent for notifying heavily invested editors. LiteralKa (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please dont curse. according to policy he canvassed his notification was partisan. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't curse. You need to familiarize yourself with the policies here before trying to enforce them. LiteralKa (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i ask you not to take lord name in vain SunHwaKwonh (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Just no. I will not alter my language, CENSOR myself even, to avoid hurting your feelings. LiteralKa (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The threshold for keeping redirects is far, far lower than for retaining an article on the subject matter. If the name is connected to Goatse Security (and it quite plainly is, given what is on that article and hat was posted above by Michaeldsuarez) and if it is a reasonable search term that our readers will fund useful, then there is really no valid or legitimate reason to oppose. This creation stems from User talk:RL0919/Archive 2010#Creating GNAA redirect and the outcome of the last DRV on the matter. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment but whoseyourguy says is right that connection is really weak need 3rd party verification SunHwaKwonh (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, actually, for a redirect, you really don't.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • so it means i can redirect retard to republican and dont need 3rd party to verify? SunHwaKwonh (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SunHwaKwonh: Have you not read my comment above or the references in the Goatse Security article? Both of them include links to two third party sources: The Atlantic and Globo. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • the source say members claim to be member of gnaa. if i claim im a member can redirect point to me? SunHwaKwonh (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Globo source says with certainty that several Goatse Security member are also GNAA members. In regards in your question: Only if an reliable source publishes your claim. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This debate? Again? I recommend a keep of the redirect that was sanctioned in the first place by an administrator. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 18:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-Mostly per above. There's easily enough of a connection for a redirect, and creation of said redirect was supported both in the discussion linked above and in at least one deletion review discussion on the subject.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - mentioned in the article so the nomination is fundamentally flawed. No policy-based arguments have been adduced by the delete !voters. Helpful and not harmful so there are no grounds for deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • article only say that members claim to be member of gnaa. it doesnt mean its true. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what the verifiability, not truth principle is there for. It has been reported by reliable sources that there is, or there is an assertion of, a connection between the groups. That is more than sufficient to justify a redirect. Tarc (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict)It doesn't have to be true. The mere fact that multiple members of the organization claim membership in the GNAA, and indeed claim that Goatse Security is a part of the GNAA, is enough for a redirect. The claim doesn't need to be proven.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • as I was saying before the edit conflict, a redirect does not endorse the subject - see WP:RNEUTRAL. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • that policy talk about non neutral terms not non neutral redirect. non neutral redirect is like redirecting retard to republican because olbermann says republicans are retards. thats what this is like. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • How is this a "non neutral redirect"; are you arguing from a point of view that "Goatse Security" is impugned by having "Gay Nigger Association of America" point to it? Do you know what the term goatse means? Do you know where the "Gay Nigger..." group got its name from ? I can quite confidently assure you that the linkage of one to the other does not demean either. Tarc (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • because tenuous connection SunHwaKwonh (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as per Michaeldsuarez. LiteralKa (talk) 23:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment he say not canvassing[3] when notifying this user [4] so this doesnt add anything SunHwaKwonh (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – This alleged canvassing has already been discussed. I already defended myself. I already stated that I wasn't looking for votes, and I mentioned !vote and consensus in my defense. SunHwaKwonh should assume good faith. I also see the addition of Template:Notaballot to the discussion as SunHwaKwonk's attempt to draw attention to his side. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum – I've added more details to the discussion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • michaeldsuarez you are not assuming good faith by saying i am trying to get people on my side you said its a discussion. i just wanted to make sure everyone knows what you said to be about it not being a vote. from what you said the stuff they put here does not make any difference right? so im not sure what problem there is sorry. also dont know why you and your friends you notified are editing my user page so much. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 02:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • SunHwaKwonh, I'm being 100% transparent here. Those message are available for viewing to anyone. There isn't any private messages on ED, and I haven't sent any Email. I'm transparent enough to use my real name as my username, and I'm transparent enough to openly reveal my affiliation with Encyclopedia Dramatica on my userpage. I never attempted to hide anything. I removed that image due to a fair use violation, as I had stated on your talk page. LiteralKa is an acquaintance, not a "friend", and I never asked anyone to modify your userpage. I was even kind enough to revert LiteralKa's mistake. Can you please relax? It wasn't anything personal. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • canvas policy say "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions – for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then similar notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. " you did not do this. and now one user is making change on my talk page with no explanation. i don't like it. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I only noticed two users because it would've been extremely time-and-energy-consuming (in other words, impractical) for me to notify the hundreds of users when participated in all of the part AfD's and DRV's, especially since I don't have access to a bot. Your demands on me are unreasonable. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • you clearly violated policy its unreasonable to ask that you dont? you shouldnt have notified anyone. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 06:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Don't go around throwing lies about. Riffic and I are established editors who should have been notified because of our significant contributions to the articles in question. LiteralKa (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • its not a lie he violated canvas policy quite clearly SunHwaKwonh (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Request – Can this revision please be reverted? riffic and LiteralKa aren't single-purpose accounts nor are they sockpuppet. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, are you serious? Someone actually did such an underhanded thing? Reverted them. LiteralKa (talk) 07:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • maybe i misuse tag but its not underhanded. its not a vote so it doesnt matter what i do anyway only discussion point matters thats what michaeldsuarez keep saying so why do you care? he canvas you so i put disputedvote tag because i dispute it if its a vote. it is sneaky for you to remove disputed vote tag place next to your own vote. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uhh, you really need to read policies before making BS claims, it is completely within the rules to remove a tag lying about an established editor such as myself. LiteralKa (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • i merely said its sneaky. you were still canvassed theres just no tag for it. please dont curse at me. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, you've been told time and time again that it was not partisan and completely within policy. Please pay attention before lying again. LiteralKa (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • dont tell me not to lie both people he notify certain to vote keep it definite partison SunHwaKwonh (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Both of those people are very, very involved with the page. It's completely within the policy. Please stop restating the same, boldfaced lies. LiteralKa (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • you are the lying does not say what you say anywhere in policy. please stop trying to anger me. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Have you even read anything that Michael has written? LiteralKa (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • i wont reply to this part any longer because you try to hide my point with too much writing. my point already stated and your point already also stated. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nom (and points made by other users). Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • confused nom is for delete? SunHwaKwonh (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "this does not make sense at all" is not a valid deletion reason. Also, I have to agree with the other users who commented here about this being a related topic to an article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Additionally "i am confused" is not a very good reason for deletion. LiteralKa (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The GNAA are a real Internet troll group and are notorious for posting offensive shock content on web forums, however their link to Goatse Security is tenuous at best. I believe the GNAA should be given a wikipedia page that actually describes them rather than linking them to Goatse Security. Unixtastic (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The association to Goatse Security is documented in numerous secondary sources. Please read the references michaeldsuarez provided above riffic (talk) 08:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The GNAA have a website at http://www.gnaa.eu/ ( warning - offensive and members tag tries to run exploit code ) which fails to mention any link to goatse security. However they do complain that their wikipedia page was removed. Unixtastic (talk) 07:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong. Go to http://www.gnaa.eu/ , press CTRL+F, type "Goatse Security". If you look at the footer, you'll see some #BBBBBB text (difficult to see, I know), and that text includes a link to Goatse Security. Here's the source code:

    <div id="footer">
      <a href="http://gayniggers.blogspot.com/">blog</a>
      | <a href="http://security.goatse.fr/">Goatse Security</a>
      | <a href="http://encyclopediadramatica.com/GNAA">ED</a>
      <!--| <a href="http://gnar.int.ru/">GNAR</a>-->
      | <a href="http://twitter.com/GayNiggerAssoc">twitter</a>
      | <a href="http://weev.livejournal.com/">weev</a>
      | Copyright (c) 2003-2010 Gay Nigger Association of America
    </div>

The link between the GNAA and Goatse Security is far from "tenuous" as you've claim. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I see you are right. I still support removing this link in order to put in some information on the GNAA themselves, who they are, what they do, etc. I only wonder if decent citations can be found. If it's impossible to give the GNAA a page we should leave this link. I do expect that any page with such an inflammatory name will invite trouble. Unixtastic (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP per wp:n Badmachine (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP ^ 207.96.47.130 (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Update / Notice – SunHwaKwonh (the nominator) is a confirmed sockpuppet. Can the closing sysop please take note of this? Now that the nominator has been revealed as a sockpuppet, I'm starting to feel as if this entire discussion and the accompanying drama were both pointless and avoidable. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Arguments for deletion are more convincing - this isn't a Spanish word and it isn't widely used in English speaking sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Futbol → Association football (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete - Same rationale as the Futbolito redirects, recently deleted. Redirect name in spanish for a term not originating in spanish language. --uKER (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – useful unambiguous shorthand for the specific form of "football". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - how is this useful? It is not used in English language publications or media? This is simply a random non-English word like redirecting chien to dog. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep is how many spell it but disamb page is ok too SunHwaKwonh (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC) (confirmed sockpuppet --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Why would anyone (mis)spell "football" as "futbol" when in English "futbol" doesn't sound even remotely like it's supposed to? --uKER (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it sounds very similar and is impossible to mix up with any other word. "fut" could be a homophone of "foot" or rhyme with "mutt", but by reading "futbol", the former is obvious. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – We don't need redirects from foreign languages unless the language term is common amongst English speakers or is the original title for something; this is neither. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this is the key point. The long-established consensus on here is keep non-English language redirects only in two specific case, where:

• it is used commonly used in English-language publications; or
• it is the title of the target page in its own language. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]