Deletion discussions |
---|
|
Articles |
Templates |
Files |
Categories |
Redirects |
Miscellany |
Speedy deletion |
Proposed deletion |
Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.
- If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you need not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
- If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. Put a request to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.
- Redirects should not be deleted just because they have no incoming links. That is not a sufficient condition. Please do not use it as the only reason to delete a redirect.
- Redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted too, so it's not a necessary condition either. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)
Contents
- 1 Before listing a redirect for discussion
- 2 The guiding principles of RfD
- 3 When should we delete a redirect?
- 4 Closing notes
- 5 How to list a redirect for discussion
- 6 Current list
- 6.1 May 11
- 6.2 May 10
- 6.2.1 List of people named Henry Lord and all other SSTflyer redirects
- 6.2.2 Cucurbita polymorpha
- 6.2.3 Paceman
- 6.2.4 Spintop
- 6.2.5 Top-spins
- 6.2.6 Noseless
- 6.2.7 Origin of the human species
- 6.2.8 Muhammad/images
- 6.2.9 User:Wikidumbo
- 6.2.10 Religion, Religious
- 6.2.11 Draft:Science
- 6.2.12 VIRGIL
- 6.2.13 Demosthenes as fictional character
- 6.2.14 MrAristotle
- 6.2.15 It is the mark of
- 6.2.16 Dropidas
- 6.2.17 Complete works of Plato
- 6.2.18 Socrates Johnson
- 6.2.19 Talk:Þú Og Þeir (Sókrates)
- 6.2.20 Traditionalism (disambiguation)
- 6.2.21 Talk:List of religious leaders in 2006
- 6.2.22 LCB Leasing
- 6.2.23 Elliot Shimon
- 6.2.24 User:Mhhossein/Un-Islamic Non-state
- 6.2.25 Talk:Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War
- 6.2.26 Talk:Boko Haram insurgency/Archive 1
- 6.2.27 Baroness The Margaret Thatcher
- 6.2.28 A Summary of the Life of Franklin Delano Roosevelt
- 6.2.29 John Adams/Inaugural Speech
- 6.2.30 Uniformisability
- 6.2.31 Blue House (Mexico)
- 6.2.32 Ch'ŏng'wadae
- 6.2.33 North Pavilions
- 6.2.34 Alexandros Jakupović
- 6.2.35 Casket (funerary box)
- 6.2.36 HKTBA
- 6.2.37 List of people named Henry Lopes
- 6.2.38 Blank space
- 6.2.39 Medial section
- 6.2.40 Golden-spectacled
- 6.2.41 Mean of Phidias
- 6.2.42 Old Gold (cigarette)
- 6.2.43 Descent to the underworld
- 6.2.44 Itanimulli
- 6.2.45 Xo-Ho
- 6.2.46 List of Salvation Army corps in the United Kingdom in 1900
- 6.2.47 Scientology/Links
- 6.2.48 Illuminati Bankers
- 6.2.49 2b1ask1
- 6.2.50 Regular Grand Lodge of England
- 6.2.51 Cebu lodge no. 128
- 6.2.52 LOL you're a noob
- 6.2.53 Knight of the Secret Circle
- 6.2.54 ILUMINATI
- 6.2.55 Rotary Australia World Community Service
- 6.2.56 Rotary Club of Shanghai
- 6.2.57 Rotary Club of North Bay, Ontario
- 6.2.58 The second us president
- 6.2.59 John Adams/Inaugural Speeech
- 6.2.60 Vitreous (boss)
- 6.2.61 Cool Dimension: Sexy Assassin
- 6.2.62 Adams 2
- 6.2.63 Book of Mudora
- 6.2.64 Blind the Thief
- 6.2.65 Arrghus
- 6.3 May 9
- 6.3.1 Pacific Sea
- 6.3.2 Curser
- 6.3.3 Science and technology in Kazakhstan
- 6.3.4 Access to amenities
- 6.3.5 Myopically
- 6.3.6 The Greatest Game of All
- 6.3.7 The Greatest Game
- 6.3.8 Afon Twrch, Clwyd
- 6.3.9 Khergarh
- 6.3.10 Cursers
- 6.3.11 Meteorical
- 6.3.12 Obstructionists
- 6.3.13 Abraham Kuijper
- 6.3.14 Tepre Pacificum
- 6.3.15 Progressiveness
- 6.3.16 Under writer
- 6.3.17 Jeffrey Pino
- 6.4 May 8
- 6.4.1 List of Distros created with remastersys
- 6.4.2 Opulences
- 6.4.3 Ghey
- 6.4.4 National Arena
- 6.4.5 Mastoplasty
- 6.4.6 Crataegus polyclada
- 6.4.7 Обама
- 6.4.8 Lucinde Paradol
- 6.4.9 Haunted School
- 6.4.10 The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess II
- 6.4.11 Super Mario World 3
- 6.4.12 Peaceful Seas (disambiguation)
- 6.4.13 Goo&gle
- 6.4.14 First Serbian Volunteer Division
- 6.4.15 iPad Air 3
- 6.4.16 Demarcay
- 6.4.17 Peaceful sea
- 6.4.18 Alan and Kathryn Hughes
- 6.4.19 William Mears (bell-founder)
- 6.4.20 Unprogress
- 6.4.21 Cetraria nivalis
- 6.4.22 Of the soul
- 6.4.23 Nam (war)
- 6.4.24 The Preacher (book)
- 6.5 May 7
- 6.5.1 Obstructor
- 6.5.2 Reverend Straik
- 6.5.3 Meteoros
- 6.5.4 Stakers
- 6.5.5 Blockers
- 6.5.6 Unprogressiveness
- 6.5.7 Responds
- 6.5.8 Putney Debate
- 6.5.9 Phelps and Lester
- 6.5.10 Mock Orange (tree)
- 6.5.11 Palmed
- 6.5.12 Crossdresses
- 6.5.13 Wealthier
- 6.5.14 Affluences
- 6.5.15 Orsino (play)
- 6.5.16 Frances Alan
- 6.5.17 Rain cake
- 6.5.18 Trichuris campanula
- 6.5.19 Almeron
- 6.5.20 Elizabeth Hastings (benefactress)
- 6.6 May 6
- 6.6.1 Nuestra Señora de Candelaria Parish Church (Mabitac)
- 6.6.2 Nonbusiness
- 6.6.3 Non business
- 6.6.4 Pelvic regions
- 6.6.5 The Way (2009 album)
- 6.6.6 Sir William Lloyd
- 6.6.7 Lethal (UTFO album)
- 6.6.8 Lethal (footballer)
- 6.6.9 Non-business entity
- 6.6.10 Plastic shoes
- 6.6.11 Template:Please leave this line alone
- 6.6.12 Rudolf Francis Ferdinand Hoess
- 6.6.13 Haystacks Calhoun Jr. The Hornswagglin' Hillbilly, Professional Wrestler
- 6.6.14 Richard Afflis ("Dick the Bruiser") Professional Wrestler
- 6.6.15 UnTunes
- 6.6.16 University extensions
- 6.6.17 Outlook.at
- 6.6.18 Vietspace
- 6.7 May 5
- 6.7.1 File:Terminology.png
- 6.7.2 Spirit lamp
- 6.7.3 Reticulatum
- 6.7.4 Jinn lantern
- 6.7.5 Gainsay
- 6.7.6 廬州
- 6.7.7 Last name
- 6.7.8 Cork, Republic of Ireland
- 6.7.9 Apis maculata
- 6.7.10 List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia
- 6.7.11 Teston d'argent
- 6.7.12 What is a GMO
- 6.7.13 Ἀνάλυσις
- 6.7.14 Naywords
- 6.8 May 4
- 6.8.1 John H Morrison
- 6.8.2 John G Morrison
- 6.8.3 Roscoea lutea
- 6.8.4 Pelidnota lutea
- 6.8.5 RBLX
- 6.8.6 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership
- 6.8.7 Sea-devils
- 6.8.8 Frog-fish (disambiguation)
- 6.8.9 Sea-devil (disambiguation)
- 6.8.10 Mathematical recursion
- 6.8.11 Probe test
- 6.8.12 Jonathan Hartgrove
- 6.8.13 Criticism of Berkshire Hathaway
- 6.8.14 Wythy
- 6.8.15 Canna concinna
- 6.8.16 Artificialities
- 6.8.17 Gee gee
- 6.8.18 File:East Logo.png
- 6.8.19 Manhunt International 2009
- 6.8.20 User:Bbauer25/Bull Run Regional Park
- 6.8.21 Gold-black
- 6.8.22 Mr. Gee
- 6.8.23 Double marking
- 6.8.24 DDW (language)
- 6.8.25 Etudes philosophiques
- 6.8.26 The Parker Square
- 6.9 May 3
- 6.10 May 2
- 6.11 April 29
- 6.12 April 27
- 6.12.1 Hutterites in Australia
- 6.12.2 Poop toilet
- 6.12.3 Pee toilet
- 6.12.4 Blade Runner 2 (film project)
- 6.12.5 Blade Runner 2 (film)
- 6.12.6 Banana (2014 Film)
- 6.12.7 Hircine
- 6.12.8 LTE (telecommunications)
- 6.12.9 Russia (1991-1993)
- 6.12.10 Pueblo of Laguna
- 6.12.11 Slipper jack
- 6.12.12 Taciturnity
- 6.12.13 Irritant (biology)
- 6.12.14 Sad Paki Loser
- 6.12.15 Illuminato
- 6.12.16 Myopically
- 6.12.17 Heighth
- 6.12.18 Wah ah ah ah (Monkey Thing)
- 6.12.19 I ♥ Mother Teresa
- 6.12.20 List of U.S. Senators called David Stewart
- 6.12.21 Pigot Diamond
- 6.13 April 24
- 6.14 April 21
- 6.14.1 Nineth Wonder of the World
- 6.14.2 Momsanto
- 6.14.3 List of Deployed HSUPA networks
- 6.14.4 Iexplorer.exe
- 6.14.5 Library of Congress Authorities
- 6.14.6 International Telecommunication Union region
- 6.14.7 ITU region
- 6.14.8 Hurricane Wendy
- 6.14.9 Hyperbolic Geometry:Poincaré half plane model
- 6.14.10 Redirects to Nepali-language terms
Before listing a redirect for discussion
Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:
- Wikipedia:Redirect – what redirects are, why they exist, and how they are used.
- Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion – which pages can be deleted without discussion; in particular the "General" and "Redirects" sections.
- Wikipedia:Deletion policy – how we delete things by consensus.
- Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – guidelines on discussion format and shorthand.
The guiding principles of RfD
- The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at a "Search results 1–10 out of 378" result instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
- Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
- If a good-faith RfD nomination has no discussion, the default result is delete.
- Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
- RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted to a different article, discuss it on the talk page of the current target article or the proposed target article, or both. But with more difficult cases, this page can serve as a central discussion forum for tough debates about which page a redirect should target.
- Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
- In discussions, always ask yourself whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.
When should we delete a redirect?
The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:
- a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
- if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles—such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.
Note that there could exist (for example), links to the URL "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorneygate" anywhere on the Internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) "WhatLinksHere" for "Attorneygate"—since those links might come from somewhere outside Wikipedia.
Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.
Reasons for deleting
You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):
- The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
- The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
- The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.) See also: § Neutrality of redirects.
- The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
- The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange. (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
- It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia.)
- If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to itself or to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
- If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.
- If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then it needs to be deleted to make way for move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion. If not, take the article to Requested Moves.
- If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
Reasons for not deleting
However, avoid deleting such redirects if:
- They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
- They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
- They aid searches on certain terms. For example, if someone sees the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then he or she will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
- You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
- Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. stats.grok.se can also provide evidence of outside utility.
- The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form, or to some other grammatical form.
- The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent anonymous users from so expanding the redirect, and thereby make the encyclopedia harder to edit and reduce the pool of available editors. (Anonymous users cannot create new pages in the mainspace; they can only edit existing pages, including redirects, which they can expand). This criterion does not apply to redirects that are indefinitely semi-protected or more highly protected.
Neutrality of redirects
Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}
.
Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:
- Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
- Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
- The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.
The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.
See also: Policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately.
Closing notes
- Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.
Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).
How to list a redirect for discussion
I. |
Tag the redirect.
Enter
|
II. |
List the entry on RfD.
Click to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.
|
III. |
Notify users.
It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors to the redirect that you are nominating the redirect. may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as: Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]] |
- Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.
Current list
May 11
Quatrameter
- Quatrameter → Tetrameter (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Nope nope you cannot have this (Neelix redirect). Tetra is Greek for four and Quatra is Latin. Nobody in his right mind says Quatrameter this is rather nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- It could go to Quartermaster as
{{R from mispelling}}
. Not sure. Si Trew (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)- There were legs, legs, going around like pegs in the Stores, in the Stores
- There were legs, legs, going around like pegs in the Quartermaster's stores
- My eyes are dim I cannot see I have not got my specs with me
- I have not got my specs with me
- There were legs, legs, going around like pegs in the Storehouse in the stores
- My eyes are dim I cannot see I have not got my specs with me
- Therw were legs, legs going around like pegs in the Quartermaster's Stores
- It could go to Quartermaster as
Si Trew (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Estlin Cummings
- Estlin Cummings → E. E. Cummings (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not sure on this one. e. e. cummings always wrote his name that way in lowercase but I appreciate that we cannot do that here on Wikipedia. (We can) but this listing as a middle name is probably a bit out of order. (Neelix redirect) Si Trew (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Stacks of nonsense poetry redirects coming up don't want to flood RfD or CSD. Sheesh sometimes I know what i am talking about. Si Trew (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Long fellow
- Long fellow → Longfellow (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Isn't a long fellow a man to be eaten by a cannibal or am I thinking of something else? (Neelix redirect) Si Trew (talk) Si Trew (talk) 02:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Disambiguate - The first association that comes to mind is actually prominent Irish historical figure Éamon de Valera. In that case, "Long Fellow" was/is a rather well-known nickname. It's even used in book titles, as with Big Fellow, Long Fellow. At the same time, a lot of people are merely making a typo in writing "Longfellow" as well as perhaps searching for some other politician, military leader, etc to use the "long fellow" moniker (I semi-remember seeing other examples somewhere before).
-
- r.e. cannibalism, its that the fellow about to be eaten gets labeled "a piece of long pork" (allegedly, of course, with that catchphrase likely more an invention of horror movies than an actual saying). But that's really neither here nor there. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget, and Redirect "Long Fellow", to De Valera, after adding sourced nickname to the article. At present there's no mention of the nickname in De Valera's article but it seems well founded. I hesitate to tread anywhere near Irish politics but someone might like to add the nickname to the biog and then make a dab. PamD 08:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Triple meters
- Triple meters → Triple metre (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
No you can't do this (Neelix redirect). a metre in poetry in rhyme or music even in British English is spelled thus that is a "useful distinction" as H. W. Fowler puts it in Modern English Usage. You can't then go buggering about with it like this. Si Trew (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Silver Cross (Canada)
- Silver Cross (Canada) → Memorial Cross (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Pinging User:Ivanvector. Does this make any sense (neelix redirect) it is in the lede but the (Canada) at the back is what is worrying me. I am no numismatist so I think a second check on this one would help. In the UK a Silver Cross was a brand of pram or perambulator and we have a DAB at Silver Cross. Maybe swop over? nEELIX REDIRECT forgot to say. Si Trew (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The Orrmulum
- The Orrmulum → Ormulum (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) Not sure on this one. It's in the lede with the "the" but not sure. Maybe {{R from unnecessary something or other}}
but we don't tend to start articles or redirects with "the". Si Trew (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Paradox of time
- Paradox of time → Temporal paradox (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I am not sure on this one I have speedily kept and rcatted some for Temporal Paradoxes and such, but since this is such a kinda general term mentioned by Stephen Hawking and indeed Douglas Adams ("Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so" as Ford Prefect said) I wonder if this makes sense Si Trew (talk) 01:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Sun Hill, Hungary
- Sun Hill, Hungary → Naphegy (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
No you can't do this (Neelix redirect). Náp in Hungarian means sun also just day (hólnap is tomorrow and tégnap is yesterday) and hegy means a hill but you can't back translate like that. Neelix seems not to know Hungarian but I use it daily, not well, but I can tell you for sure that this is nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Roy Chester Race
- Roy Chester Race → Roy Race (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I am pretty sure this is Neelix nonsense. At the Roodee in Chester, one of the two racecourses in England that go widdershins that would make sense, but there is no mention of Chester at the target. I Think this is nonsense but not 100 percent sure. Si Trew (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Aprill
(neelix redirect) This is an {{R from mispelling}}
really and should be tagged as such but I am not sure that this is a likely mispelling, may hinder search. Si Trew (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - This appears to be a real first name and last name of many people, some of which may even be notable (no idea for sure offhand). Even if this could be a valid redirect as a simple misspelling, I'm wary about keeping it since it would hinder possible page creation in terms of said real people. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Yusufzai (Pashtun tribe)
- Yusufzai (Pashtun tribe) → Yusufzai (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
It is {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}
pobably but not 100 percent sure. About 99 percenmt sure.(Neelix redirect) Si Trew (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Miss Universe Malta
- Miss Universe Malta → Miss Malta (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Misleading redirect. Miss Universe Malta, which was just deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Universe Malta, is not related to the Miss Malta pageant. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Patently Miss Malta can't be the queen of the Universe. Si Trew (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
May 10
List of people named Henry Lord and all other SSTflyer redirects
- 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. The entire list is included in this discussion. I'll add a note to make that clearer. -- Tavix (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- List of people named Henry Lord → Henry Lord (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ] The Traditionalist (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Every redirect listed here.
As you can see LOPN Henry Lopes has already been deleted following a discussion here today and I also nominated for speedy deletion LOPN Henry Lott with this rationale. Still, my call for all of them to be speedily deleted was ignored, thus I start this discussion here. I hope that you understand that it is impossible to tag 17,500 different pages.--The Traditionalist (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Cucurbita polymorpha
- Cucurbita polymorpha → Cucurbita pepo (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) whiy would this be polymorphic? I can't see it at the target Si Trew (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Paceman
- Paceman → Fast bowling (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Should this not go to pacemaker like Christopher Chataway someone who deliberately sets the pace in a race? however I can't find an article about that, perhaps this is blocking search., Si Trew (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom - pointless redirect created by Neelix. –Davey2010Talk 17:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete would have made more sense as a misspelling of pacman Legacypac (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep or disambiguation https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/paceman#English Siuenti (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Mini Paceman as the overwhelming majority of uses of the term "Paceman" appear to relate to the car, making it what seems a clear-cut case of a primary target. I can, however, see a good argument to also make a disambiguation page. There's the usage of this as a typo for Pacman as well as for a process in what radiographers do. The application of this term to cricket also isn't wrong; I see it when looking up cricket-related articles from multiple news organizations. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Noting that I went ahead and created "Paceman (disambiguation)". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Spintop
(neelix redirect)) Not sure about this one Si Trew (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I actually believe this one to be useful for once as technically the top of the top spins .... –Davey2010Talk 17:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- cOMMEnt don't mind if it is kept but there are stacks of these that are a bit less sensible. This is probably the most sensible one. Si Trew (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - As goofy as the word looks and sounds, it's accurate. They do spin. And, more importantly, it doesn't seem to just be a thing made up by Neelix on the fly. A little searching reveals things for sale exactly by the name "spintop". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Top-spins
Ther target is fine but I think this might be pushing it a bit far (Neelix redirect) Si Trew (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Noseless
- Noselessness → Dasa (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Noselessly → Dasa (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete - Neelix redirects which appear to be pointing to a no-longer existent section of this article. The etymology section contains no indication that any of these terms have anything to do with Dasa.Onel5969 TT me 16:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedily delete these are a bit nonsebse. Could refer to someone who has had too much cocaine or whatever, or a missle without a nose cone. Pretty nonsense really. Si Trew (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per Si - All pointless redirects. –Davey2010Talk 17:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete pure noseless nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 18:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Non-speedy delete. Not as implausible as it seems: anasa was an epithet for the Dasas and "noseless" is one possible meaning, which turns out, according to this random article I came across, to have been wrong. Still, it's supremely unlikely that anyone keen on knowledge of noselessness would be looking for the Dasas, rather than (to add to the above list) the protagonist of Gogol's story. Uanfala (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Retarget to Lord VoldemortDelete CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Origin of the human species
- Origin of the human species → Anthropogeny (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I would have thought this should go to Darwin's On the Origin of Species. neelix redirect. Si Trew (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete WP:XY. Seems like it could be anthropogeny, hominization (these two could perhaps be merged) or human evolution. Plantdrew (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. The proper target seems to be anthropogeny. Both hominization and human evolution are specific aspects of it and they're both mentioned in that article's lead. Darwin's book is implausible as it doesn't deal specifically with human species. Uanfala (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Disambiguate - I agree that this could potentially refer to all three (anthropogeny, hominization, and human evolution) of the related scientific articles. It's still a helpful redirect should there be a page pointing out the subtle differences and providing links. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Muhammad/images
- Muhammad/images → Muhammad (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Muhammad/FAQ → Muhammad (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Housekeeping. The Traditionalist (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete G6. Looks like these were well-meaning creations, counterparts to Talk:Muhammad/images and Talk:Muhammad/FAQ, but that's not how talk page subpages work. Since these redirects are in mainspace, they're substantially likely to cause confusion. --BDD (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. When a user is on a talk subpage and clicks on the article tab, it can cause confusion to land on a nonexistent page. The point of these redirects was to provide a meaningful response when a user clicks on the article tab from either subpage Talk:Muhammad/FAQ or Talk:Muhammad/images. A user would expect to see the Muhammad article when clicking on the Article tab. Many of the discussions on Talk:Muhammad/images have participation from newbies who are not familiar with Wikipedia. These redirects were intended to alleviate confusion, and redirects are cheap. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- It's actually quite unlikely a user would expect such a feature if they were at all familiar with talk pages. Such redirects are quite rare, so any editors with such an expectation are doubtless being disappointed on a very regular basis. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's quite unlikely because it is quite rare that users engage on a sub-page of a talk page. In fact, Talk:Muhammad/images is the only one I've encountered in my 10 years on Wikipedia. I created that redirect because I expected such a feature, and felt it was reasonable to assume that others might also, in this rare circumstance. The conversations on /images typically start on the main talk page and are then moved to /images, which has been disorienting to new users in the past, so any little bit helps. Redirects are cheap, after all. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's actually quite unlikely a user would expect such a feature if they were at all familiar with talk pages. Such redirects are quite rare, so any editors with such an expectation are doubtless being disappointed on a very regular basis. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Wikidumbo
- User:Wikidumbo → God (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I do not think that doing this is legitimate... The Traditionalist (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Blank and ask the user to make their userpage something that doesn't violate WP:UP#NOT. This one probably violates WP:FAKEARTICLE because it redirects to a real article without any notice (other than the system notice) and would hinder other users trying to look this user up. Probably also a WP:BLP violation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- BLP? Is God a living person? I thought that God is Dead. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- God's Not Dead, Legacypac (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Religion, Religious
- Religion, Religious → Religion (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Nobody is going to search for this or link to this. The Traditionalist (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Not a notable saying or the name of a town, redirects to a common word. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, Deletion Legacypac (talk) 04:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Draft:Science
- Draft:Science → Science (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Draft:Science page → Science (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Housekeeping. The Traditionalist (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Draft:Science page which was never anything more than a redirect. Keep Draft:Science which has a lot of page history and material that was likely incorporated into the article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
VIRGIL
Per NEVER GONNA GIVE YOU UP. The Traditionalist (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Implausible caps. No notable acronyms defined on the disambiguation page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Demosthenes as fictional character
- Demosthenes as fictional character → Demosthenes (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Retarget to Demosthenes (disambiguation) (which does not contain much information about it, either) or just delete away. The Traditionalist (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Demosthenes (disambiguation) since that article does mention fictional characters by this name CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
MrAristotle
- MrAristotle → Aristotle (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I would say that it is nonsense if the creation rationale did not look legitimate. Still, I cannot get much out of it, so I hope that the creator will come here and comment. The Traditionalist (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - as creator. Here's the story: this is a tip of the hat to Wikipedia's history. The very, very first iteration of Nupedia's Encyclopedia/Wikipedia had software that required links to be in the form of CamelCase. A link to George W. Bush would have to be written GeorgeWBush, one to Golden Gate Bridge would have to be written GoldenGateBridge, and so forth. In a lengthy historical memoir, WP pioneer Ben Kovitz described WP co-founder Larry Sanger taking umbrage that Aristotle had to be written MrAristotle to create a wikilink. Anyway, this is a little Easter Egg to our history as Wikipedians and I hope it will be retained. Carrite (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note - I have moved the memoir excerpt which was posted here to User:Carrite/Kovitz memoir since it was hindering editing the RfD thread. Do check it out, it's worth a read if you're interested in the history of the project. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and tag {{R from CamelCase}}. It is not technically a redirect retained from a historical CamelCase title since it was created long after The Conversion, but I think we should make an exception here. @Carrite: see my note above. In terms of things like WP:G7 please consider that page to be "your" page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
This explanation should be added to the redirect's talk page. Legacypac (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Legacypac:If closed properly, a link to this discussion will be posted at its talk page. That should cover it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
It is the mark of
- It is the mark of → Aristotle (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I am not able to find a meaning in this redirect. The Traditionalist (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is the mark of none other than Aristotle himself to have used this phrase. Uanfala (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Aristotle is not the only one to use this phrase, he didn't speak English (so the phrase could be an artifact of translators), it's not very distinctive, and not discussed in the target article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Dropidas
Obscure great-grandfather of the first cousin of the mother of Plato redirects to Plato... The Traditionalist (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, that sounds like quite a gem. The redirect used to have content when it was created, so it seems best to restore to this earlier version and then, as the topic is of presumably low notability, prod or nominate for deletion. An alternative is to redirect to Lanike, the subject's daughter. Uanfala (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Complete works of Plato
- Complete works of Plato → Plato (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Retarget to Socratic dialogue#Platonic dialogues. I consider this a no-brainer but others might not share this opinion, so it is better to list it here. The Traditionalist (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose: There are at least four categories of "Platonic" works that are not Socratic dialogues.
- Authentic Platonic dialogues which do not feature Socrates (e.g. Laws)
- Spurious Platonic dialogues which do not feature Socrates (Demodocus)
- Possibly spurious works which are not dialogues (Epistles)
- Spurious works which are not dialogues (Definitions and Epigrams)
Any meaningful "Complete works of Plato" should certainly contain the first category. It might also contain the other three categories, but I do not insist on it (I note though that the Works of Demosthenes, while in many respects a poor article, covers both possibly and certainly pseudo-Demosthenic works). Either way, I would be very surprised to be redirected to an article on Socratic dialogues if I were looking for all of Plato's works. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment A quick search shows a collection titled Complete Works edited by Cooper and Hutchinson, as well as other authors compiling collections of "complete works". I don't see a bibliography on the main Plato article though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Socrates Johnson
- Socrates Johnson → Socrates (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Just nonsense, most likely. Seeing that the creator is still active, ten years after the page's creation, I hope that they remember creating this one and will be able to explain its intended purpose. The Traditionalist (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - in a line from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, as a line of historical figures step out of the dudes' time-travelling phone booth in the present, they are introduced as "Dave Beethoven, and Maxine of Arc, Herman the Kid, Bob Genghis Khan, Socrates Johnson, Dennis Freud and, uh, Abraham Lincoln." But it's a pretty obscure reference, and not in the film's article, where it should point if anywhere. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete that'd be like redirecting "short dead dude" A nice catchphrase but not enduring for Wikipedia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Þú Og Þeir (Sókrates)
- 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 Resolved. The redirect code has been replaced with {{Talk page of redirect}}. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Talk:Þú Og Þeir (Sókrates) → Talk:Þú og þeir (Sókrates) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Yet again, a redirect to a talk page with material from a different talk page in it. The Traditionalist (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Traditionalism (disambiguation)
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Traditionalism (disambiguation) → Traditionalism (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
A disambiguation page which redirects to the main topic is hardly useful. Perhaps a deletion would encourage the creation of an actual DAB page. The Traditionalist (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Traditionalism looks like a normal dab page to me. Did you nominate the wrong one? —Xezbeth (talk) 14:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Ooops! I am sorry! I was so confident that Traditionalism was an article and not a disambiguation page that I did not even take a look at it... Withdraw--The Traditionalist (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Talk:List of religious leaders in 2006
- 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 Resolved. The redirect code has been replaced with {{Talk page of redirect}}. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Talk:List of religious leaders in 2006 → Talk:List of 21st-century religious leaders (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Again, redirect to a talk page which contains a different talk page. The Traditionalist (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
LCB Leasing
- LCB Leasing → Federal Bureau of Investigation (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
No obvious relation. The Traditionalist (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- According to news reports such as this, LCB Leasing was a company created by the FBI to register aircraft used in domestic surveillance. Jonathunder (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Is it notable enough for a redirect to FBI's article, in which it is not mentioned?--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- The widespread news coverage makes it at least plausible someone will search for it. Jonathunder (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Is it notable enough for a redirect to FBI's article, in which it is not mentioned?--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Target is far too broad. The FBI has been around a long time and done a lot of stuff. One shell company doesn't justify inclusion in an article, and no inclusion in an article means no redirect. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Elliot Shimon
- Elliot Shimon → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Implausible typo. The Traditionalist (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think I can explain (for suffciently liberal values of "explain") this one...
- Some (dubious seeming) sources have suggested that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, is really a Mossad agent called Elliot Shimon or Simon Elliot. I suspect the redirect is intended to go to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Conspiracy theories, which mentions this. Suggest redirecting to there. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Mhhossein/Un-Islamic Non-state
- 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, WP:G6, by RHaworth (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- User:Mhhossein/Un-Islamic Non-state → Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Cross-namespace redirect which was, most likely, created accidentally. Unless the creator wants it kept, delete it. The Traditionalist (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I vaguely recall debating an article by that title and it being redirected, but this userpage looks to be an error so delete. Legacypac (talk) 13:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Talk:Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War
- 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 Resolved. The redirect code has been replaced with {{Talk page of redirect}}. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Talk:Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War → Talk:Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This redirect to a talk page contains a different talk page. The Traditionalist (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Talk:Boko Haram insurgency/Archive 1
- 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 Redirect suppressed. This page is clearly a valid archive page for its parent talk page, so after removing the redirect, it's a standard talk page archive page. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Talk:Boko Haram insurgency/Archive 1 → Talk:Islamist insurgency in Nigeria/Archive 1 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This redirect contains its merger proposal. Should it be there? The Traditionalist (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Baroness The Margaret Thatcher
- Baroness The Margaret Thatcher → Margaret Thatcher (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Utterly implausible. The Traditionalist (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Utterly implausible, and wrong. Her title was Baroness Thatcher, or in full The Right Honourable the Baroness Thatcher. Not Baroness The Margaret Thatcher, and I can't imagine anyone ever searching for that... (NB "Baroness Thatcher" and "Baroness Margaret Thatcher" are – in my opinion correctly – redirects anyway) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete only introduces error into the wild as these redirects are mirrored. Legacypac (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
A Summary of the Life of Franklin Delano Roosevelt
- A Summary of the Life of Franklin Delano Roosevelt → Franklin D. Roosevelt (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This survived a previous RfD on the basis that the history should be preserved. The article was so unencyclopaedic, however, that there is no reason for it to be preserved. Also, the redirect, on its own, is completely useless. The Traditionalist (talk) 11:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as pointless as a search term. Page should have been deleted instead of redirected. Legacypac (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - There's basically an infinite amount of derivations that could happen if this sort of thing stands: A Summary of Napoleon -> Napoleon, A Summary of Quantum Physics -> Quantum Physics, A Summary of Ghost Life -> Ghost, et cetera. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
John Adams/Inaugural Speech
- John Adams/Inaugural Speech → John Adams (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Per Martin Van Buren/Inaugural Address The Traditionalist (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Uniformisability
- Uniformisability → Uniformizable space (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
úThis is just about plausible (Neelix redirect). It is spelt with British English -ise not -ize, "Fowler and the OED notwithstanding" as Orwell has it yet it is just about plausible enough that I hezitate to take to CSD. Si Trew (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep if it's just a redirect from a British spelling variant (even if infrequently used). Uanfala (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Blue House (Mexico)
- Blue House (Mexico) → Frida Kahlo Museum (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) apparently there is another notable Blue House nowhere near Mexico but this is just then queering the pitch, I think, WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 09:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Ch'ŏng'wadae
- Ch'ŏng'wadae → Blue House (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) Korean who is ever on English wikipedia going to search in this way? Si Trew (talk) 09:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I note that there are in fact 25 separate redirects from various spellings of Chongwadae to Blue House, as well as redirects from the Hangul and Hanja. Most of these were not created by neelix, and they all seem legit to me. They might not be commonly used, but I can certainly see a use-case for them. If consensus is to delete, we should probably nuke the whole lot of them. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Caeciliusinhorto. Uanfala (talk) 19:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. It's the McCune–Reischauer transliteration. Random86 (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
North Pavilions
- North Pavilions → Exelon Pavilions (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- South Pavilions → Exelon Pavilions (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not sure, both are Neelix creations and I think WP:XY as these are not the only North and South pavilions in the world. Si Trew (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 09:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete these are a generic term like North Wing, North Building, South tower. Around here hospitals like to use 'pavilion' for sections of the complex. The redirected terms are just used discriptively to indicate the location of the buildings in relation to each other, and are not the names of the buildings. Legacypac (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Alexandros Jakupović
- Alexandros Jakupović → Alexandros Jakupovic (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I would like the redirect to be deleted. It has been established that this name never features diacritics. Thus it is an ineffectual and practically useless redirect. Rovingrobert (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. The chap is Serbian and would usually have his name written in the Cyrillic alphabet so it makes not much sense to put into Latin alphabet in the first place. Si Trew (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, Why delete? re above, Simon hi, firstly if he was Serbian Serbian is no longer commonly written in Cyrillic, if you look at the tabloid magazines on a news kiosk in Belgrade they are in Latin letters, 99% the same as Croatian. Secondly he's Greek not Serbian, BUT a few English sources do treat his surname as is if he was Serbian, so not doing any harm. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Trust me, I'm with you on diacritics. But I don't see any sources that give this guy's name with diacritics. Keep in mind that a 'c' in Serbian can be a 'ch' or 'ts' sound. Rovingrobert (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete because it's wrong. The Serbian Cyrillic form of his name, at least according to the article and this Serbian news item, is Јакуповиц. According to Serbian Cyrillic, ц = c in Serbian; ћ = ć is a different letter in Serbian. Google searches suggest that both Јакуповицћ and Јакуповиц are surnames used in the Serbo-Croat world and we should respect reliable sources' coverage on which form of the surname he has. Deryck C. 15:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per Deryck C. st170etalk 19:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep and tag with {{R from misspelling}} as it's plausible in this context . Uanfala (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Casket (funerary box)
- Casket (funerary box) → Coffin (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Well lI'll be in my box before I get through these Neelix redirects but the (funerary box) at the back is a bit odd. I am well aware of the distinction betweenm British and US English but this does not need the DAB. Si Trew (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hummm there are a few pages Casket (something) but no dab page. Instead Casket is hatnotted to coffin. I suppose it has a little utility for someone searching "casket" on the site, seeing this redirect as an option and choosing it would be a little quicker then following the hat note. Maybe we need a DAB... Legacypac (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
HKTBA
- HKTBA → Hong Kong Top Brand Awards (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not sure with this one. (Neelix redirect) was it ever known just by its initalism. User:Lenticel may know. Si Trew (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I've sought deletion on several hundred Neelix invented initialisms. If not in the target page with a cite, good chance it's wrong. Very unlikely this award wants to shorten it's name officially to such a meaningless string. Legacypac (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - the initialism is not in the article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Ivanvector. Alcherin (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
List of people named Henry Lopes
- 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 by multiple admins, with RHaworth (talk · contribs) handling the mass deletion. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- List of people named Henry Lopes → Henry Lopes (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Note: This discussion includes all redirects at User:SSTflyer/hndis. -- Tavix (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Given all the DABs on people's names we have, creating List of people named John Smith for John Smith could really get out of hand. Is there a good reason for this redirect? Legacypac (talk) 07:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all as creator. What matters is if deleting it benefits Wikipedia. This redirect does not meet any of WP:R#DELETE but meets WP:R#KEEP #3 and #5. Personally I find such a redirect useful, and it is harmless. SSTflyer 08:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- @SSTflyer: why do you say keep all when only one is listed? Si Trew (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- See User:SSTflyer/hndis. —Cryptic 11:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete this is just clutter. No one is going to link to this, nor search for this and if they do the dab page will come up anyway. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Just clutter" is not a valid deletion rationale. When I searched for "List of people named John Smith" in the search box, the disambiguation page is not on the first 4 pages of results. So yes, the redirect aids readers during searches. SSTflyer 13:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Quite an unlikely search term -- samtar talk or stalk 11:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Whether it is a likely search term is subjective. I wouldn't be creating these redirects if I thought they were useless. SSTflyer 13:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that you did not think that they were useless does not mean that they were not.--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Whether it is a likely search term is subjective. I wouldn't be creating these redirects if I thought they were useless. SSTflyer 13:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I was not aware there were thousands of these created already! An exceeding bad idea that does not help the reader. Search engines don't need these redirects to help find these dabs. Legacypac (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Delete per pretty much anyone above me.--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)See below.- Inclined to delete since technically they aren't lists. They are navigation aids. You could convert them to lists without much effort but then they would be set indices instead, and they are more useful as proper dab pages. —Xezbeth (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - WP:RFD#K5; the target is a list (not technically a WP:LIST but a literal list) of people named Henry Lopes. What's the problem? Someone looking for a "list of people named Henry Lopes" will find exactly that at the target. We're not here to stop people finding information they're looking for. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete all per WP:R3 and the the ANI thread. Not only are these unlikely search terms, there's a big difference between a list and a disambiguation page. A list has a lede and notability criteria (WP:SAL), a disambiguation's sole purpose is to be used as a navigational aid for someone to find other articles. That's why we have a project that removes links to disambiguation pages, we don't want people ending up there unless they have to. Let's not confuse people by blurring the lines between a list and a disambiguation page. If we created these as lists, they would be deleted as trivia (no one goes "I wonder how many notable people are named Henry Lopes!). -- Tavix (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep this and similar "list of people..." redirects. The title accurately describes the target page. (i.e. It's correct, I find it useful, and redirects are cheap.) Deryck C. 15:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per everyone above - No need for "lists of" etc, –Davey2010Talk 17:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and explicitly set a precedent for the speedy deletion as routine maintenance of similar "list of" articles which exist as a redirect to the sole entry (regardless of their creator), to save a repetition of the post-Neelix situation in which a zillion different redirects have to be discussed separately. Serves no useful purpose; no article will ever link to this, and in the vanishingly unlikely event that anyone were ever to type "List of people named Henry Lopes" into the search box, the software will show them a list with Henry Lopes as the first entry. ‑ Iridescent 21:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedily delete all I tagged myself for speedy deletion the first 20 of them but they are 17,500 on their whole. Tagging them all is impossible.--The Traditionalist (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
I'm not sure these are in process speedies. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC).
Blank space
- Blank space → Blank Space (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I am starting this discussion to determine if the song is the primary topic for "blank space" in this capitalization. Talk:Blank Space#Requested move 15 November 2014 is closed as move, but many discussion participants supported the move on the basis of WP:DIFFCAPS, i.e. the article about the song would be moved to Blank Space with Blank space continuing to redirect to Space (punctuation). This redirect was later retargeted without discussion to the song. Should this redirect point to Blank Space or Space (punctuation)? SSTflyer 06:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Space (punctuation) should be the target when only looking at those two. An alternative capitalization can direct to a different target. Space (punctuation) would be the primary topic (i.e. "primary long-term significance"). However, this is also synonymous with empty space.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as is, redirecting to space (punctuation). The song is is not the absolute topic of small letters blank space] In ictu oculi (talk) 11:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @In ictu oculi: It currently targets the song, so you're suggesting a retarget.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 13:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Well it certainly shouldn't be to the song, no. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @In ictu oculi: It currently targets the song, so you're suggesting a retarget.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 13:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep targeted at the song. Per my comments in the aforementioned move request, no one looked up "blank space" (regardless of capitalization) before the song's release. Because of that, the song is clearly the primary topic for both variants. Calidum ¤ 21:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Medial section
- Medial section → Golden ratio (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) Shouldn't this be better at Golden section. Stacks of kinda geometry ones to do. Si Trew (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- But Golden section is itself a redirect to Golden ratio. Uanfala (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as it appears to be a synonym for Golden ratio, according to the OED. There does appear to be another use of this term, as revealed by a google scholar search, to refer to a middle section in technical drawings. I'm not sure if there's a suitable wikipedia article to link to. Even less sure if anyone is actually going to search for this term and expect to find it here. Uanfala (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Amongst my few talents I studied technical drawing for many years (and that's not my ear, mine had a pencil behind it). I am just not sure on this one. I usually use a technical A2 drawing board and do everything by hand just like I do at Wikipedia. I don't really sure on this one. Si Trew (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Golden-spectacled
- Golden-spectacled → Seicercus (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Calling User:Plantdrew and User:Peter coxhead. Is this just a made up term or is it valid? I can see that golden eyed birdies would be valid but not sure about golden specacled (mine just come from Vision Express). I think there is a golden spectacled Owl or something but I am no expert on taxonomy. Si Trew (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete or Speedy Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June_3#Dark-throated. I've been boldly deleting these since long before the recent drama. This is probably one of the last remaining ones. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I really wish I'd known about that rfd as we have been debating many Neelix redirects like these. Nice to see Neelix opposes redirects of a type he created hundreds of. Legacypac (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Could be golden spectacled tegu or golden-spectacled warbler (I don't think the hyphen makes much difference to our readers). It's a partial title match at best, so shouldn't be a dab page. Good to know Neelix redirects like these are getting cleaned up, but he also created a bunch of dab pages along these line; e.g. golden-breasted, black-bibbed, red-breasted, and more can be found in Category:Animal common name disambiguation pages. Plantdrew (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I zap those at will too, while referring back to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red-knobbed. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - As stated above, it's only a partial title match for the two given animals. I pretty much agree. It should just be trashed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Mean of Phidias
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Mean of Phidias → Golden ratio (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Hmm there are stacks of mathematical redirects, the maths experts probably would know more than I do but I don't think Phidias came up with the mean ratio or golden ration. Probably best to ask at WP:MATH. Si Trew (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as the term does appear to be used, if infrequently: [1]. Uanfala (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- 'Speedily keep withdrawn by nominator (me). If in doubt give RfD a shout. I forgot to say this is a neelix redirect. Si Trew (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Old Gold (cigarette)
- Old Gold (cigarette) → Lorillard Tobacco Company (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) not sure about this one. Since I smoke roll-your-own and get through about a keyboard every three months by putting rollup into it, I can see this makes sense and was indeed a brand of cigarettes in the UK. But it is the brackets cigarette unbrackets at the back that bugs me. Si Trew (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Ah hang on Old Gold is a colour... I see where this is going. greenisholives. Si Trew (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- No actually it don't I was expecting it to be Greenisholives but admnin User:Anthony Appleyard just made it
{{R from other capitalization}}
many years ago. There is something fishy with this one but can't work it out yet. Neelix redirect. Si Trew (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- No actually it don't I was expecting it to be Greenisholives but admnin User:Anthony Appleyard just made it
-
- Ah hang on Old Gold is a colour... I see where this is going. greenisholives. Si Trew (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, Old Gold is a brand of cigarette made by Lorillard Tobacco Company. I think it's a {{R from brand name}}. -- Tavix (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Hmmm not sure. It is not a British brand of tobacco not made by British American Tobacco (BAT) or Gallagher or anything like that. Now, what was Terrys Chocolate essentially Rowntrees of York (now of course part of Mondelez) used to advertise on British television a box of chocs saying "see your woman's face light up with Terry's All Gold." so I am really not sure on this one. Si Trew (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm is it because it was created by Neelix confusing it with Golden Virginia? Si Trew (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Keep https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/imagebuzz/web04/2010/12/15/12/old-gold-cigarettes-will-give-you-coke-eyes-8670-1292434715-74.jpg --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I would agree with you but the back end of it the (cigarette) is what is bugging me @SmokeyJoe:. That is a nice pic on that advert that is kinda very reminiscent of who was the bloke forget the name who drew loads of nice advert pics in an Art Deco style lovely pic that one. I am just wondering whether this makes sense to well it don't make sence to me being British English but if it makes sense to Americans then we should keep it. It certainly confused me. Si Trew (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- On the other hand, the search function (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=old+gold+cigarette&go=Go) works better than manual redirects. It didn't used to be that way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with that which is why I tend to like to delete a lot of redirects so the search engine can do its job properly. I am in no way a WP:DELETIONIST but the more redirect clutter we get out of the way the better the search will work. Si Trew (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete in a puff of smoke as a strange search term and better to let search work. In the lead of the target Old Gold is listed with their other brands, each pointed to articles disambiguated with (cigerette) so this makes sense as an article title but should be redlinked to encourage article creation. Add a link to this title in the lead of the target. Legacypac (talk) 07:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as {{R from brand name}} per Tavix.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I'd imagine those who are familiar with Old Gold would probably search for it here. –Davey2010Talk 17:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep it's a sensible redirct, can be used Old Gold with the pipe trick. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC).
Descent to the underworld
- Descent to the underworld → Katabasis (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This redirect contains a different version of the article. Should we remove it, just leave it there or take different action? The Traditionalist (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguate - This first made me think of the Harrowing of Hell (I suppose that's my Catholic upbringing at work). Yet there are also many other stories of beings making a descent into a scary after-life place only to come back, including ones that are specifically fictional. It's been a while since I've read it, but doesn't Milton's Paradise Lost also use the term at some point also? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)- Keep - I clicked over to the wrong page. Katabasis is already a disambiguation-like discussion of various descents and works well as a target. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Delete. It does no good to do back formations like that. One of Neelix'. You have what is a mix of Greek and English and it does no good to keep it, it does not help people search. WP:RFD#D1 hinders search. Si Trew (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- This is more of a mess than it looks. Per the original poster, "Descent to the underworld" contains after the REDIRECT some text which I've checked and is now fully incorporated into the article "Katabasis". The similar redirect "Descent to the Underworld" (capital U) doesn't have this text. So I suggest
-
- (1) Delete all the text other than the REDIRECT at "Descent to the underworld"
- (2) Keep since one version of a katabasis is a descent into the underworld. But, since "Descent into Hell" redirects to Harrowing of Hell, and bearing in mind "Hell" is the Christian underworld according to the "Underworld" article, "Katabasis" needs a See Also to Harrowing of Hell, and Harrowing of Hell needs a See Also to Ketabasis.
- (3) Whatever you do to "Descent to the u..." must also be done to "Descent to the U...", "Descent into the u..." and "Descent into the u..." Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- write an article -- the problem is not with redirects or article titles, it's with the fact that both pages are simply terrible. Somebody needs to sit down and write an actual article. Traditionally, the person who does the work also gets to pick a reasonable title for their article (which should then only be changed if there are objective problems with it, but not out of questions of personal taste or preference). --dab (𒁳) 09:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Itanimulli
- Itanimulli → National Security Agency (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Supposedly, this name (Illuminati spelled backwards) is some kind of code for the National Security Administration. A non-notable hoax, is what it is. Delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- 'Delete per Ivanvector. It is not spelled backwords like a palindrome or what not, it is simply WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. We do of course have Illuminati but this makes no sense even as
{{R from misspeling}}
. It does mean something in Arabic I think nearer to a mullah but in English this makes no sense. Si Trew (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC) - Delete as hoax/conspiracy nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. It's worth noting that I originally created it as a redirect to Illuminati; paging User:Regressing Roll O Art to explain the later retargeting. ONR (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Xo-Ho
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Xo-Ho → Horace Walpole (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Looks like nonsense, but I might be wrong. The Traditionalist (talk) 01:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- No you're right. It's a bit so-so but this is a no-no, (Chinese transliteration) WP:RFOREIGN Speedily delete. Si Trew (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Under this name he wrote, in 1757, A Letter from Xo Ho, a Chinese Philosopher at London, to his Friend Lien Chi at Peking, the first of his works to be widely reviewed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC).
Withdraw. @Rich Farmbrough: Could you add a mention in the article?--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Certainly. We should probably have a separate bibliography, but I'll add some prose. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC).
-
- I'lll quite happiliy withdraw this (as nominator) if there is text in the article. Si Trew (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- @SimonTrew: Very kind of you, but I am the nominator...--The Traditionalist (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'lll quite happiliy withdraw this (as nominator) if there is text in the article. Si Trew (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- 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 Salvation Army corps in the United Kingdom in 1900
- List of Salvation Army corps in the United Kingdom in 1900 → The Salvation Army (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Misleading: the list is not included in the article. The Traditionalist (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. You can't take a "list of" to something that is not a list. I am not sure that although the Salvation Army which I am a great admirer of has a "corps". Certainly they are structured in Military style but this is just WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as misleading because there is no list. A Salvation Army corps is a church/meeting house. Legacypac (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Well I didn't know that, more like a chapel or Friends Meeting House if you are a Quaker (Society of Friends). I never knew that, I learned something today . Si Trew (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
@Legacypac: although I am something of an apathist I have a great deal of respect for the Sally Ann and Paul O'Grady's series of programmes on the Beeb that were so touching, moving and funny made me feel even more respect both for he and the Sally Ann. I am not a believer in any way but those programmes were very touching, and I think the best the Beeb can do when it puts its mind to it. Si Trew (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Scientology/Links
- Scientology/Links → Scientology (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Housekeeping. The Traditionalist (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTLINKFARM. -- Tavix (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Has a non-trivial early history that should be in the talk page history. Move without redirect to Talk namespace, and merge and redirect the 20:26, 21 March 2002 content to Talk:Scientology/Archive 1. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Move to talk-space. These types of resources are useful to editors. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC).
Illuminati Bankers
- Illuminati Bankers → New World Order (conspiracy theory) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Either retarget or delete. I would go with delete. The Traditionalist (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
2b1ask1
- 2b1ask1 → Freemasonry (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Meme Lodge No. Over 9000. The Traditionalist (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Even if this were a Freemason's lodge it would not be notable on Wikipedia, and to redirect it simply to Freemasonry would be absurd. I go get my compass and sextant. but I think redirecting it in this way is a bit weird. I have no problems with anyone's beliefs but on wikipedia this makes no sense. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Funny story, when I came to this discussion I had no clue I was the one who made the page. That being said, Google it. It's on all sorts of shirts and bumper stickers and I suppose I figured in case someone wanted to look it up I'd at least point the person the the right direction. I guess my question though, is what made you decide to look it up and then go to the trouble of trying to get it deleted? PeRshGo (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @PeRshGo: This is not regular Masonic terminology and it does not strictly refer only to Freemasonry. I simply browsed the list of redirects to Freemsonry and nominated the ones I thought that deserved discussion.--The Traditionalist (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- @The Traditionalist: Are you using the term regular in the Masonic sense, to claim that the phrase is irregular? PeRshGo (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- @PeRshGo: Yes.--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- @The Traditionalist: Ah, well that certainly isn't the case in the US. Some grand lodges even have entire sections dedicated to the acronym. 2B1Ask1 - Grand Lodge of Ancient Free Masons of South Carolina PeRshGo (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- @PeRshGo: Yes.--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- @The Traditionalist: Are you using the term regular in the Masonic sense, to claim that the phrase is irregular? PeRshGo (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- @PeRshGo: This is not regular Masonic terminology and it does not strictly refer only to Freemasonry. I simply browsed the list of redirects to Freemsonry and nominated the ones I thought that deserved discussion.--The Traditionalist (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - "to be one ask one". Not sure if it originates from a meme or not.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Regular Grand Lodge of England
- Regular Grand Lodge of England → Freemasonry (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I am not sure if there was ever a Grand Lodge of England called "regular". Even then, I suppose that we should retarget it to the relevant article. The Traditionalist (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Let me check this one tomorrow. I am not a Freemason but have respect for them just as I have respect for all the pissy god botherers (joking). Because I am English I can check this probably better than you can. I am not even sure that there is a Grand Lodge what the Freemasons call essentially in the hierarchy, there is not even an occasional Grand Lodge of England let alone a regular one. So this is pretty much nonsense I think. Si Trew (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to the United Kingdom section of Regular Masonic jurisdiction (which explains the use of regular in this context) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget as
{{R to section}}
as above by shhhhnotsoloud. That makes much more sense. Si Trew (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC) - But what that section says is that we should, in fact, retarget it to United Grand Lodge of England...--The Traditionalist (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- ...but that page doesn't make it clear why you've been redirected there (and I don't know enough about it to edit it!) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- The Regular Grand Lodge of England is a real organisation, with a membership of almost two, which has nonetheless managed to scam perhaps hundreds of men in several countries into forming lodges and even grand lodges under its auspices (for money, of course). Most of these don't last, some have cast aside their phantom mentor and are forming their own masonic organisations. The acrimony generated by this tiny organisation was for a time truly international. I suggest re-instating the article as a stub. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- ...but that page doesn't make it clear why you've been redirected there (and I don't know enough about it to edit it!) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Cebu lodge no. 128
- Cebu lodge no. 128 → Freemasonry (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned in the article and non-notable. The Traditionalist (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedily delete. deffo not notable and what are we to have Cebu Lodge no. 129 or Cebu Lodge no. 130. This makes no sense really. Getting my star and compasses I can see maybe why this was created but is not and can ever be notable. Si Trew (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
LOL you're a noob
- 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 WP:G3, by 78.26 (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- LOL you're a noob → Illuminati (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- *sigh* The Traditionalist (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete WP:G3 clear vandalism. Tagged. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Knight of the Secret Circle
- Knight of the Secret Circle → Illuminati (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned in the article. Still, I am certain that I have heard about it. Perhaps a reference desk question would be good. The Traditionalist (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I am almost definitely wrong on this but just throwing it out for others to consider that in Monty Python and the Holy Grail there was the Black Night. I am not suggesting by any means that that is the right target. It is certainly not the right target for freemasonry or the illuminati, there do seem to be a lot of Freemasonry redirects that Traditionalist has been kindly listing. Let me make myself clear I am not a Freemason I am an apathist but on English Wikipedia these make no sense. In Holy grail there is a song written I think by Neil Innes that goes "we're knights of the Round Table, we dance when'ere we able, we do routines and chorus scenes with footwork Impeccable". Might have been Eric Idle. But I think it it would be absurd to retarget that way so probably delete it. Si Trew (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
E
- Comment. I am almost definitely wrong on this but just throwing it out for others to consider that in Monty Python and the Holy Grail there was the Black Night. I am not suggesting by any means that that is the right target. It is certainly not the right target for freemasonry or the illuminati, there do seem to be a lot of Freemasonry redirects that Traditionalist has been kindly listing. Let me make myself clear I am not a Freemason I am an apathist but on English Wikipedia these make no sense. In Holy grail there is a song written I think by Neil Innes that goes "we're knights of the Round Table, we dance when'ere we able, we do routines and chorus scenes whenever we are able". But I think it it would be absurd to retarget that way so probably delete it. Si Trew (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
ILUMINATI
- ILUMINATI → Illuminati (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The typo is plausible but there already is a lowercase version of it (Iluminati), so this one is not needed. It looks like there was not... I need more sleep. Still, it would be good if we deleted the uppercase version and created the lowercase one. The Traditionalist (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment the Eyes of the Illuminati was a computer game made by I forget whom when I had an Atari 800, they made great games, I am just throwing it out as a comment. Nearly daylight here Si Trew (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete WP:RCAPS combined with a typo makes this implausible. -- Tavix (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete nom (The Traditionalist) and Tavix have this spot on. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I have created the lowercase version. Valid typo, but deleted or not, it does not matter when making searches. Harmless but somewhat useless. SSTflyer 04:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete we don't want to encourage creation of all caps versions of every title and typo here. Legacypac (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is actually counter-productive to delete this sort of cruft. This discussion has already added about 800k to the database. I don't see that that anyone is encouraged to create more such redirects, and they can be gently told if they do start creating them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC).
- It is actually counter-productive to delete this sort of cruft. This discussion has already added about 800k to the database. I don't see that that anyone is encouraged to create more such redirects, and they can be gently told if they do start creating them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC).
- 'Keep this has been around for 7 years and is not harmful. Therefore deleteing it goes against the guidelines for RfD. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC).
- Delete Caps implies an acronym or major stylization, which I don't see in the properly spelled disambiguation page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Rotary Australia World Community Service
- Rotary Australia World Community Service → Rotary International (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned in the article and clearly non-notable. The Traditionalist (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete unnecessary per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Rotary Club of Shanghai
- Rotary Club of Shanghai → Rotary International (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
There is a passive mention in the article, but not sufficient for a redirect. The Traditionalist (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete not notable. There are Rotary Clubs everywhere so why is this specifically a notable one. Si Trew (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep A mention in an encompassing organization's article is more than enough. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC).
Rotary Club of North Bay, Ontario
- Rotary Club of North Bay, Ontario → Rotary International (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Rotary Club of North Bay Ontario → Rotary International (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Albemarle County Democratic Committee case. The Traditionalist (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - no reasonable expectation of an article here. Ground Zero | t 02:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I might as well create the Wheeltappers and Shunters Social Club of Sudbury, Ontario (right next to the Big Nickel), this is patently not notable. Si Trew (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- The story here is that somebody created an article about this in 2005, while failing to source it nearly enough to demonstrate any discernible reason why an international encyclopedia should give a hoot — so it was redirected to the parent organization as that's one of the options for dealing with an article of this type. There is indeed virtually zero prospect of a separate article about this actually becoming keepable. Si Trew might want to revisit what's actually next to the Big Nickel, though — which is not, admittedly, to say that it's notable either (though the barbecue sauce is still as legendary as ever.) Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete unnecessary per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
The second us president
- The second us president → John Adams (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The capitalisation is rather bad. Especially when there is no redirect called The second U.S. President. The Traditionalist (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: If you type in "The Second US President", it will still send you to Adams. Also, there's no reason why the redlink the OP mentions shouldn't be created. pbp 01:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as kinda well who was the second US president especially with the caps this. It could be Washington or Adams or pretty much anything, the second US president depends really on how you define a president of the United States.
-
- Now Lydia, say Lydia now have you heard Lydia
- Lydia the tattooed lady
- She's got eyes that folks adore so
- And a torso even moreso
- Lydia say lydia well have you met lydia
- Lydia the queen of tattoo
- On the back is the Battle of Waterloo
- Beside it a Wreck of the Hesperus too
- And proudly above waves the Red White and Blue
- You can learn a lot from Lydia
-
-
- SHuffle up and see her her with her big diamond
- Over on the left side we have Treasure Island
- There's Nijinski a-doing a rumba
- There's her social security number
-
-
-
- Here is Grover Walin unveilin' the Trilon
- Over on the right we may have the new Skylon
- Here is Captain Spalding exploring the Amazon
- Here's Godiva but with her pajamas on
-
-
-
- She once swept an Admiral clear off his feet
- The ships on her hips made his heart miss a beat
- For now the old boy's in command of the fleet
- As he went and married Lydia.
-
You can learn a lot from Lydia, la la, la la. Si Trew (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
John Adams/Inaugural Speeech
- John Adams/Inaugural Speeech → John Adams (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
One of the most laughable things I have ever encountered in Wikipedia. Enjoy. The Traditionalist (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTWIKIQUOTE and probably WP:COPYVIO although I don't know if this qualifies as public domain. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per my rationale at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 31#Martin Van Buren/Inaugural Address. -- Tavix (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- 'Delete. For if not we should have John Adams' final speech, you kinda cant do things that way. I think essentially a WP:SNOW speedy delete. Si Trew (talk) 02:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Trivial history replicated at John Adams/Inaugural Speech, due to a spelling mistake. (there was no need to fix this). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @SmokeyJoe: you should look up the First President's Initial Powerpoint Presentation. There is a graph that has countries going from zero to one. Four score and seven year's ago, we founded a new country (graph shows countries going from zero to one). It is a brilliant bit of humour, you should look it up. Si Trew (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep 14 years old, created by conversion script, of historical importance. Also not harmful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC).
Vitreous (boss)
- 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 speedily deleted by Boing! said Zebedee. --BDD (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Vitreous (boss) → The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned in the target article. Delete per WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Yeah so what is a vitreous boss someone who runs Pilkington Glass or what? Taken to [WP:CSD]], Si Trew (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Cool Dimension: Sexy Assassin
- Cool Dimension: Sexy Assassin → Cool Dimension: Innocent Assassin (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
An implausible redirect for Cool Dimension: Innocent Assassin. Also, I cannot find any reliable sources for this title except for IMDB, which is not a WP:RS. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Adams 2
- Adams 2 → John Adams (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This redirect could refer to many people (and things), not just John Adams. I would prefer it deleted, but, if we are going to retarget it, John Quincy Adams would be the primary contender, as he was the second Adams to be a U.S. President, while John was just the second U.S. President. The Traditionalist (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Convert to disambiguation: So there are multiple things that John Adams could refer to. One of them is John Adams (Adams 2 in the same way that George H.W. Bush is Bush 41 and George W. Bush is Bush 43), another one is John Quincy Adams, and perhaps another one is Charles Francis Adams, Jr.. pbp 01:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as vague. Unlike the Bushes, John Adams is not known as Adams 2 for this very reason. -- Tavix (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Tavix. Could conflict with something at Adams.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Sounds like a rocket or codeword like Adam-12, but lacks the significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Book of Mudora
- Book of Mudora → The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned in the target article. Delete per WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, no longer mentioned at the target. Is mentioned elsewhere, but readers will be better served by the search function https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=book+of+mudora&fulltext=Search --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Blind the Thief
- Blind the Thief → The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not mentioned in the target article. Delete per WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 00:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Hmmm deliberately not looking at the target I think this is confusing. Blind he thief is a biblical / koranic expression isn't it?
- Houseman in A Shropshire Lad has it thus
- If by chance thine eye offend the
- Cut it out man, and be whole
- But be a man and go and end thee
- If thine sickness is thy soul
- I think a lot of these onese to Zelda are biblical/Koranic allusions but not quite right
- My gran used to say
- Before you complain about the dirt on someone else's glasses
- Make sure it is not the dirt on your own
- And that is an allusion to casting the mote I believe. Si Trew (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
Arrghus
- Arrghus → The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Seems that this is a boss in the The Legend of Zelda video game series that is not exclusive to the subject of the redirect's target and seems to be not mentioned there. With that being said, delete per WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: The subject of this redirect is currently not mentioned at Recurring enemies in The Legend of Zelda series. Steel1943 (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete If it's a boss character and it's not even mentioned in the article, it must not be that important of a boss character. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Argos ...... No? ... Okay delete seeing as it's not mentioned in the enmey list thingy. –Davey2010Talk 00:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
May 9
Pacific Sea
- Pacific Sea → Pacific Ocean (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This was created yesterday (not by me) 'after the discussion below about various other Pacific redirects. .That just muddies the waters although admittedly the Pacific has very large waters. Si Trew (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. SimonTrew, you didn't really give much of a rationale, but this one is okay. If you've ever heard the phrase "Seven Seas," the Pacific Ocean is technically two of them. -- Tavix (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- @Tavix: there are stacks of these which are more absurd than this. I don't give a rationale because if I bring them to RfD I am not sure about them. You would damned well think that the Pacific Sea is the Pacific Ocean but it seems that it is not. I listed something like Marinus pacifii or some other Neelix nonsense yesterday at CSD but then was told off by another editor for listing too many. Well we have about forty thousand to do, about half way through, and I don't wish to flood either RfD or CSD. I take the obvious ones to CSD or speedily keep and rcat but the ones I have any doubt on I bring here. Si Trew (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Delete as searches show no one calling the Pacific Ocean the Pacific Sea. Instead this hurts readers by messing up search results because there are many articles that start with Pacific Sea..." Legacypac (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as {{R from incorrect name}}. It isn't technically a sea, but this is a plausible misnomer that is unambiguous, and it doesn't really do any harm.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Curser
A cursers' not a cursor it declined at CSD but I can't see that this is plausible as the admin see. A curser is a bloke that swears a cursor is owt else, I don't know why was thus declined but I can swear much worse. (Neelix redirect sorry forgot to say that) Si Trew (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect doesn't help navigation. Either delete (in which case the normal search facility is sufficient to get users to Cursor as it's the first item in the results, but Curse is inaccessible), or dabify (including links to Curse and Profanity). Uanfala (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah @Uanfala: please excuse me if I swear, I do not in real life ever, my mother would have washed my mouth out with soap and water, but there are so many swearing/profanity ones to do that I do occasionally use rather profound language. For that I can only apologise in real life I would not dream of doing it but I am a bit of a cunning linguist and have a dirty tongue sometimes. Si Trew (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. A redirect would go to the word curse which is a common word that would be overlinked. Having it show as a redlink would have people fix the spelling if they meant the pointy thing on the computer screen. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 9#Cursers.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Science and technology in Kazakhstan
- Science and technology in Kazakhstan → Education in Kazakhstan (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Per the conventions of other language Wikipedias and the difference in meaning. (Or is this some strange joke like Kazakhstan got its education system messed up so that its education brings no fruits of science & technology?)
See Science and technology in France / United States and Education in France / United States
Did not want to start the stub instead, maybe a Kazakhstani can...(redirects to uncreated pages imo probably inhibit the creation of them.) Fixuture (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- The redirect apparently comes from template {{Asia topic|Science and technology in}} that is placed at the bottom of the articles such as Science and technology in Russia. If you find this redirect confusing then it probably can be deleted. Back in 2009 I remember creating several similar redirects to fill in navigation templates, some articles could not be about exact subjects, but about closely related topics. --ssr (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Access to amenities
- Access to amenities → Unisex public toilet (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Access to amenities (trans) → Unisex public toilet (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Access to amenities (transgender) → Unisex public toilet (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The subject at Amenity is about a concept that is not exclusive to bathrooms/restrooms/public toilets, so these redirects are misleading. Note: Access to amenities (transgender) is a {{R from merge}}. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- delete too nonspecific DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete "access to amenities" as a broad concept not specifically related to just any one group and retarget the other two to transgender inequality since that article is about discrimination against transgender people generally, including multiple kinds of amenities CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @CoffeeWithMarkets: I can see what you mean by your recommendation, but that would create the odd situation where versions of an ambiguous title with a disambiguator exist, but the ambiguous title does not. (In other words, there would be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC conflict.) Is there another phrase that could mean "Access to amenities (transgender)" that doesn't require a disambiguator? Steel1943 (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- There probably is a better way to phrase it than just "access to amenities by transgender people", but I can't think of such a way at the moment. I also don't think that it's necessarily a bad thing if a title is improperly formatted since there's no reason to expect any particular random visitor to know the specific conventions of how Wikipedia uses parenthesis. There are so many examples of similarly styled redirects that have been kept, even just over the past several weeks. Irritant (biology) going to Irritation comes to mind. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Myopically
- Myopically → Myopia (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(Neelix redirect) I have taken Myopes and Myope to CSD per WP:G6 housekeeping, however I feel this could be a valid {{R from adjective}}
. However it is usually used about comic characters such as Mr Magoo or in a figurative sense to mean short-sightedness in a metaphorical sense, lack of forethought, and so on or not to see unintended consequences. So while I don't think it should be deleted, I am not sure targeting it to the literal myopia is best. Probably is, but not sure.short-sightedness rightly goes there.) Si Trew (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as just about plausible. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete another implausible Neelix redirect. "Myopically" is in my experience far more commonly used as an adjective, rather than a reference to the disease state. I think it is confusing and misleading to keep this redirect because I do not think it matches the target most people searching will be looking for. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Soft retarget to Wiktionary and its page on this (yes, I know there are other ways to link to said page, whatever). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Find a new target per nominator; it's not this, and short-sighted also points to this target, which I guess is appropriate. But like others have said, this is not normally used to refer to the medical condition but to the condition of not considering of the full consequences of your hasty plan (e.g. council voted myopically to spend an extra $1B propping up that crumbling freeway that nobody uses instead of investing in transit). I'm not quite sure what that better target is. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete or retarget or disambiguate Of the first 50 GBooks hits, I see only two which refer to the medical condition. Most of them seem to refer to marketing myopia, high time preference, or some sort of variation of greedy algorithms (I think). But a disambiguation page consisting entirely of metaphorical uses seems a bit weird, so I wouldn't object to deletion. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
The Greatest Game of All
- The Greatest Game of All → Rugby league (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Useless redirect, as it is purely a matter of opinion. Safiel (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's moniker coined by this person, George Lovejoy, which has sometimes been used as a tagline for rugby league. Similar to union's "The game they play in heaven", and horse racing's "Sport of kings", though less used, and a little bit more silly. Here's an example http://www.nrl.com/new-era-for-the-greatest-game-of-all/tabid/10874/newsid/70891/default.aspx, and you'll find others. Someone editor didn't just come along and make it up cuz they like RL, it's a real thing. But by all means, delete if it makes people hot around the collar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.137.220 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 23 April 2016
- Strong Delete advertising. And it isn't since there's similar terms for Soccer, American Football, Baseball, and Ice Hockey; and there's The Great Game -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete titular name that isn't even widespread. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - It might have begun as an opinion but now the term has been popularised and adopted into wide-ranging official and unofficial use throughout the game, making the redirect appropriate. A quick investigation shows use includes: in the media, The Guardian, Triple M, Sydney Morning Herald; in governing bodies, NRL including their press events; by sponsors; in books, A Statistical History of Rugby League, p11, Rampant Rugby League: A Guide to the Greatest Game, Wayne Pearce Presents the Greatest Game: A Celebration of Rugby League, Rugby League in Twentieth Century Britain: A Social and Cultural History; in merchandise; its initials have also been used widely as a shorthand - and as the title for a magazine, TGG!. LunarLander (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Term often used by media sources and is an official nickname of the sport, whether people agree with that nickname is a matter for them not Wikipedia. 2.218.253.200 (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Obvious Keep as per LunarLander.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. It's not about whether the term is correct or not, but rather the coverage, which is easy to verify. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to The Great Game (disambiguation) and add an explanation about how this term is used to describe rugby. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per LunarLander. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The Greatest Game
- The Greatest Game → Rugby league (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Useless redirect, as it is purely a matter of opinion. Safiel (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I'd like to point out that we currently have The Greatest Game Ever Played (disambiguation), which I might even nominate for a possible retargeting page except that said page appears to need work. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't favour this as the meaning is different. The TGG moniker is being applied to the sport itself, rather than a particular match. LunarLander (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Strong delete there are many individual matches also with similar monikers. Further there is chess and go (weiqi) and The Great Game -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - It might have begun as an opinion but now the term has been popularised and adopted into wide-ranging official and unofficial use throughout the game, making the redirect appropriate. A quick investigation shows use includes: in the media, The Guardian, Triple M, Sydney Morning Herald; in governing bodies, NRL including their press events; by sponsors; in books, A Statistical History of Rugby League, p11, Rampant Rugby League: A Guide to the Greatest Game, Wayne Pearce Presents the Greatest Game: A Celebration of Rugby League, Rugby League in Twentieth Century Britain: A Social and Cultural History; in merchandise; its initials have also been used widely as a shorthand - and as the title for a magazine, TGG!. LunarLander (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Often used by media sources, as per LunarLander above. 2.218.253.200 (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to The Great Game (disambiguation) and add an explanation about how this term is used to describe rugby. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per LunarLander. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Without directly commenting on the redirect, I'd like to point to The Beautiful Game as a perhaps analogous phrase.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Afon Twrch, Clwyd
- Afon Twrch, Clwyd → Afon Iwrch (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Afon Twrch, Llanrhaeadr-ym-Mochnant → Afon Iwrch (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete simple naming error (Iwrch not Twrch). There is a Afon Twrch in this catchment but it would not use either of these names, probably Afon Twrch, Foel Jokulhlaup (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as a potentially plausible error. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete simple naming error. S a g a C i t y (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wait a second. If it's a simple naming error (which it does indeed appear to be), how Afon Iwrch got to be named Afon Twrch for the first 5 years of the article's existence. Isn't there any chance this could be an alternative/obsolete name? Uanfala (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Khergarh
- Khergarh → Khed, Rajasthan (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
There appears to be a Khergarh village in Jasrana tehsil of Firozabad district in Uttar Pradesh, but not one in Rajasthan, and this redirect appears to have been created as part of a hoax attempt, cf. User talk:Dangarwa#You disappeared? Sam Sailor Talk! 19:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Convert to dab Khergarh looks like a plausible alternative name for Khed, Rajasthan (according to the article it's spelled खेड़, which is commonly romanised Kher, while गढ -garh is a widespread component in the name of settlements). Of course we'll need sources for that. Things are complicated by the fact that the nearby village of Tilwara (again according to its article) is historically known as Khedgarh (again Khergarh being a plausible alternative spelling). Uanfala (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Dabify per Uanfala. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Cursers
(neelix redirect). I was expecting this to go to people who blaspheme (shall we throw rocks at em!) but actually it is kinda an R from Mispelling but doesn't really make much sense. Curser in singular, the last edit was by Neelix in 2008, to retarget it. I don't want to make RfD more cluttered than it already is by me so take both as one please. Obviously a curser in English is someone who swears a lot a cursor is not that as any editer knows. Si Trew (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment at a quick glance of the first few pages of Google Books results, about a third are typos for "cursor", more than half for "someone who casts a curse", and only a few in the sense of "someone who uses curse words". 210.6.254.106 (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment even ignoring the various articles named "curse", as a typo it seems equally likely to be for curses (or Curses!). Suggest redirecting to curse (disambiguation)? (Which links to profanity and menstruation as well as the various possible meanings of "curse" and "curses".) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - it's a plausible typo for too many things, none any more likely than any of the others. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Redirects to common word that would be an overlink in most articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per Ivanvector 🍁 CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Could refer to a type of spellcaster as well I suppose.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Meteorical
- Meteorical → Meteoroid (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Hmmm not sure on this one (Neelix redirect) is it possible this goes to meteorology? There are quite a few of these with meteor and metro and so on so I am not sure what to do with this one Si Trew (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - This appears to have a validity unlike a lot of standard Neelix redirects, at least in looking at the various books that use the term (such as this one). As a variant of "meteoric", it looks like a fair-and-square redirect over to meteoroid, albeit one you're unlikely to see even in technical conversations. If there's cause for confusion raised, though, I can also see deleting this even if I lean otherwise. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – Googling it makes me think that Wicktionary has it right: an obsolete version of meteoric. Since meteoric redirects to meteoroid, meteorical should, too. This is just the kind of search I would do on Wikipedia: "Hm, does this word have to do with weather, or with meteors?" — Gorthian (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Obstructionists
- Obstructionists → Obstructionism (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This is a tricky one. I am well aware of the obstructionist movement for example suffragettes were to put it in other words obstructionists, but this at target said it may be influenced by recent events. (Neelix redirect). I don't think prohinitionist would be a good target I am not sure at all on this one. Si Trew (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Even if the linkage isn't as precise as I'd like it to be, this seems reasonable enough. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Abraham Kuijper
- Abraham Kuijper → Abraham Kuyper (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) I don't think you can do this. The ij in Dutch language or sometimes just written Y is all right, but this is not this chap's name, I think. I think I have a pack of chocolate sprinnkles made by De Kuijper or something but I think this is round the houses. If kept it needs a dot on the i and the j. Not at target Si Trew (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep — Abraham Kuijper is the correct spelling of his name in Dutch, so the redirect is justified. – Editør (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: plausible alternate spelling, considering the era. The di/trigraphs "ui", "uy" and "uij" are/were used interchangeably in Dutch to represent the [œy] sound. By the way, I do not really understand what you mean by "If kept it needs a dot on the i and the j"; the redirect has dots already. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Speedily keep as withdrawn by nominator. You're right I was thinking more of the Turkish dotted dotless I. I was trying to say that in Dutch, as you have put it better than me, the trigraphs and so on. I cocked with the explanation and User:HyperGaruda put it far clearer than I did. Si Trew (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
Tepre Pacificum
- 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 Speedily deleted second time round. I don§t like to close my own nominations but this is simply a procedural close by (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Tepre Pacificum → Pacific Ocean (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
My CSD was reverted by User Hullaballoo. I cannot see in any way that tepre means sea or ocean and I struggled to find kinda the route got there perhaps like a driver on a taximeter it goes around the houses to make fair shares (:). This is kinda not WP:MADEUP Neelix redirect because neelix never just made things up but it is a struggle to find how he got from Tepre to the Pacific Ocean. The editor marked it as {{R from other language|la}}
but if anything it would be marinus pacificum or marina pacifii and it isn't. It is not as if it is tepid or something. Si Trew (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, it was based on a vandal edit [3] that staid in the article for a while, discussed as such on the Pacific Ocean talkpage back in 2011. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Progressiveness
- Progressiveness → Progressive (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) Not sure about this one. I would think more it would mean a political movement, a soicio-political party and so forth or even the Sally Ann but I may be wrong Si Trew (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Speedily withdrawn by nomnator as weak keep.
-
- Salvation Army, Salvation Army
- Stick a nickel in the drum, save another drunken bum
- Salvation Army, Salvation Army
I have a great deal of respect for the Sally Ann so I hope my comment was not seen otherwise. I have been putting a nickel in their drum for about thirty years and got a lot of second hand furniture off them so is was just a joke. I remember when I was walking home in Cambridge that the Salvation Army were asking for donations this was around Christmas time but have no idea if the Salvation Army celebrate christmas, everyone is entitled to his own religion, but some stupid pay for this or that charity. I said to the sally ann chap I cannot donated to everything he said to me face to face you can't donate to everything you have to choose. Well I know where my choice was, in the Sally Ann. But I shouldn't bring my personal believes or nonbeliefs to RfD. I'm just an apathist but I help where I can. Si Trew (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- And neither should Neelix bring his personal beliefs to Wikipedia which is why I have stacks of things to list at RfD. I don't mind if you're Roman Catholic or Protestant or believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster I really do not mind, I am an apathist not an agnostic or atheist. Some of the Neelix ones are in my opinion a bit overdoing it with the christianity. I listed about a dozen yesterday about church bells which go to the Whitechapel foundry and I think there is a certain tendency in Neelix to say more than he knows, but then I can pack the maximum amount of words into the minimum amount of thought, so who am I to say. Pax vobis, Si Trew (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete This is not likely to help anyone find anything. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete with respect to the nominator who already expressed a wish to withdraw this, I'm with DGG. This is modification bloat on an extremely vague political (or maybe not political - it's even vague in that sense) term. It's awful close to WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as confusing. Another of his take a word, add a suffix and another suffix program. Progress+ive+ness Legacypac (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Under writer
- Under writer → Underwriting (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Under wear (another Neelix redirect discovered by accident in my post below so added) Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
(neelix redirect). There are a lots of these but with the space in the middle I am not sure. Underwriter of course is a valid term for someone who um does basicallly reinsurance but I am not sure with the space this makes any sense Si Trew (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Underwriting isn't known as "Under Writing" any more than Christians are known as being a "Chr Istians" or politically active Tories are called "To Ries" etc. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Indeed @CoffeeWithMarkets:. I get told off if I list at RfD or CSD so I am between the devil and the deep blue sea sometimes. I am not personally of the Christian faith (I am not of any faith, I can't make me mind up I'm an apathist)but I do love the words and verse of the king james bible and stuff so I do sometimes know more about it than it may seem. Si Trew (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Del ete as a questionable Neelix redirect (G6). Practically no hits in the last 90 days suggests it's only of use to folks who mass-create redirects with little thought to their actual utility, and it's possible that this could be blocking searches for other things (can't tell from stats). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as nonsense like Under taker and Under wear Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and the To Ries and Chr Istians examples have nothing to do with this one. These are compound words, and it is entirely reasonable that a person would hear it and think they are two separate words. That is, it's a completely plausible and likely misspelling. Tag as such and keep. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Jeffrey Pino
- Jeffrey Pino → Sikorsky Aircraft (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Requesting deletion - This discussion has been up before, and was closed no consensus with the proviso that the larger question of his mention was not answered. Well, the extent of his mention in the Sikorsky article is still that he died in a plane crash while CEO. That's simply not good enough, especially when the mention was only added as part of the second RfD discussion. This is recentism at work, and it's seriously not even relevant to the history of the company. MSJapan (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - he was president of the company for 6 years, and all the media coverage of his death describes him as such in headlines. It merits a redirect/inclusion in the article. GiantSnowman 07:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Reply - except in this case, he never appeared in the Sikorsky article until after his death, and GiantSnowman created the redirect in the first place. Pino's not somebody that's going to figure as a search term for Sikorsky. For example, who was the CEO prior to Pino? Also, he was not CEO of Sikorsky when he died, according to [4]. So I fail to see why this is worthy of inclusion at all; company histories don't list "deaths of former presidents", and you know what? Most former presidents of companies are dead, mainly because a lot of these companies have been around for over a century. There needs to be some lower limit for inclusion, and this is well below it. Should I perhaps add in the names of all the Sikorsky factory workers who have ever lived and died? This is the sort of reductio ad absurdum that this turns into. He's not relevant to the history, and doesn't belong in the article. As a matter of fact, every hit for him is his obituary. MSJapan (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
May 8
List of Distros created with remastersys
- List of Distros created with remastersys → Remastersys (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Target is not a list. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Redirects shouldn't mislead readers like this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - target does not contain a list of distributions which were created with remastersys, and if such were added it would likely be OR and listcruft. The redirect is at best not helpful, and at worst actively unhelpful. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Opulences
This was reverted by Hullaballo.. That is like saying Wealths. Neelix nonsense although at ANI I have been told off for it in fact nominated for suspension by Si Trew (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and trout Hallaballo for wasting everyone's time protecting fake words created by Neelix Legacypac (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Opulences is a valid word. It's used in English versions of the Bhagavad Gita, for one, among other literary works. It would be reasonable to write something like: "The leader of North Korea has made sure to put his face on as many of his personal opulences as possible, particularly given his interest in large, gaudy buildings." However, it's not the same as "wealth". A more accurate target would be something like "immovable property" or "real estate", but that's still too much of a stretch. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Not a dictionary. This should only be added if there was a notable book or film with the title. It would also redirect to a common term "wealth" which would be removed in an overlinking run. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Ghey
I propose deleting this redirect. Currently, it points to Gay#Generalized pejorative use, where there used to be (c. 2008) a discussion of the usage of "ghey" as an alternative, non-sexual spelling. However, now the section (indeed, the entire page) doesn't mention "ghey" at all, making this redirect confusing. clpo13(talk) 21:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - This doesn't pass the bar in terms of being encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete not encyclopedic or used in notable writings. No notable people with the name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
National Arena
- National Arena → Arena Națională (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Should this be a disambiguation page or something? Many arenas are national arenas. Qed237 (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to List of national stadiums. -- Tavix (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to List of national stadiums. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Mastoplasty
- 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 ostensibly withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Mastoplasty → Mammaplasty (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) this makes sense to me but it is not a mammolasty but a mastoplasty. Breast obsession. I have listed a lot of others a CSD but is this plasible_ I think it is but it is a bit of a breas obsession of Neelix Si Trew (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. The opening phrase of the target article is "Mammaplasty (also called mammoplasty[1] or mastoplasty)". It is hard to conceive of a more appropriate redirect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
tangent not related to discussion of this redirect |
---|
|
- Keep This is an appropriate alternative name, per [5], [6], wikt:mastoplasty, etc. clpo13(talk) 22:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedily keep. I was not sure about this one what with being a mix of Latin and Greek. I did check the target but Neelix had a bit of a breast obsession so I was not sure on this one, I listed several others straight to CSD which I got told off about by another editor who either is or is not an admin. Since that editor patently is not an admin by not quite his own confession he should not be CSD'ing things if he is not an admin. I think I should get some food on the Bachelor griller and perhaps a drink from my Tantalus (cabinet) oh my ears and whiskers two other articles I created, I thought we were here to make the encylopaaedia better. I don't go deleting anything that I am not sure about. THe ANI listing is absurd becase I am not an admin nor want to be, but someone who is doing CSD on my listings is then claiming a ANI that I am. I have a talk page but that user does not seem to wish to reply there, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz you know damned well which user i am on about. That user seems not to be an admin so should not take stuff out of CSD. People with respect like User:BDD can do that. I have never wanted to be would not be capable to be i am just a WP:WIKIGNOME. I did get a great comptometer today for about five hundred forint (two US dollars) I need to clean it up and it will be fine. Made in Asia but I think that must have been when we (the British) owned it. Si Trew (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Crataegus polyclada
- Crataegus polyclada → Crataegus crus-galli (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Hmmm this is not a target. In the infobox there is paradoxa and stuff (I don't know why this would be particularly paradoxical) but I cab't see anyhwere that there is polyclada or anjthink in the genus or genera going upwards. I am probably mistaken but I don't see it Si Trew (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete?. Crataegus polyclada is in the synonym list in the taxobox at Crateagus crus-galli, 4 down from paradoxa. I can't check the source cited for the synonym list at the moment, but the synonymy checks out here. There's nothing wrong with this redirect, it could be kept.
But there are 32 synonyms listed at Crataegus crus-galli and the other 31 don't have redirects yet. Are we at en.Wiki going to create redirects for all of them? I'm not going to and I actually care about this kind of thing. Wikispecies isn't really dealing with creating pages for taxonomic synonyms. Wikidata handles synonyms reluctantly, when forced by various language Wikipedias. en.wiki doesn't have the editor base to handle taxonomic synonym redirects in any rational way. There is one incoming link to Crataegus polyclada from C. polyclada but Neelix created that dab page, and Category:Species Latin name abbreviation disambiguation pages is another nest full of Neelix creations that create more problems than they solve. Plantdrew (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete This is a pointless redirect as Plantdrew notes. Such redirects are harmful, because they will not be maintained. Searching will find all synonyms in taxoboxes; redirects are needed if and only if they might be used as wikilinks. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Обама
- Обама → Obama chmo! (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
WP:R#DELETE 8.If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created. NE Ent 19:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Well that may be as such, but this was created on 7 May by [User:[Фред-Продавец звёзд]] on 7 May 2016 and redirected te day afer to it its crrent target. I take WP:CSD but now because essentially you have put your foot it in I think it unlikely to go there, but will try. Si Trew (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- This redirect is from Russian word to the page about Russian phrase. At 1st, I can't understand why article is named with non-cyrillic words (because original phrase is Обама - чмо!, not Obama chmo!). At 2nd, this redirect is normal because it is a Russian word from this phrase. Sorry for my English, I'm Russian. Фред-Продавец звёзд (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- WP:RFOREIGN. Sorry for your Russian, but this is the English encylopaedia. To an english audience I would think Обама went to Barak Obama, so in the English Wikipedia I do not think this is helpful. Thank you for your swift reply. Together we can work to make the target better, and I shall be happy to do that (I don't understand much Russian but I translate from a few other languages) so Фред-Продавец звёзд I am more than happy to do that together thee and me, I don't think the redirect at the moment makes much sense. The article is not great but it's a start and that's just WP:NOTFINISHED, we can work on it together. Si Trew (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand your opinion. But... Can you speak me, why article is named "Obama chmo!", not "Обама - чмо!"? This is Russian phrase, and it was written with Cyrillic text. For example, in RuWP all pages with English names are named in English with Latin text (example: ru:Make love, not war, not Мэйк лав, нот воэ). Фред-Продавец звёзд (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Фред-Продавец звёзд: on en-wikipedia, the relevant policy is Use English in Article Titles. It specifically states that "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated." (bolding original). This might not be the case in ru-wikipedia, but the different language varieties of wikipedia are free to set their own policies. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, OK! Фред-Продавец звёзд (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Фред-Продавец звёзд: on en-wikipedia, the relevant policy is Use English in Article Titles. It specifically states that "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated." (bolding original). This might not be the case in ru-wikipedia, but the different language varieties of wikipedia are free to set their own policies. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand your opinion. But... Can you speak me, why article is named "Obama chmo!", not "Обама - чмо!"? This is Russian phrase, and it was written with Cyrillic text. For example, in RuWP all pages with English names are named in English with Latin text (example: ru:Make love, not war, not Мэйк лав, нот воэ). Фред-Продавец звёзд (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Фред-Продавец звёзд and Фред-Продавец звёзд: I try to explain ok. This is English Wikipedia and we have Russian Wikipedia for things that are in Russian. That is not at all to have a go at you. We have Make Love Not War in English Wikipedia as well and I imagine the two tie together via WP:WIKIDATA. What you cannot do is stick a Russian phrase into an English Wikipedia, that belongs in Russian Wikipedia as you have already noted. Does that make it clearer? (If it helps, I got an old communist comptometer yesterday made as was in the Soviet Union and am very pleased to have it). Si Trew (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand your opinion at all (communism? comptometer?), but I understand main line. OK, I'll stop make Russian redirects. (But, maybe, they are need to articles about Russian subjects and nsmes? Example: Яндекс -> Yandex). Thx for constructive dialog Фред-Продавец звёзд (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- WP:RFOREIGN. Sorry for your Russian, but this is the English encylopaedia. To an english audience I would think Обама went to Barak Obama, so in the English Wikipedia I do not think this is helpful. Thank you for your swift reply. Together we can work to make the target better, and I shall be happy to do that (I don't understand much Russian but I translate from a few other languages) so Фред-Продавец звёзд I am more than happy to do that together thee and me, I don't think the redirect at the moment makes much sense. The article is not great but it's a start and that's just WP:NOTFINISHED, we can work on it together. Si Trew (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Delete - we are not Russian Wikipedia. If it's proper Cyrillic (I don't know) then it should redirect to Barack Obama, otherwise it is a WP:SURPRISE. However, Obama as a topic has no affinity for Russian, so that would be an invalid WP:RFOREIGN redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- It is proper Cyrillic. Daily I speak Ukrainian Hungarian German Roma and occasionally English and a couple of other things. No doubt it is the correct Cyrillic. It just don't belong at EN:WP. Si Trew (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well that's fine, it points to the wrong target is all. Should a misguided Russian reader come here and type this search query, they are many many times more likely to be looking for information on the current President, not what appears to be a meme about him. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is proper Cyrillic. Daily I speak Ukrainian Hungarian German Roma and occasionally English and a couple of other things. No doubt it is the correct Cyrillic. It just don't belong at EN:WP. Si Trew (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
Lucinde Paradol
- Lucinde Paradol → Lucien-Anatole Prévost-Paradol (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(Neelix redirect declined at CSD). I should very mush like to know why the declÍning admin User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has turned down this speedy delete of a Neelix redirect. under the [[WP::G6]] Neelix concession, I presumed admins knew what they were doing when they got adminship. I have asked this admin to respond several times at RfD for other redirects. Lucinde is patently not a synonym for Lucien. I am nonplussed as for why this was declined. Si Trew (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Si, you have got to stop accusing everyone who disagrees with you of being an admin; as conspiracy theories go, it's a singularly flimsy one, since it takes the most cursory of glances at Special:ListUsers/sysop to see if someone is an admin or not. ‑ Iridescent 19:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- User:Iridescent. I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I asked for an explanation of why it was speedily declined by an admin who rarely replies to my polite requests to explain that admin's actions. I am totally in good faith but I think an explanation from an admin would perhaps clear the matter up and we can get on with trying to improve the encylopaedia. Since that admin/user is patently about when I am about, I think it would behove an admin to reply to a simple request. But I expect nothing less. This admin has not replied to anything that I have ever asked, so, yes, you are right my good faith is waning. I do about sixty or seventy Neelix redirects a night after doing a day's work and I think a reply when an admin declines one (because as you see I take the ones I am not sure of to RfD) would be the merest of courtesy. I think it is to User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz to explain why not to you. Si Trew (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Once again, I deny the accusation of being an admin. I declined the speedy nomination as "incoherent and invalid". The speedy deletion rationale that Simon provided was "This well known brand of tum antacid is now a Neelix, I'm not placid, this makes nonsense of the targ it don't make sense so thus I arg it be deleted swiftly by some admin who knows more than I would ever do (RfD it will not ever do)." I think "incoherent and invalid" is a relatively gentle way of describing that gibberish. As for the second rationale, which Simon finally provided here, "Lucinde is patently not a synonym for Lucien" that statement is accurate but irrelevant. It helps to read the article carefully. Lucinde Paradol is the article subject's mother, is identified as such in the article, and is notable enough to have a page of her own in the French wikipedia.[7] It should have been evident to you that this redirect was not an appropriate candidate for speedy deletion. And your comment that "This admin has not replied to anything that I have ever asked" is simply false; I have responded [8], and you simply refused to engage, moving on the restart the same argument in a different location. And, frankly, when you call another editor you half-arsed small brained fuckwit it is difficult to see why you expect courtesy in response. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is not an admin. Alcherin (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- User:Iridescent. I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I asked for an explanation of why it was speedily declined by an admin who rarely replies to my polite requests to explain that admin's actions. I am totally in good faith but I think an explanation from an admin would perhaps clear the matter up and we can get on with trying to improve the encylopaedia. Since that admin/user is patently about when I am about, I think it would behove an admin to reply to a simple request. But I expect nothing less. This admin has not replied to anything that I have ever asked, so, yes, you are right my good faith is waning. I do about sixty or seventy Neelix redirects a night after doing a day's work and I think a reply when an admin declines one (because as you see I take the ones I am not sure of to RfD) would be the merest of courtesy. I think it is to User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz to explain why not to you. Si Trew (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well User:Alcherin that user should not be declining my requests at WP:CSD under the WP:G6 Neelix concession. Only admins can do that. If the user is not an admin that user cannot or should not speedily decline my requests at CSD. Please excuse my bad faith but I have asked this user a lot to explain some actions that I thought a little odd, and I didn'r check the list that Iridescent give above, but this user has been declining under the Neelix concession many I take to CSD rather than bother RfD with it. There is something odd with this admin or user. Si Trew (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Any editor may decline a speedy deletion nomination except the article creator, and no exception was made for the temporary Neelix criterion. The underlying discussion expressly referred to other editors declining such nominations. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. The half arse small brained fuckwit was a joke to someone a regular contributor to WP:RFD as I rarely swear not just in in Wikipedia but in real life. If another editor cannot seTrewe that is a joke, as the editor I said it to certainly did, I am unsure about this apparently admin's ability. I am also a half-arsed half-brained super fuckwit but I don't go around accusing other editors of bad faith. Si Trew (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Any editor may decline a speedy deletion nomination except the article creator, and no exception was made for the temporary Neelix criterion. The underlying discussion expressly referred to other editors declining such nominations. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- SimonTrew, any editor can decline an afd. Having done so, they are under no obligation to place an XfD, It's always been up to the original nominator to keep track and decide which are worth following up. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- @DGG: this editor has been taking out a lot of my CSD nominations for Neelix redirects not because of the WP:G6 Neelix concession but I believe from WP:HOUNDING. This user does not ever respond to any request I have asked for why something was speedily kept or so on. This user will probably not even respond here. My good faith starts to wain with this user. By the way I am getting through a lot on the Neelix redirect list that are about swearing so I have to swear but in real life I very very rarely swear. The overdoing it with the other user was deliberately swearing kinda tongue in cheek and that was totally accepted by that user, it was not at all a genuine insult. I forget which user I said it to and this user has not been kind enough to link to the discussion but it wwas very much a joke and taken as such. My mother would wash my mouth out with soap and water if I swore, but going through all the curses and things like that I have to swear sometimes to make sense of it. It was very much a joke and taken as such, Si Trew (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
Haunted School
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Haunted School → The Haunted School (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not sure about this one. The target is a film or drama but without the "the" this is a bit WP:RFD#D5 nonsense I think Si Trew (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Not nonsense at all. Any variation of a title with or without a "the" is inherently a proper redirect. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - As what (I think) is an international production with an international fan-base, it's reasonable enough to expect people to be confused about whether the definite article is a part of the title or not. It's a helpful redirect. Of course, places purported to be haunted are a dime a dozen, but the film's page already has hatnotes. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess II
- The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess II → The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
No reliable sources refer to Skyward Sword as Twilight Princess II. No other existing video game is referred to by this title. The1337gamer (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete unless creating The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past VIII as a redirect to The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword makes sense as well (and it doesn't.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Super Mario World 3
- Super Mario World 3 → New Super Mario Bros. Wii (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
No such video game exists. No reliable sources refer to any existing video game by this title. The1337gamer (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Retargetto Super Mario Bros. 3. Close enough, popular target, redirect is busy. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)- Delete. There is a clear distinction in the Super Mario series between the usage of the words "Bros." and "World" after the word "Super Mario" in its video game titles. If anything, if going by the serie's chronology, a redirect with this title would chronologically target Super Mario 64 since it is the next major Super Mario video game after Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, but that's too erroneous to be helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - on second thought, this has only been around since March 30 and targeted a title that's neither in this series nor made for the same series of consoles, before being pointed to this target yesterday by a now blocked IP. It's fundamentally nonsense. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete R3 (I believe) Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Peaceful Seas (disambiguation)
- Peaceful Seas (disambiguation) → Ning Hai (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This isn't a disambiguation for things called "Peaceful Seas." It's a disambiguation for things called "Ning Hai," which happens to literally translate to "peaceful seas." You wouldn't actually call any of these things "Peaceful Seas" in English, so this is nonsense. -- Tavix (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: Peaceful Seas was speedy deleted as a Neelix redirect. This redirect was created by RussBot, so the Neelix Rule won't work for it. -- Tavix (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I was going to nom this myself Legacypac (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Create a disambiguation page at Peaceful sea listing meanings for "Sea" and Seas" (which, at this point, would be Pacific Ocean and Ning Hai (disambiguation)), and point this there. bd2412 T 19:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Right @BD2412: I think we are going across each other so I am going to leave this one to you and wholly support you but becaue of the "seas" and "sea" business I was not sure quite what you were saying so we are going across each other. I leave this one to you and fully support whatever you say as a good faith regular contributor to WP:RfD (BD I mean not me). Si Trew (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I would be opposed to that. The Pacific Ocean is not known known as "Peaceful sea." -- Tavix (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well that was pretty much what I was thinking. However if there is a disambiguation page which it appears there is then it can be moved over as the usual procedure, but I never heard of a Pacific Sea. It is quite imaginable obviously but it doesn't really seem, you know that stuff with water in it and stuff, ever have to been called the Pacific Sea. Si Trew (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: pointless. PamD 11:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete not the common name of the cruiser, the cruiser class or the town. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - per the discussion above, only one thing is known as Peaceful Sea[s] thus disambiguation is not required. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Goo&gle
Delete, adding a random ampersand to a name does not seem like a common typo to make. -- Tavix (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: This is almost certainly related to the Google Doodle for George Boole's 200th birthday on 2 November 2015, which changed the Google logo to contain an ampersand in the middle (see here). The redirect was created on the same day. Alcherin (talk) 18:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete a one day thing. No one needs this to find anything. Legacypac (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment the actual Doodle is discussed at List of Google Doodles in 2015#November 2 (though the ampersand isn't mentioned there). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 09:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- What an interesting list. I had no idea we were chronicling Google's Doodles every day... It'd be easy to add that in: "Google commemorated the 200th anniversary of George Boole's birthday with a doodle that read "Goo&gle."" A retarget there would at least give readers more context than a cryptic redirect to Google. -- Tavix (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Redirects are cheap, even if it was a 1 day thing, some people may have been confused by it. It'd be a smarter idea to redirect it to Google Doodle though. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
First Serbian Volunteer Division
- First Serbian Volunteer Division → Czechoslovak Legion (disambiguation)#In Serbia (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Removal of redirect, as the Serbian volunteer division is distinct from the Czechoslovak Legion, and the Czechoslovak Legion page no longer has a section on Serbia or Serbian involvement. Alcherin (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- And? Hmmm this is a bit nonsense to send a redirect via
{{R to section}}
to a DAB but redirects and DABS are kinda like siamese twins that they well they go together like a horse and marriage as Frank Sinatra sang. We should probably actually take out the section link (at the target not here at RfD) but beyond that what is the problem? the DAB lists it and it gets an English-speaking audience to where they want to go. Perhaps pinging WP:MILHIST would be an idea. Si Trew (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- This doesn't get the audience to where they would suppose from clicking on the wikilink, which would be an article about the First Serbian Volunteer Division, not a disambiguation page for the separate Czechoslovak Legion that was a different military formation comprised of men from an entirely different country. The dab redirects to something that does not discuss the Serbian volunteers at all. Alcherin (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- The Czechoslovak Legion was a force allied to UK and France, which fought in Russia and ended off stranded in Siberia. It was ultimately repatriated by the British transporting it across the Pacific and Atlantic. I think that the Serbian Volunteer Division has similar history, having been stranded in Russia, when the Central Powers overran Serbia. I accept that the redirect is highly inappropriate: the two military forces had a similar history, but they were different. The appropriate course is to rescue the text that this used to be redirected to and use it to create a stub article. Any other action will lead to the redirect under discussion being left as a blank article which will be deleted. That would be a wholly inappropriate outcome, as the subject is notable enough to require an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- This appears to be about the last version where the relevant material appeared: [11]. This is written from the context of the Czech legion, making it unsatisfactory as a stand alone article, but it is the best we have. It appears to have been removed as unsourced. It may not be perfect, but I do not believe it is rubbish. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
iPad Air 3
- iPad Air 3 → iPad Pro (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I would like to see the "iPad Air 3" redirect removed, as Apple have no product called the iPad Air 3, and there is no credible evidence that they intend the 9.7" iPad Pro to be the next generation of 9.7" iPad Air rather than the first generation of 9.7" tablets in a separate line of iPads, the "Pro" line. Guy Harris (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete that makes this redirect essentially a hoax. Legacypac (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I wonder if being "essentially a hoax" makes this eligible for WP:R3 (implausible misnomer). - HyperGaruda (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. A simple Google search reveals that there is such a thing as the iPad Air 3. It seems that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was right to decline G3. Adam9007 (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- User HW can't "decline" a CSD they can only object or remove it. Your Google search shows this redirect is quite misleading as the 3, if released, will be a diffeeent product all together. If this becomes a real product some one will write it up, so red link it. Legacypac (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Any editor may decline/reject/refuse a speedy nomination, except the article creator. Your claim simply shows unfamiliarity with speedy deletion policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Declining, objecting, removing; they're all the same thing. Whatever this is, it is not a hoax. Adam9007 (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- A simple Google search reveals no such thing. What it reveals is rumors about an upcoming product - which do not speak of it as being an iPad Pro of any sort. And, for all we know, Apple might, for example, kill off the iPad mini and iPad Air brands and come out with a next generation iPad, just called "the new new iPad" or something such as that, with 7.9" and 9.7" models, so that Apple has the iPad range with 7.9" and 9.7" models and the iPad Pro range with 9.7" and 12.9" models, so that there is never an "iPad Air 3", and the successor to the iPad mini 4 is the 7.9" "new new iPad" and the successor to the iPad Air 2 is the 9.7" "new new iPad". After all, Apple have gone from the MacBook to the MacBook Air and back to the MacBook.... Guy Harris (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- This one does. Adam9007 (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- And that page is a reliable source, rather than some random person saying what he thinks the iPad Air 3 will be, because? Guy Harris (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- This one does. Adam9007 (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- User HW can't "decline" a CSD they can only object or remove it. Your Google search shows this redirect is quite misleading as the 3, if released, will be a diffeeent product all together. If this becomes a real product some one will write it up, so red link it. Legacypac (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. If it does actually exist, it can be recreated at a later date. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Demarcay
- Demarcay → Eugène-Anatole Demarçay (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Hmm the hatnote says I can't do the cedilla Demarc,ay redirects here, sio does this but may be a step tooi far (Neelix redirect) Si Trew (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and tag {{R avoided double redirect|Demarçay}}. Given that Demarçay exists, it's standard to create the diacritic-less form of it too. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Disambiguate between Eugène-Anatole Demarçay and the DeMarcay Hotel. -- Tavix (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Peaceful sea
- Peaceful sea → Pacific Ocean (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(Neelix redirect) I have nominated Tepre Pacificum and Peaceful Seas which redirects to a Japanese ship over at CSD. However not entirely sure about this one. We don't have Pacific Sea which you would think we might, so it is a bit kinda well I dunno. Like it is pretty obvious etymologically that a pacific sea might be Pacific Ocean but it kinda isn't it has never I think been called the Pacific Sea and was only called pacific in the first place to kinda pacify the sea or ocean in a kinda gesture to the gods. I have nominated Tepre Pacificum and Peaceful Seas which redirects to a Japanese ship over at CSD. However not entirely sure about this one. Si Trew (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- So there is some distant logic to this, since the original Spanish name translates as peaceful sea. However, now there is a fairly large ship names Peaceful Seas http://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/details/ships/shipid:756114/mmsi:636016197/imo:9707584/vessel:PEACEFUL_SEAS while fhe Japanese ships Neelix redirected to are not named this, but naturally named with japanese names that can be translated to this. I don't see it as a very helpful redirect. Legacypac (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, the Pacific Ocean isn't called "Peaceful sea" in English. Wikipedia is not a literal translation dictionary. -- Tavix (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Disambiguate per my comment at "Peaceful Seas (disambiguation)", above. bd2412 T 19:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- You're a bit stuffed there @Bd2412: because Peaceful Seas is now red as speedily deleted at my request. (I think with the other capss peaceful seas was always red but not sure.) Perhaps I was hasty but we can move the DAB over what do you think? It i is red and we can move the DAB over now I dunno what is best. Si Trew (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps I am mistaken User:Bd2412 but I see no talk at the disambiguation page at all, from you or anyone else. Have you perhaps got the wrong page to link here at RfD; it is probably my fault I can never even blink my eyes with a woman without geting an enormous cock up. Si Trew (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: not useful. PamD 11:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete not a notable common name for the ship, town, or the ocean. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Ning Hai, which is a dab page listing things known as "peaceful sea[s]" in a foreign language, the only use that we have for this per the thread above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- No that is just running round the houses. As Legacpac said and I implied, this is a back-formation from the Japanese. It is no good then to send Pacific Sea as someone seems to have blued it (it was red when I listed it) back to a Japanese ship or set of ships. Nihongo-no benkyo daigatu shimasitu, but even I can work out that this is WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Si, I agree with your rationale, but the ships are Chinese, not Japanese. -- Tavix (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Well that makes it even m ore nonsense because the names are in Japanese (not Chinese) and the ships you say are in China. I can quite understand why someone would like to call their boat the pacific, peaceful, Ted Heath did that too, but one way or another this is nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Si, I agree with your rationale, but the ships are Chinese, not Japanese. -- Tavix (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- No that is just running round the houses. As Legacpac said and I implied, this is a back-formation from the Japanese. It is no good then to send Pacific Sea as someone seems to have blued it (it was red when I listed it) back to a Japanese ship or set of ships. Nihongo-no benkyo daigatu shimasitu, but even I can work out that this is WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Alan and Kathryn Hughes
- Alan and Kathryn Hughes → Whitechapel Bell Foundry (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I can see where this is grounded
-
- They are masters where they're founded
- But putting them together makes me
-
-
-
- Roll my eyes and say whatever
-
-
- Keep. @SimonTrew: I hate to be the one saying this given my history, but no rationale has been given for deletion, just a poem which is charming, but ultimately not very helpful. It's possible that this is an WP:XY situation, however the target does clearly list Alan and Kathryn Hughes as current master founders of the target foundry. So this redirect is harmless and points to where it should. Should there be separate articles on each of these persons in the future (unlikely) then we will have to revisit. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I didn't say keep or delete or anything but now I shall Delete. You can't put both of them together. We don't have Denis and Margaret Thatcher or William and Kate whatever the press things they might say. You can't conjoin the two like that. Si Trew (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Actually we do have William and Kate but I think with the surname this is pushing it a bit. Si Trew (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I didn't say keep or delete or anything but now I shall Delete. You can't put both of them together. We don't have Denis and Margaret Thatcher or William and Kate whatever the press things they might say. You can't conjoin the two like that. Si Trew (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
William Mears (bell-founder)
- William Mears (bell-founder)#Master founders at Whitechapel → Whitechapel Bell Foundry (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Three sticks and an apple say the bells at Whitechapel.
- You owe me three farthings say the bells of St Martins
- When will you pay me say the bells of Old Bailey?
- When I grow rich say the bells at Fleetditch.
- When will that be say the bells at Stepney
- When I am old says the great bell at Bow.
Although this chap and his family were among the great makers of the bell foundry at Whitechapel, this is going around the houses as indeed does the nursery rhyme. I believe that just because it was created by Neelix we now have some clutter to remove. William Mears is a WP:TWODABS but probably didn't need to be had Neelix not created this needless disambiguation first. We don't I hope have William Mears (bellfounder) for example so it is kinda a bit nonsense but I am all a bit bob doubles and grandsire triples on exactly what to do with it.
It's not marked as {{R to section}}
but that is easily fixed, I just wonder whether it perhaps is a bit WP:UNDUE to have it on the DAB at all, in which case we don't need the DAB and well it all kinda starts to unwind from there like an unheld bellrope and all comes clashing down usually, if the bells are founded in Whitechapel, in the key of D major. I still stick to my opinion that since they managed to cock up the Liberty Bell and Big Ben (bell) on the second attempt after some bloody Northern firm also managed to cock it up the first time, I would ask for a kinda guarantee of workmanship before commissioning 'em, they don't come cheap you know. Si Trew (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per the artsy thread above. I have taken the liberty (pun absolutely intended) of correcting the subheader target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Unprogress
- Unprogress → Progress (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
You can't really do this (neelix redirect). I have taken a few obviously absurd ones to CSD such as Unprogressional and Unprogressionalistically or something like that but this one brings to my mind Orwell's Newspeak and it is not in Nineteen Eighty-Four as far as I recall from memory but it is just about plausible (Appendix B of that book tells you you can form any Newspeak noun in that way). Does it exist in real life? Of course we can {{R from antonym}}
(or for that matter {{R from other language|Newspeak}}
but I don't think it really exists does it? Si Trew (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete unnecessary redirect from non-word. PamD 09:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete not a word. Redirect goes to a common word whose brackets would be removed for overlinking. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Unkeep - not a valid use of Newspeak - "progress" is an abstract concept in need of simplification before the Proles would be allowed to think it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Cetraria nivalis
- Cetraria nivalis → Parmeliaceae (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Here is a series of species names that redirect to higher up in the taxonomy. I suggest that all be deleted to make clear that we do not have articles on the individual species and to encourage creation of one. Even more ludicrous, Pinguicula Nivalis redirects to the journal that first described it, which might be the stupidest redirect idea ever.
Here's the list:
- Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I don't want to abuse the privilege but that's probably worth pinging User:Plantdrew and User:Peter coxhead about, I know what these mean in Latin/Greek just as translations but they are usually the two experts on taxonomy. Pinguicula nivalis which targets Carnivorous Plant Newsletter for some reason I find particularly pleasing (the word I mean) although the target is I imagine meaningless. [[Cotoneaster nivalis targets Cotoneaster. Cetraria targets Parmeliaceae. User:Oiyarbepsy I think when listing these you should properly put the RfD tags on the top to show they have different targets. T. Nivalis targets Taeniopterygidae. So these are now listed with five different targets all in one nomination, so that is a bit confusing and makes no sense of your argument that they are "higher up in the taxonomy" as I believe they are in completely different parts of the taxonomy but I am no expert. Si Trew (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Higher up" in that a species is redirecting to the genus or family that contains it.
- I don't want to abuse the privilege but that's probably worth pinging User:Plantdrew and User:Peter coxhead about, I know what these mean in Latin/Greek just as translations but they are usually the two experts on taxonomy. Pinguicula nivalis which targets Carnivorous Plant Newsletter for some reason I find particularly pleasing (the word I mean) although the target is I imagine meaningless. [[Cotoneaster nivalis targets Cotoneaster. Cetraria targets Parmeliaceae. User:Oiyarbepsy I think when listing these you should properly put the RfD tags on the top to show they have different targets. T. Nivalis targets Taeniopterygidae. So these are now listed with five different targets all in one nomination, so that is a bit confusing and makes no sense of your argument that they are "higher up in the taxonomy" as I believe they are in completely different parts of the taxonomy but I am no expert. Si Trew (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete These are all plant binomials, i.e. the names of species of plant. I can only think of two circumstances in which such binomials should redirect:
- when the binomial is a synonym for a species with an article, when it should redirect to that article (see Category:Redirects from alternative scientific names of plants for examples)
- the binomial is the name of the only species in its genus, which has an article, when it should redirect to that article (see Category:Redirects to monotypic taxa of plants for examples)
- As these do not fall into either of these cases, they should be deleted. (As an analogy, they are like redirects from the name of a town on which there's no article to the state/province/country in which the town is located.) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: thanks Peter. I agree we can have of course alternative scientific names but these sounded a bit WP:MADEUP to me. I liked Pinuicula nivalis particularly because it sounds like it should be (of course isn't) some kind of new Penguin or perhaps some new cocktail derived from a Piña colada. It rather amused me to find it was not, but I am not sure that is helpful. My name is not dropped in Linnean circles, nor do I get mentioned in dispatches where taxonomists foregather. I just thought these were a bit nonsense. (All Neelix redirects I think). Si Trew (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Peter Coxhead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete It's misleading to have these as blue links target contains no further information about the species. We're better off with red links to encourage creation of informative articles. Plantdrew (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I suspect that this list I sorted together is more of the same problem. User:Anomie/Neelix_list/5#Delete_these_all_-_shown_to_be_errors_by_Neelix Legacypac (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This is why I didn't put the RfD tags at the top. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Of the soul
- Of the soul → Psychic (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Retarget to James Brown. Or not. Neelix redirect Si Trew (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Blue Slide Park (where "Of The Soul" and "Of the Soul" should both go as well) since we have an exact match for a song title on a popular album, although it's probably likely that someone else also used this as a title somewhere along the line CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- THat's fine by me (I was joking when I said retarget to James Brown as I imagine you guessed). I know I should do my homework but it is a tricky balance when listing these Neelix redirects which to take to CSD, which to RfD and which to look into more thoroughly. I do admit I don't tend to look beyond Wikipedia cos kinda with mass listing them I haven't time much to check elsewhere, which is why I bring them to RfD if in doubt. If my balancing act of that, flooding the poor CSD admins and taking as many as I think speedy keep is out of whack then I can only apologise, but it is a tricky balancing act and I am not saying I always get it right. If in doubt I bring to RfD. I don't think we need to make the other two, it is not redirects for creation, but if they happened to be yes they should go to the same place. Si Trew (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
Nam (war)
- Nam (war) → Vietnam War (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Neelix special. No one is going to type "Nam (war)" in search. No incoming links. No point to this redirect. Legacypac (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Actually I think that is quite a likely search term and I see no harm coming of it, User:Legacypac, clocking off in a few minutes and I have done about sixty Neelix ones tonight, sorry to flood RfD with em. Your shift now. Si Trew (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per SimonTrew and WP:R#K3 (e.g. "Nam war"). Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 17#'nam is a similar discussion that took place last year.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
The Preacher (book)
- The Preacher (book) → Ecclesiastes (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Why should this go to Ecclesiastes? The whole of the OT and NT for that matter is preaching that is not a religious statement just a factual nonreligious one. I love Ecclesiastes
-
- I returned also unto the sun
- And saw that the race was not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong
- Nor yet riches to the wise, nor yet peace to men of understanding
- But time and chance happeneth to all
I think, I have probably misquoted that (deliberately not checking that is just the version in my head and I only know the KJV). Nevertheless this is a very obscure redirect I think Si Trew (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Looks like he created it to go in a DAB page for Preacher he created. Someone has wisely deleted the link from the DAB at some point, so this redirect can be deleted Legacypac (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
CommentIn response to the question "Why should this go to Ecclesiastes?", may I suggest reading the first paragraph of that article? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Speedy keep Please be more thorough in researching RfDs in the future. This should have been an obvious one to pass by, even though Neelix created it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)- Keep and speedy close. "The Preacher" is hardly an obscure alternate title for the text; it's been published with that alternate title in the recent past, and if Doris Lessing thought it was legitimate, that's good enough for me, and ought to be good enough for everyone here, whatever their level of literacy.[12] The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- cOMMENT. Since admin User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz] seems to know so much about it I should like to know why, depsite repeated requests, that admin has not replied to my question on an RfD the other day with a speedy decline. It would be a terrible thing to assume bad faith so I do hope that editor can be bothered to reply to the RfD posted earlier which is on the user's talk page and not replied there either. Si Trew (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - But I'd like to note that The Preacher (novel) also exists, so while Ecclesiastes is a perfectly valid primary target we should have an extra note added somewhere. CoffeeWithMark``ets (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Added to Preacher (disambiguation). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Kep This is the actual traditional significance of the meaning of the book DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to The Preacher (novel) as a novel is a book genre. -- Tavix (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
May 7
Obstructor
- Obstructor → USS Obstructor (ACM-7) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not sure. I have taken Obstructors to CSD as a neelix redirect that is getting in the way the target of that currently is Pilgrim Jäger. While technically this is a Neelix redirect, I can see sense in it going to the USS ship. But I can also see sense in it being deleted (and I think it quite ironic that the biggest obstructor of letting readers get where they want to go was the creator of this redirect). Si Trew (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Soft retarget so obstructor and obstructer go to Wikitonary (they're valid words by themselves, not in relation to the ship, but I don't know if there's a reasonable enough single target here) CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep for now and use
{{Redirect}}
and add Obstruction as the disambiguation page, which would include the ship's entry. I don't know if Pilgrim Jäger uses Obstructor as an official term, but if so then you can redirect to Obstruction and create redirects for Obstructor (ship) and Obstructor (Pilgrim Jäger) . AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Reverend Straik
- Reverend Straik → That Hideous Strength (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Straik → That Hideous Strength (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I am in two minds about this one. The first is it is at the target and should be {{R to section}}
} but that secion no longer exists, but it is at the target. This is a neelix redirect that I am coming so learn well that George Orwell called C. S. Lewis a catholic apologist and I am not so sure that this is as neutral as it first seems. I am just C of E which means I don't have to believe in anything. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 8#Straik i managed to miss by twenty minutes combinging these onto one day's listing but they are essentally the same listing and if another editor wishes to combine I have no problem with that. Si Trew (talk) 23:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Meteoros
Delete. (Neelix redirect)., THis is not at the target. It might have been at one time because I can do a bit of ancient Greek when push comes to shove, but it isn't now so this is WP:RFD#D2 confusing but not confident enough to take it to CSD. Si Trew (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:R#DELETE #8. — Gorthian (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Stakers
(neelix redirect). I think this is rather ambiguous, the target is a DAB at which people who play poker for money lay a stake, but I amn gambling on this beiing WP:XY and probably delete. Stake is a DAB too at which poker stake is mentioned, but this is a conmmon British term for the money put down for a bet Si Trew (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- delete: if "Staker" was useful as anything other than the surname there'd be a note on Staker to say so. PamD 09:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Blockers
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
(neelix redirect) Not sure on this one. My first thought was for Beta blockers but the target, A DAB, does not mention those. it could be WP:XY I guess Si Trew (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as {{R from plural}}. Many of the things listed at the disambiguation page can be plural. @Si Trew: I added beta blocker and channel blocker to the target.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedily keep/withdrawn by nominator? @Godsy: thanks for adding them. I would have done myself but I don't like to do so when listing something for discussion because I think it makes the discussion confusing, so thanks for doing it as kinda a second set of eyes. Si Trew (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: r from plural - no problem. PamD 09:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Unprogressiveness
- Unprogressiveness → Progressive (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not sure about this (neelix redirect). I would suggest if it goes anywhere it goes to conservatism but that may be a bit too political for Wikipedia, not the target but to redirect it thus. Si Trew (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Responds
(neelix redirect) This kinda makes sense because the target is a noun and this would just be the common plural of it. But I am not sure it is what people would expect to find. I know what it is because I know everything, but I am not sure other intelligent but ignorant readers would Si Trew (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete common dictionary word variant, would lead to overlinking. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Putney Debate
- Putney Debate → Putney Debates (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) Not sure about this. The Putney Debates are certainly notable but they are a series of debates not a single one, not sure that the singular here makes any sense, of course we can {{R from singular}}
but not sure it makes sense to do so Si Trew (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Phelps and Lester
- Phelps and Lester → Whitechapel Bell Foundry (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Not sure about this (Neelix reedirect). I can't see where Phelps and Lester come into it. The Whitechapel Bell Foundry is still going and actually founded the bells in 2000 as was my local church, St Andrews in West Wratting (I had to put up with them for two hours on a Thursday evening cos one of the bellringers was my landlady and I have been up that belltower). I just can't see where Phelps and Lester come into it. They did indeed cast the Liberty Bell and also Big Ben so I wouldn't recommend them because they seem to have made cracks in both of em, shoddy workmanship in my opinion, but the guarantee I think has expired. Si Trew (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Wasn't it as the song goes Davy Crockett fixed up the cracks in the Liberty Bell? He should have asked for his money back. Si Trew (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
-
Mock Orange (tree)
- Mock Orange (tree) → Bursaria spinosa (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This doesn't seem to be the only tree known as mock orange. I've seen Osage Orange called that as well, and there are probably several others. user:Plantdrew, would a disambiguation page be appropriate? Or maybe redirect to an existing disambiguation page? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- It could be retargetted to the disambiguation page at mock orange, which does list several other trees. But I don't see much point in keeping it. Neelix also created Mock Orange (mulberry) (for Osage orange) on the same day, so he really ought to have seen that "(tree)" wasn't enough to fully disambiguate. "Mock Orange (mulberry)" seems utterly useless; it's not a mulberry, although it is in the mulberry family. But anybody who's aware of that relationship would likely be searching by the scientific name in the first place. Plantdrew (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I was about to say calling Plantdrew but my cache must be well out of date. User:Peter coxhead may have something to say too. I will be an intelligent but ignorant reader when I give you my opinion. Si Trew (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Can't we just retarget as
{{R from superlfluous diambiguation}}
or whatever I forget to the DAB at Mock Orange which lists several species/genera? To be honest as an intelligent but ignorant reader I was expecting it to be a paint colour like Magnolia. Does that make any sense User:Plantdrew)? Si Trew (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)- Sure. {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} would probably be the most appropriate redirect template. Plantdrew (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- That's the one I meant just in the middle of Neelix redirects one's mind goes a little crazy. Do you want User:Plantdrew to withdraw this and I shall do the homework? Si Trew (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sure. {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} would probably be the most appropriate redirect template. Plantdrew (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Can't we just retarget as
- Retarget to Mock orange. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Retarget per Peter coxhead to Mock Orange as {{tlx|R from unecessary disambiguation]]. Si Trew (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Palmed[edit]
I'm well aware what palming is as I do it a lot myself as a joke (I am quite good at it) but I wondered whether this is really a good place to put palmed or whether this is WP:XY. There are lots of other things that can be palmed, palms for example. I am probably wrong on this but I am not confident to take it straight to CSD WP:G6 neelix concession, if in doubt give RfD a shout Si Trew (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Crossdresses[edit]
- Crossdresses → Cross-dressing (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) There are lots of these. I boldly labelled some as {{R from verb}}
etc but can we have it without the hyphen is that legit? There is Crossdressed and so on. No problem with cross-dressed (another Neelix) I will mark that as R from verb but I am just wondering if it is valid without the hyphen consindering that the target always uses the hyphen. Si Trew (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Leaving out the hyphen or replacing it with a space has shown up on multiple news articles and books. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - There doesn't seem to be any strict rules as to which to prefer. "X cross-dresses every Tuesday", "X crossdresses every Tuesday", and "X cross dresses every Tuesday" are all valid wordings. Even if there were general guidelines as such, they'd still be helpful redirects anyways. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Wealthier[edit]
(neelix redirect) while patently a valid word I am not sure that this is really a kinda well it can be {{R from adjective}}
but dunno. We all know what it means but does it make any sense to redirect it simply to wealth? I dunno Si Trew (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - this seems pointless. LadyofShalott 20:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Unless there's a corporation named Wealthier, this isn't a likely search term, and would result in an overlink to a common dictionary word "wealth". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Affluences[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 speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC). As a closing note I did not ask for CSD on this one
- Affluences → Wealth (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(Neelix redirect) We have Affluence I think so I am not sure on this one. Affluences would not really be a word I think, You can't say I affluence, he affluences, and surely affluence is a concept noun that you can't pluralize like that. But not 100% sure, I imagine that in some paper people wrote of James Goldsmith and Warren Buffet "their individual affluences amounted to..." or some such. Is it a word? Si Trew (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Orsino (play)[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.
- Orsino (play) → Romain Rolland (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Declined at CSD by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz with the explanation "another content issue dressed up as a speedy nom". I must admit I don't understand the explanation of that decline because it is nothing to do with a content issue but a WP:G6 neelix concession redirect under WP:G6 neelix concession as any admin at CSD knows full well. No problem with the content, it is the redirect there is a problem with, so I don't see where content comes into it. I imagine the admin User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz will be happy to explain at RfD why it is a content issue. Si Trew (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep This is an appropriate redirect as Orsino (play) is a work of Romain Rolland and this redirect points to a Bibliography on his article. You know, not every redirect created by Neelix is inaccurate, some are valid and appropriate. Liz Read! Talk! 18:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – Seems like an appropriate redirect, per Liz. – nyuszika7h (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I don't care who created it; it's a valid search term and points to the right page. LadyofShalott 20:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedily keep as withdrawn by nominator. I list at RfD if I am not sure and @LadyOfShalott: has hit the nail on the thumb with this one. Patently the consensus is to keep so I withdraw my um wossname. Tennyson wasn't it, the Lady of Shallott? Although I prefer Betjeman The heart of Thomas Hardy died away in the night, as frost will blacken a Dahlia.Si Trew (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Frances Alan[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Frances Alan → Frances Allen (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(Neelix redirect) Not sure about this one. There are lots of others to Francis Allen and Frances Allen and so on that neelix made, some of which I have taken to CSD and others of which I have taken as {{R from misspelling}}
. (Note we have I think articles for Francis Alan and Frances Alan or something, so these are already going to be a bit confusing, I am taking the line of reasoning thus, that Frances is a woman and Francis is a bloke, and I don't mind a misspelling but since this is kinda two mispellings in one should probably go. Target is a DAB.) Si Trew (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep SimonTrew, your nomination is partially misleading, you have linked to articles you 'think' we have for Francis Alan and Frances Alan, but a quick click shows the first is a redirect to Francis Allen dab and the second is actually the title you're nominating. You might want to strike that part of your nomination. Boleyn (talk) 08:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I think you also need to strike out your last sentence about it being 'kinda two misspellings', it is one. This is a redirect from Frances Alan to Frances Allen, the first names are exactly the same, both the female version, and the surname is a slightly different spelling but exact same pronunciation. The dab also gives a link to the male version of the name, which would help readers. I'm not seeing any problem here that deletion could solve. Boleyn (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedily keep withdrawn by nominator. If there is any doubt we keep it. I list stacks of "Neelix redirects" at CSD and it is only if in doubt that I bring them here. Thanks and apologies to User:Boleyn who I rather spoiled the user page earlier cos my keyboard broke and I wanted to quickly reply to agree with Boleyn, rather than it looking like ignorance or nonchalance or malice, now I have a new keyboard so I am sorry for rather bodging what I said on that user's page (not their talk page) but I was really struggling to say anything (internet also dropped about five times as I was trying to compose it from a tablet thingy.) Si Trew (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
No problem at all, SimonTrew, thanks for your hard work. Boleyn (talk) 19:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Rain cake[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Rain cake → Bolinho de chuva (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This is a neelix creation. While in the lede as a translation although not marked as such, it doesn't really say much to an English speaking audience I think. THere is also Rain cakes which if I forget to combine is by same reason. I think this is nonsense in English. Si Trew (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Searching "rain cakes" brought up three sources attesting to rain cakes as the English version of the name. I've added the sources (article was totally unsourced) and expanded the article. Search also brought up a completely different japanese dish called raindrop cakes and a commercially available purple rain cake but I think these are different enough names a DAB is not required. Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Righty ho speedily keep per Legacypac Withdrawn by nominator. The closing admin should probably put on
{{R from original language|pt}}
. Please don't forget Rain cakes which is the same reason. Si Trew (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC) - Rain cakes was deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury who was probably as bored as I was going through the Anomie list, and I thank him for his hard work and patience deleting a lot (not this one though) that I listed over at CSD. Si Trew (talk) 06:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the creator of all these redirects felt it reasonable to create them in both singular and plural forms; and in the case of verbs in a variety of tenses. Hence I retained "rain cake" while deleting "rain cakes".--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 09:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Righty ho speedily keep per Legacypac Withdrawn by nominator. The closing admin should probably put on
- 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.
Trichuris campanula[edit]
- Trichuris campanula → Trichuris (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Recommend red link to encourage an article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete; better to have a red link to encourage article creation. Plantdrew (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Delete if Plantdrew says so it must be true because that user knows his or her taxonomy better than I do or almost anyone else here at RfD, pinging User:Peter coxhead for a final check. Nothing to do with campanula as the nice flowers/plants in the garden. I think this can beWP:SNOW. Si Trew (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Almeron[edit]
- Almeron → Almaron Dickinson (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This is a bit odd because Almeron Dickinson also to same target or I have missed somewhere. TI think there are a few Almeren or something but the target is at WP:AFD so it makes it hard to search. We should probably stand off while the AfD discussion takes place, I guess, but we need to keep an eye depending on the result of that discussion. I am so tired you can sodding refer to it I am going to bed. Neelix redirects. Managed about fifty tonight and this is my last. Si Trew (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget or disambiguate. This is an odd situation, but it's because there are three pages containing "Almeron:" Almeron Eager and two houses. I doubt the houses could be known solely as Almeron, which would leave Eager as a {{R from given name}}. However, I think an exception to WP:PTM might be helpful. A disambiguation page could include Eager, the two houses, and a see also to Dickinson, the current target. I'd be fine with either option. -- Tavix (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Elizabeth Hastings (benefactress)
- Elizabeth Hastings (benefactress) → Lady Betty (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) THis is a bit weird. I have no idea why Neelix created it but a woman benefactor who gives some money to something is a benefatrice or benefatrix depending on whether it comes straight from Latin of via French as any fule kno. Listing here because it seems nonsense to me but there might be a reason for it. Have done about fifty on the Neelix list tonight Si Trew (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete her actual name, disambigated with a fake word, makes a lousy redirect. Legacypac (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I will bet you why. Because in the article Françoise-Louise de Warens it says she is a benefactress, and I bet it goes through rather a short-circuit that Neelix then created loads more benefactresses. I get there because there are loads of nonsense Neelix redirects such as Françoise-Louise which would be a bit like having a redirect from Simon to I dunno Simon Parker or Simon Templar. Have can will worms. Si Trew (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- ANd to nobody's surprise Françoise-Louise has been speedily deleted, mirabile dictu ahem Virgil wonderful to tell, by User:Peridon. Il faut marcher, Napoleon said, minden nap sorry maygar aussi jour il faut marcher step by step day by day we march (I don't think walk would be a good translation there). And how many languages can I pack into one sentence, I have the talent of putting the maximum number of words into the minimum amount of thought. Si Trew (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- I will bet you why. Because in the article Françoise-Louise de Warens it says she is a benefactress, and I bet it goes through rather a short-circuit that Neelix then created loads more benefactresses. I get there because there are loads of nonsense Neelix redirects such as Françoise-Louise which would be a bit like having a redirect from Simon to I dunno Simon Parker or Simon Templar. Have can will worms. Si Trew (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Delete We already have Elizabeth Hastings (philanthropist) which doesn't suffer from the gender-based disambiguation. If someone's going to disambiguate they will likely enter that or Lady Betty already. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
May 6
Nuestra Señora de Candelaria Parish Church (Mabitac)
- Nuestra Señora de Candelaria Parish Church (Mabitac) → Nuestra Señora de Candelaria Parish Church (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Neelix redirect. There is no need to disambiguate here, leaving that aside it is not in any place called Mabatic that just happens to be what the church itself is called. It is sorta harmless but I dunno. Since I have been told off for listing things at RfD when I dunno making a judgment call, I am hesitant to list this one. Si Trew (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Keep - While this isn't exactly proper, it's also at least somewhat helpful... I think. A great many aren't familiar with the way that parenthesis are used here, and this is a guess that's not really wrong per se. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Nonbusiness
- Nonbusiness → Nonprofit organization (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
ahem Neelix redirect. A nonbusiness is, well it is bloody nonsense frankly. There are stacks of these with verious punctuation. WHat woud a nonbusiness be? a sole trader? LCould mean anything Si Trew (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete nonsense. Many ononprofits participate in businesses, and ofcourse, the business of nonprofits that isn't "business" -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - So would we call a cleaning worker that's tidying up a hospital floor with a wet mop a "nonvandal nonslacker that's nondirtying a nonbusiness nonceiling with a nondry nonrake"? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete like a bunch of others I CSD'd in this series. They are nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to State income tax#Nonbusiness income. The term is perfectly fine and is not nonsense in the least. You can find many reliable sources regarding nonbusiness income. It's even in the dictionary. Feedback 07:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Non business
- Non business → Nonprofit organization (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I have deleted lots of these Nonbusinesses and such, I please,
- non business and nonbusiness don't account for much.
- I took a lot of Neelix nonsense straight delete and such
- I'm sorry that my nomination is thus here in rhyme
- I'd like to make it better but I haven't got the time.
- Si Trew (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete nonsense. Many ononprofits participate in businesses, and ofcourse, the business of nonprofits that isn't "business" -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to State income tax#Nonbusiness income. The term is perfectly fine and is not nonsense in the least. You can find many reliable sources regarding nonbusiness income. It's even in the dictionary. Feedback 07:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Pelvic regions
- Pelvic regions → Pelvis (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) We have had some of these before about some other regions that we couldn't quite pin the tail on the donkey. Of course pelvic region is fine but the plural is a bit weird. It is not as if any mammal has two pelvic regions and this is just well frankly masturbatory I think.; I do not imagine Neelix was looking up to discover the I dunno anterior dimension of the hip bone, which is connected to the thigh bone (now hear the Word of The Lor') Dem Bones Dem bones gonna walk around, dem bones dem bones gonna walk around, dem bones dem bones gonna walk around now hear the Word of the Lord. Best version is The Inkspots I think. Si Trew (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - A similar recent discussion, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 12#Pubic region, didn't manage to come to a consensus.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete the plural is a highly stupid search term. Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
The Way (2009 album)
- The Way (2009 album) → Kellie Loder (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- (neelix redirect) Delete but not sure why. I have taken some others to CSD but Neelix seems to have had some fetish for this singer which I am not familiar with. While technically this does no harm it only links to a non-notable discography of unpublished or at least at WP unreferenced songs and albums. Not sure. Not
{{R to section}}
but that is easily done if decided to keep, but this is kinda a bit out of the way if you excuse the pun. It is not as if there is The Way (2010 album) or The Way (2015 album). I would say keep as harmless{{R from unecessary disambiguation}}
but the only thing at that tareg is a list box saying pretty much bugger all except she sung it. I thing WP:RFD#D5 nonsense but I can't put my finger on exactly why I want it deleted. Si Trew (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Redirecting an individually non-notable album to the discography section of the artist's bio is pretty much a paradigm of an appropriate redirect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Sir William Lloyd
- Sir William Lloyd → William Lloyd (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) This is probably fine, goes to a DAB. Neelix has attempted to disambiguate with various F. for Sir William Frederick Lloyd, with not so great results, I have taken those to CSD with the rationales on several
-
- In titles don't abbreviate, I'll get my K, you watch me, mate
- Neelikx can create, I think, plurals drive a man to drink
- But this is just a stupid one so CSD please then we're done
But this is not a stupid one. I am pretty sure it is speedy keep, just listing it here for consensus
- Si Trew (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- @SimonTrew: If you think a redirect should be kept, just remove it from the list and move on. There no need for you to bring it here for consensus, just use your best judgement. -- Tavix (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Tavix: It is when I am not sure I bring them here. I think it should be kept but others may feel differently, it is a bit borderline. I do put stacks either over to CSD or to keep and rcat if I think that is obvious. it is the ones I am not so sure about I bring here to get consensus. Si Trew (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe redirect to William Lloyd (mountaineer), who appears to be the only Sir William on the DAB page?Otherwise I don't see any great problem with this one... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC) That's no good, William F. Lloyd is also a Sir William. keep as it is, then, I suppose? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)- Keep as is multiple Sirs listed -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: unproblematic. PamD 15:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, speedy close. There is no reason whatever to waste to review obviously appropriate pages. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep, speedy close per Wolfowitz--The Traditionalist (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Lethal (UTFO album)
- Lethal (UTFO album) → UTFO (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Neelix redirect. This is essentially {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}
and {{R to section}}
but I think can be swiftly deleted. It does no harm but does no good. Si Trew (talk) 19:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment it's not unnecessary dabbing, as there are multiple albums named "Lethal". If the album is notable, then we can delete through WP:REDLINK, if the album is not notable, then the redirect points to where it should -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Lethal (footballer)
- Lethal (footballer) → Leigh Matthews (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I don't think this footballer was ever known by the nicname of "Lethal". I think this has come about from the hatnote at the top saying see something about a murder and is a bit of an absurd Neelix creation Si Trew (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I remember Leigh Matthews as invariably being referred to as "Lethal Leigh" in the Channel 7 coverage in the 1970s. I don't see any particular value in this redirect, but I think it is important to get the facts straight.--Grahame (talk) 02:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I second Grahame's comment. Matthews most certainly was well known by that nickname not only as a player in the 1970s, but then in his role as a coach for twenty years, and now in his current role as a television commentator. A simple Google search reveals this Toyota TV commercial from a few years ago in which he is called "Lethal". Or one could follow the redirect and look at the article itself, in which the word appears 6 times.
- Putting that aside though, is someone going to go to the effort of typing "Lethal (footballer)" when his real name is one of the best known in Australian sport? Probably not... AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Non-business entity
- Non-business entity → Nonprofit organization (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(Neelix redirect) this is plausible as in lede, probably keep. There are stacks more that are far less plausible that I am taking to CSD Si Trew (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete one would thing a government agency could be the meaning -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as ambiguous per 70.51.200.96.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Plastic shoes
- Plastic shoes → Crocs (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
It seems like a misnomer to call Crocs "plastic shoes;" the article says they're made out of a foam. From what I've read at shoe, it seems common to make shoes at least partially out of plastic. Outside of the super broad article on shoes in general, I don't see a good retarget option. Plastic shoe is red. -- Tavix (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I've been thinking of this one in my spare time while trogging through the Neelix redirects and I can't think of a good target either. What would it mean? Do we have leather shoes or rubber shoes for example (no). So what we have is a thing from a material to some kind of specific shoe that may or may not be made of that material. It is most likely made of a combination of poly-vinyl chloride latex and various other plastics. But a Croc does not have to be made of that Krusty Krocs aren't made of that (they are made of bread and stuff). this is just WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete there are many plastic shoes, all foam flipflops for instance, synthetic rubber galoshes, etc -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Misleading and vague. Modern shoes are commonly made with plastic components.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per the above arguments CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Template:Please leave this line alone
- Template:Please leave this line alone → Wikipedia:Introduction (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I've discovered this redirect causing some problems, including putting Wikipedia categories on user pages where editors have posted {{Please leave this line alone}}. Liz Read! Talk! 14:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Odd WP:XNR with no clear useful purpose. Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete the target used to be a template, the template used to be used in a place where people edited it incorrectly to remove the template, making it use such a stupid name. -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Rudolf Francis Ferdinand Hoess
- 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, WP:G5 by Liz (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Rudolf Francis Ferdinand Hoess → Rudolf Höss (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) Declined at CSD. I do not believe this is either a correct name for Höss or a likely search term. His name, with the german umlauts are in the lede also with the eszet but I think this is a bit greenisholives. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. It is too far away to be {{R from title without diacritics}}
, I think, Si Trew (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, but this one should be WP:G5, as it was created by Bossanoven, a sockpuppet of TyrusThomas4lyf (not Neelix). Blocked users are not allowed to contribute. -- Tavix (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hmmm I am not sure why I thought it was created by Neelix then. you're right it was not created by Neelix. I probably found it in a circuitous fashion by others that Neelix probably did make being even more absurd, but this one isn't, you're right. Will take G5 Si Trew (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Haystacks Calhoun Jr. The Hornswagglin' Hillbilly, Professional Wrestler
- Haystacks Calhoun Jr. The Hornswagglin' Hillbilly, Professional Wrestler → Haystacks Calhoun (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
It's a rather long and ridiculous search query. It's an orphaned useless redirect created by an inexperienced user back in 2011. It was almost immediately tagged for speedy deletion, but someone turned it into a redirect instead. I disagree with that and think it should be deleted. Feedback 06:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete implausible search term. Hornswaggin' is not mentioned in target. Neither is Jr. No other notable person to disambiguate. [13] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Richard Afflis ("Dick the Bruiser") Professional Wrestler
- Richard Afflis ("Dick the Bruiser") Professional Wrestler → Dick the Bruiser (links · history · "Dick_the_Bruiser")_Professional_Wrestler stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
It's an impossible and rather useless search query. The only reason it's lasted 10 years is because nobody found it until now. Feedback 06:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed ridiculous. Please delete. starship.paint ~ KO 06:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Implausible search term and no other "Dick the Bruiser"s to disambiguate.. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
UnTunes
No such thing with this name, more plausible for untune than anything. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonense. It would be detune anyway. (Because as the OED says de and dis are prefixes having privative force, i.e. they remove something, that is the difference between de- and un-. Something can be untuned such as my banjo but as a verb you would need to detune it, which indeed you do detune things to stop acoustic resonance, for example the Albert Hall was detuned in that way to stop the bloody echo but still although the most wonderful place in the world to hear music for a quid during the BBC Proms I believe they now call it, it still hasn't the resonance of many of the great concert halls, the Sydney Opera House for example, when the architect had a better idea of acoustics than Queen Victoria did). Si Trew (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
University extensions
- University extensions → Continuing education (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Couldn't this also refer to a branch campus?
Nominated here:
- Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Oiyarbepsy: these are all Neelix redirects and I think quickly can be taken to CSD as WP:G6 neelix concession. Si Trew (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@SimonTrew:I explicitly reject speedy deletion, since these are legitimate terms. I'm not requesting deletion, but asking whether they point to the best target. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Oiyarbepsy: (edit conflict) With the plurals they are a bit nonsense, but we also have University extension and Extension school created by User:Gettingtoit created in 2014 after the Neelix plurals were, as a kinda back formation I guess. So this is all a bit of a mess and essentially WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. I could list those separately but I leave that to you whether you think best to list separately or leave here. Si Trew (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- They're not legitimate terms. The plurals were invented by Neelix (who knows why but the usual habit of sticking any two words together to think it means something), then User:Gettingtoit back-formed the singulars from the plurals. None is actually a proper English term for anything as far as I can tell. Yes it could be a branch campus or night school or day release or any number of things but it isn't. These are simply WP:MADEUP. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm a liar as we do have Harvard Extension School. However a name for a particular university's programme of education, however esteemed that university is, I don't think becomes common English that we can use it as a common term. That is Harvard 's Extension School, that is just what they happen to name it. If anywhere else in the world universe space called it that I would change my opinion. If the Open University called it that, for example. Si Trew (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Mind you, you might be right, this presumably is RS:
- Johnson, Theodore R. (16 September 2013). "Did I really go to Harvard if I got my degree taking online classes". The Atlantic. Retrieved 6 May 2016.
That makes a total mess of my argument saying it is not a real term. Well it does or doesn't. We now have an RS that this term exists in the wild, which is not much use to us because we can't RS a redirect. Now we have to decide two things
- Whether this is specifically used by Harvard's (and nobody else's) distance learning programme, in which case delete
- Whether it would be better, if kept and the consensus is it is a real term, perhaps distance learning would be better than the current target.
(Distance learning -> Distance education)
- University extension is clearly a real term [14]. As is extension school [15]. Both terms are used by hundreds of schools. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. "University extensions" and "Continuing education" are two distinct things and should not be conflated. Likewise with satellite campuses, university annexes, and so forth. Each has its own meaning and there is no cause for these inaccurate redirects to exist. (And consider the source.) Softlavender (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- I believe most of these programs started as agricultural extension, and probably had their names changed as the scopes widened. Not sure that's the right place to point, though. --BDD (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Outlook.at
- Outlook.at → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.be → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.cl → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.co.id → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.co.il → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.co.nz → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.co.th → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.com.ar → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.com.au → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.com.br → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.com.gr → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.com.pe → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.com.tr → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.com.vn → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.cz → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.de → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.dk → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.es → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.fr → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.hu → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.ie → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.in → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.it → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.jp → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.kr → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.lv → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.my → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.ph → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.pt → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.sa → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.sg → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Outlook.sk → Outlook.com (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 29#Airfrance.ae, and precedents listed there. Basically, it is harmful and/or misleading to list foreign websites when the websites or the company's operations in that country isn't discussed at the target. Also per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. -- Tavix (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all as WP:NOTDIRECTORY like wot Tavix said. Being in Hungary I took the opportunity to try out outlook.hu and it actually goes to login.live.com as I imagine all the others will, I tried it because it will detect I am in Hungary through the IP address. And I imagine all the rest will as well, I just checked this one because I have the opportunity to see if there is a wonderful Hungarian website called outlook.hu and to nobody's surprise there is not. (And it comes up in English not Hungarian.) These are also a little misleading cos as I say they go to live.com not outlook.com (live.com is a dab at which all the entries are for Microsoft products, to nobody's surprise because they own the domain in some bizarre attempt to brand all their products as "Windows Live" etc) Si Trew (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- That was no attempt to diss Microsoft. (They wouldn't care anyway). I quite like Microsoft products and have used them throughout my professional career, I actually do think they are better than the competition. But their branding sometimes is a bit bizarre, that is all I was saying. I suppose I was saying they sometimes have more money than sense. Si Trew (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all People may be looking for more information on the sites themselves, clearly harmful. (@Si Trew: I'm not worried about Microsoft at all, even though I'm a Mac and Linux fan, I do use Windows also, but I'm not a MS fan, especially of their newer operating systems (I use Windows 7). ). - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Oh yeah I use Windows 7 too Igot a genuine copy about seven years ago when I bought this computer and it keeps telling me this copy is not genuine it bloody well is I have thes sticker and hologram I just turned off Windows Update and it don't like it. My mum, who is about 77 now, got her first laptop to play with about three years ago and then they changed it to Windows 8 so she had to learn it all over again. She is not a stupid woman by any means but she wants to use a computer not learn the latest user interface. She just wants to use it. I think microsoft forgot that in the race to get onto mobile devices. Their vision was "a computer on every desktop" and that worked, they lost their way when mobile phones came along. She like me has arthritis and so it is hard to type on a touch screen. Steve Jobs never thought about that, he assumed everyone was young and fit and able. Si Trew (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Delete per precedent and that we don't need to mirror every URL that redirects to another redirect on the web. Legacypac (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Vietspace
- Vietspace → List of social networking websites (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Redirect of a non-notable website to a list that has a notability criterion, and therefore, no mention to be found. -- Tavix (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
May 5
File:Terminology.png
- 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 {{Db-redircom}} by RHaworth. The page with this title on Commons is now visible. Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- File:Terminology.png → File:Terminology of trees.png (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Unused, overly vague/ambiguous redirect FASTILY 21:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and maybe blacklist the title for being too vague. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Spirit lamp
- Spirit lamp → Portable stove#Gravity-fed spirit stoves (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Spirit lamps → Portable stove#Gravity-fed spirit stoves (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I think it best formally to include this in the discussions today for #The Spirit of the Lamp and so on. This was created by Neelix, but was a sensible creation, not a silly one, so I don't feel it should speedily go via WP:G6 Neelix concession. (I only noticed it was Neelix who created it when listing here.) We haven't petroleum lamp, but I guess we have something. Gas lamp I feel would be worse, Gasolier goes to Chandelier which I may nominate seperately. Primus stove is perhaps better. Si Trew (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Retarget bothto Kerosene lamp. Kerosene spirit is red, though. Si Trew (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)- Comment - Hmmmm... as much as I would find going to kerosene lamp inherently reasonable, it looks like historically such lamps have so often used various combinations of methylated spirits or otherwise been jerry-rigged with something else that it might be misleading. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, I change mine to delete, below. I tried my best to find something. I asked my partner, for whom English is a second but fluent language, deliberately avoiding the words so as to get her answer, she said immediately "oh, that is that kind of lamp you put petrol in". She did not mention Alladin or any other genie, but then perhaps that allusion would not have occured to her. Si Trew (talk) 08:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep both as is. Kerosene lamp makes mention of using mineral spirits, but no mention of a spirit lamp or similar. Portable stove, on the other hand, has an entire section devoted to spirit stoves, which is a different but very similar term. The current target makes more sense than the proposed change. BTW, I'm the one that targeted this redirect to its section. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, I thought I had added the sections. User:Oiyarbepsy you over-egged the pudding with Portable stove#Gravity-fed spirit stoves#Gravity-fed spirit stoves I think. No big deal. Si Trew (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- My bad, I thought' you meant you added the sections to the RfD discussion, not that you added them to the redirects themselves. It was me that over-egged the pudding when I added the sections to the listing here (Twinkle doesn't add sections to the listings, so I added it manually afterwards.) Si Trew (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Stoves are not lamps. Si Trew (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep both per Oiyarbepsy. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Stoves are indeed not lamps, and honestly there should probably be some kind of a separate article created. Red text would promote that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Reticulatum
- Reticulatum → Vaccinium reticulatum (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This is the second part of a Latin binomial. It should be deleted because not only is it a partial title match, but there are lots of species articles that use this particular one. Xezbeth (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Xezbeth. We have neither Reticule (disambuguation) nor Reticular (disambugation); Reticule or Reticular would probably be WP:RFD#D2 confusing. User:Plantdrew may have something to say, good at the Latin binomials/Linnean names but this is patently not common English. WP:RFOREIGN in the absense of a DAB. Si Trew (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names where its grammatical sister reticulata targets, and where it is defined and has a link to intitle. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Reticulata ain't latin but greek in fourth decelension, as any fule kno. Si Trew (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- @SimonTrew: ah, but plant names governed by the ICN have to be (botanical) Latin, so whatever the origin of the word, it's treated as Latin if it's a specific epithet, so it's neuter. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, @Peter coxhead:
- To nouns that cannot be declined
- The neuter gender is assigned:
- Examples fas and nefas give,
- And the verb-noun infinitive.
- To nouns that cannot be declined
- But what good is that in English WP? I must admit I had assumed without looking that a Vaccinium reticulatum would be some kind of suppository. Why would it be called a cow's anthing, the article doesn't give any etymnology. was it one of Linne's? The references for the name are not very helpful (and most require subscription). Si Trew (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes it was due to Linnaeus. As noted at Vaccinium, the derivation is considered obscure by reliable sources, but may be derived from bacca, berry. B/V changes are relatively common in Indo-European languages, c.f. Castilian Spanish and Modern Greek. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, @Peter coxhead:
- @SimonTrew: ah, but plant names governed by the ICN have to be (botanical) Latin, so whatever the origin of the word, it's treated as Latin if it's a specific epithet, so it's neuter. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Retarget as per Oiyarbepsy. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete is my preference. There are hundreds (maybe even a few thousand) of these redirects from ambiguous species epithets to a randomly chosen species (or species abbreviation dab page) scattered across Wikipedia (e.g. Argentinus, Scandens). The vast majority are the work of three accounts with a very similar patterns of edits overall. Oiyarbepsy has been doing excellent work with List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names, but I question how big that list could get. There are easily thousands of Latin/Greek words that are "commonly used in systematic names". And then there are the redirects that couldn't be said to be commonly used; there are only two species of plants (see here) with berberidifolium. Granted, only one of these is represented on Wikipedia at present, so maybe that's not a big deal right now. "Reticulatum" is probably used frequently enough in systematic names to be represented on the list, but at some point we're going to have to figure out how frequently a term is used to merit inclusion on the list. I dislike WP:RFOREIGN as an argument; scientific names appear in English texts, as well as Spanish, Arabic, Russian, etc. They're universal. Better to focus on the ambiguity issue (even if some redirects of this type aren't ambiguous for multiple Wikipedia articles now, they may become so in the future). Plantdrew (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Jinn lantern
- Jinn lantern → Jinn (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Genie lantern → Jinn (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- The spirit of the lamp → Jinn (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- The spirit of the Lamp → Jinn (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- The Spirit of the lamp → Jinn (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- The Spirit of the Lamp → Jinn (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Spirit of the Lamp → Jinn (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Spirit of the lamp → Jinn (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
These various redirects point to the article Jinn, but there is nothing in the article Jinn to indicate why they are redirected (e.g. there is no clear connection in the article between "Jinn" and "Magic Lamp". The redirects are therefore confusing and if they cannot be targeted properly they are confusing to readers and should be deleted Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- 'Comment. Well the spirit of the lamp is usually methylated spirits. We haven't Lamp spirit or Lamp spirits. I think we can do no better that retarget to Genie. Si Trew (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for bulking these up and tidying up my error. Don't retarget to Genie: Genie redirects to Jinn! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Blimey does it really. I would have thought that was primary. Who opened the bottle (or the Pandora's Box :) Si Trew (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Spirit lamp R -> Portable_stove#Gravity-fed_spirit_stoves. Si Trew (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 13:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. I was also thinking of The Lady of The Lamp, Florence Nightingale, the inventor of pie charts. That would be a bad place to put them too. Si Trew (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- "Spirit lamp" and "spirit of the lamp" are entirely different concepts. I see little possibility of any reader confusing the portable stove for the Aladdin myth. I also note that the connection between the Jinn and lamps occurs only in the legend of Aladdin. (That story is mentioned in the Jinn article though only briefly.) Therefore, retarget all to Aladdin. Rossami (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Of course they are different concepts which is wy I listed #Spirit lamp separately today. If somoene were searching, without the pedantry (from a reader's point of view) typing "of the", I a not sure where they would expect to end up. Pro~bably at Alladin; te problem with #Spirit lamp is it doesn't really describe what a spirit lamp is at the target (you would think it would). I hadn't thought of Kerosene lamp until now. Si Trew (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Aladdin - just seeing jinn / djinn / genie together with lamp makes me think of only one thing, the Aladdin story. They seem entirely valid as plausible search terms. "Spirit of the lamp" similarly is probably also Aladdin's djinn; it is certainly nothing to do with kerosene lanterns, which would call for lamp spirits or some such. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Gainsay
- Gainsay → Contradiction (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
A gainsay is not a mathematical formal logical contradiction. It is just someone disagreeing with someone else. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense and WP:NOTDIC. For homework we odo not have gainsaid or gainsaying. Si Trew (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and again, overlinking common words like contradiction. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
廬州
Other language. In my opinion, Korean article redirect will be in Korean Wikipedia, not English. ... Lhealt (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- This redirect is not Korean; as it says in the {{R from other language}}, it's Chinese. Specifically, it's the Chinese name of Lu Prefecture (Anhui) (ancient prefecture in what is now Hefei, article didn't exist back when this redirect was created), so retarget there per Wp:FORRED. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Lu Prefecture (Anhui) per 210 --Lenticel (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget per above -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Last name
- 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 surname. I'm working on the merger; that will take a while. wbm1058 (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Last name → Family name (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Which article more adequately covers this topic, Family name or Surname? Or should this redirect be converted into a disambiguation page? SSTflyer 15:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Or should Family name and Surname be merged? There are discussions on their talk pages about that.
- wikt:family name: A surname. Synonyms: last name, surname
- wikt:last name is so called because it is in English written last, after the given names. However, in many other languages and cultures this name precedes the given name; in these cases, the terms surname or family name are more appropriate. Synonyms: family name, surname
- wikt:surname: The name a person shares with other members of that person's family, distinguished from that person's given name or names; a family name. Synonyms: family name, last name
- If we can't better define the distinction, it looks like a WP:content fork to me. We should merge them to the most WP:common name.
- Per the Google Ngram "surname" is the winner from the long-term significance standpoint, and is just barely hanging on from the current, most recent use standpoint, with "last name" coming on strong. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Merge family name to surname, and retarget there. Per wbm1058, there isn't enough distinction between the two to have separate articles. -- Tavix (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: @Wbm1058 and Tavix: See Talk:Family name#Merger proposal. There's already consensus for a merge, but ... it seems that the merge never happened as this discussion was closed two years ago. Steel1943 (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect as above. Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Cork, Republic of Ireland
- Cork, Republic of Ireland → Cork (city) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This redirect is ambiguous. Should it be retargeted to Cork, Ireland, a disambiguation page? SSTflyer 15:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Cork, Ireland per nominator. Uanfala (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Cork, Ireland as that page helps readers with the details CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget as above, this is kinda a disambiguating redirect that is not (currently) disambiguating. I believe the official name for the country is just Ireland but in the UK and Ireland people do often use the term Republic of Ireland to distinguish it from Northern Ireland (they might also say "the north" or "the south" or other disambiguators like that). As far as I am aware to say "The Republic of" has no particular political leanings (and I am aware) it is just a shorthand to distinguish in this case it is redundant of course. Si Trew (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Wikipedia uses Ireland to cover the island and Republic of Ireland to cover the country of Ireland (the official name). Legacypac (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Apis maculata
- Apis maculata → Anthidium manicatum (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
User:Plantdrew on that user's talk page said do you know where they are on the Neelix list (that user did not put it in those words, those are my words). THere are stacks of them and this is one of the first. I couldn't find it on the list so am trying to give Plantdrew any way in because I happened to have left this open on my screen. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Take a breath It means literally a bee that has macula but the target is a wasp. No doubt that is correct, but there are stacks and stacks that make less sense than this. Lots more are less sensible than this one. I would have thought literally it means bee with teeth (sorta) mandibles and of course well the back maculata can mean to mash or to chew up. No problem with this one but there are stacks far less sensible. Si Trew (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I guess this should go as keep based on current practice, but I see no harm in deleting. It's an obscure synonym of Anthidium manicatum (which I would call a bee rather than a wasp). The synonymy isn't adequately referenced in the Anthidium manicatum article, and I'm not having much luck finding modern databases to support the synonymy, but there are some 19th century books on Google Books that could be used as sources ([16]).
- I still haven't seen any scientific name redirects that Neelix has done wrong as the G6 Neelix criterion goes. He's screwed up stuff based on bad content of Wikipedia articles (as with Pelidnota lutea), or hasn't accounted for ambiguity already present on Wikipedia (numerous cases, but Roscoea lutea for one).
- The larger question (Neelix aside), do we need redirects for scientific names that never appeared in print in the 20th century outside of contexts where they were listed as synonyms, and which are largely unlisted in 21st century databases? I'm all for including obscure synonyms in taxoboxes, but in the unlikely chance that somebody searches for an obscure synonym, the taxobox mention will be sufficient to get them to the article. Creating redirects for these is pointless. I'm not suggesting that we should necessarily delete existing redirects of this type, but they may end up needing disambiguation (Roscoea lutea again, @Peter coxhead:). I'm not sure that creating redirects from every obscure scientific synonym should be encouraged. Plantdrew (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- My position remains that it's fine to put even obscure synonyms in taxoboxes, but only those genuinely likely to be used should be redirects, so I favour delete. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia
- List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia → Wikipedia in culture (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Frivolous title; no such list in target page, only a description of Stephen Colbert's live criticism for comic effect. — JFG talk 07:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- 'Delete. Target is not a list. Done for humourous effect and I bet Colbert will be delighted it has been noticed and got deleted, he can add that joke to his stockpile, I think he is quite a funny man although we don't get so much of him our side of the Pond, so even if kept it is WP:WORLDWIDE and rather an in-joke for those who watch the Colbert Report or whatever it may be called these days. Si Trew (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- The Late Show with Stephen Colbert Legacypac (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Teston d'argent
- Teston d'argent → Livre tournois (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This is an entirely different coin from the Livre tournois. French wiki has an article at fr:Teston
Also nominated:
- Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Hmmm Teston is a village in Kent. Testons does indeed go to the Livre tournois. In fr:Teston links back with Wikidata to Shilling_(English_coin) and so we have a lot of nonsense going on here. A livre (a pound) patently is not a shilling. So on the whole these should be deleted as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense to break the roundabout triangular links saying this coin in 18th Century France is the same as that coin in 20th century England and so on, it is all a bit nonsense. Although born after decimalization on 14 February 1971 I think, I used regularly to get shillings (5p) and two shillings (10p) as pocket money, so although no numismatist I can tell you for a fact they weren't Livre tournois, Si Trew (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- ISTM Wikidata is wrong here, except for an etymological connection: according to the French article the teston started out worth a little over 10 sols (notionally equivalent to shillings at 1/20 lb. each) or half a livre, and reached 19.5 sols by the time it was discontinued. Based on the silver content I expect it would have been worth at least 2s in contemporary English money. The original English testoon, ancestor of the shilling coin, seems to have been similar in size & weight but of much lower purity. Comparing the values of old currencies is complicated and names can be deceiving; for example the Scottish pound declined so much WRT the English that it was exchanged at about £0.08 (1s 8d) on discontinuation.—Odysseus1479 00:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thankyou that is all very nice. I told you I am no numismatist, but I think that currently to link a livre to a shilling is a bit nonsense. That would be a bit like linking the French horn to the cor anglais. Perhaps because I speak French it is more confusing to me than to others, though. Si Trew (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- ISTM Wikidata is wrong here, except for an etymological connection: according to the French article the teston started out worth a little over 10 sols (notionally equivalent to shillings at 1/20 lb. each) or half a livre, and reached 19.5 sols by the time it was discontinued. Based on the silver content I expect it would have been worth at least 2s in contemporary English money. The original English testoon, ancestor of the shilling coin, seems to have been similar in size & weight but of much lower purity. Comparing the values of old currencies is complicated and names can be deceiving; for example the Scottish pound declined so much WRT the English that it was exchanged at about £0.08 (1s 8d) on discontinuation.—Odysseus1479 00:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm Teston is a village in Kent. Testons does indeed go to the Livre tournois. In fr:Teston links back with Wikidata to Shilling_(English_coin) and so we have a lot of nonsense going on here. A livre (a pound) patently is not a shilling. So on the whole these should be deleted as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense to break the roundabout triangular links saying this coin in 18th Century France is the same as that coin in 20th century England and so on, it is all a bit nonsense. Although born after decimalization on 14 February 1971 I think, I used regularly to get shillings (5p) and two shillings (10p) as pocket money, so although no numismatist I can tell you for a fact they weren't Livre tournois, Si Trew (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
What is a GMO
- What is a GMO → Genetically modified organism (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Per WP:NOTFAQ The Traditionalist (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and precedents such as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 26#What is bikini bottom?.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Deelte per nom -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Deeleeeeteeee per 70.51. Si Trew (talk) 07:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia is not Jeopardy. And if it were, most of us would probably be doing about as badly as Weird Al, sadly. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Ἀνάλυσις
There in nothing particularly Greek about analysis Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment
/neutralTrue, but the word is Greek...--The Traditionalist (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, affinity with Greek via its etymology as well as being mentioned in the article: "the word comes from the Ancient Greek ἀνάλυσις (analysis, "a breaking up", from ana- "up, throughout" and lysis "a loosening")." -- Tavix (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Tavix.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Etymological rootword of the word is dictionary material. The topic of the article is not highly related to any language. -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep it is there in the lede. Unlikely a modern greek would come to English wikipedia to find what it meant in ancient greek but it does no harm. Should mark as
{{R from original language|grc}}
probably. Si Trew (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC) - Comment Liz speedy deleted this, but I have asked for restoration at her talk page. Please don't close this until this is resolved. -- Tavix (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete most English words have some non-English root or origin. We don't create redirects for all these. This word has no special affinity to Greek in modern usage. Legacypac (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, IP 70… and Legacypac: a very large portion of our scientific & technical vocabulary is derived from classical Greek, which etymologies are cited in a great many articles and can be found by searching anyway. Use–mention distinction: the word is Greek, but not the topic as described in the bulk of the article. (@Legacypac: I think “most” may be an exaggeration, but I‘m pretty sure we don’t want redirects for the Old and Middle English forms of ‘native’ terms either: all that sort of thing belongs in Wiktionary.)—Odysseus1479 20:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)'
- Delete I agree with Legacypac, a lot of our words are derived from various European languages, and thus we have no need for this page/article. Newrunner769 —Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Tavix and Simon Trew.--The Traditionalist (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Naywords
Neelix speedy denied by User:Amakuru saying "Nayword does mean proverb http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nayword". Amakuru got one word wrong - mean should be replaced with meant. Its use to mean proverb is noted as Obsolete. Merriam-Webster uses this word to mean that there is zero evidence of any use since 1755, 311 years. The word still is in use, but for a completely different meaning. It's bad enough to have redirects from former words, but even worse when they have a completely different meaning today. All that said, delete.
Nominated here:
- Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment I have been absent from RfD lately so I may need a bit of a résumé concerning this gentleman, Neelix and why are redirects created by him considered a unique type of redirect and, thus, classified as "Neelix redirects". Thank you in advance.--The Traditionalist (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC) P.S.
I would be delighted if @SimonTrew: could give me his own version of the events.--The Traditionalist (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- @The Traditionalist:Neelix made more than 50,000 redirects in his time here, and some were incredibly ludicrously stupid and made no sense whatsoever. I think he got banned from making any more, and there are so many, that we agreed that Neelix redirects are speedy deletable. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Listed at CSD with this rationale:
- Neelix is a byword we use at RfD
- for words that he made up like Nayword, now do you see?
- So this should go to CSD as nayword isn't wratten
- in any text we know of (do you start to get the pattern?)
- Thanks for letting @The Traditionalist:in on it . Quite right to bring to RfD if in any doubt of either the process or what to do with them. (Naywords also goes to Proverb). For example gainsay I don't know if that is red or blue yet but is a proper English word, but I think these are not. (and WP:NOTDIC anyway, and Proverb is a pathetic target for either so WP:RFD#D5 nonsense.) Delete here if they don't go red by CSD. Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- By the way on my talk page you will see that I was complimented by a CSD roving admin for the style of my redirect nominations at CSD so I am making them ever more elaborate in the hope it will amuse one or other of them. They have a tough job deleting them too and get bored of them so I try to make the nominations correct but amusing, lately I have been doing it in verse. Probably rather than CSD G6 well it is still G5 I should have said result of previous discussion, now I await there fate (that would be great!) Si Trew (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- @SimonTrew: Ha ha! I missed you, old fellow!
Nice clerihew, that one!Actually, strictly speaking, it is not a clerihew. It is more like a Balliol rhyme.--The Traditionalist (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)- Excuse me while I put on my Queen of Sheba costume. Ahem, now I am the Queen of Sheba. But then, the little poem was only iambic tetrameter and who's going to worry about a foot or a meter. Oh
{{convert}}
does. Si Trew (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Excuse me while I put on my Queen of Sheba costume. Ahem, now I am the Queen of Sheba. But then, the little poem was only iambic tetrameter and who's going to worry about a foot or a meter. Oh
- @SimonTrew: Ha ha! I missed you, old fellow!
- By the way on my talk page you will see that I was complimented by a CSD roving admin for the style of my redirect nominations at CSD so I am making them ever more elaborate in the hope it will amuse one or other of them. They have a tough job deleting them too and get bored of them so I try to make the nominations correct but amusing, lately I have been doing it in verse. Probably rather than CSD G6 well it is still G5 I should have said result of previous discussion, now I await there fate (that would be great!) Si Trew (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I've processed tens of thousands (not kidding) Neelex redirects. You can check out and join in looking at the unprocessed ones on 5 massive lists linked at User:Neelix/talk. Legacypac (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
May 4
John H Morrison
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- John H Morrison → John H. Morrison (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
It goes to a different target actually Si Trew (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Si Trew:I don't get it. I don't understand your rationale at all. This redirect seems to make perfect sense to me. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see the reasoning provided. -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Hmmm I think I made a mistake. When I was clicking through the Neelix list both John H and John G targeted the same target, but I must have just slipped and clicked both at once. That is why if in any doubt I bring them to RfD. Speedily keep, withdrawn by nominator. Just a slip on my part. Si Trew (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- 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.
John G Morrison
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- John G Morrison → John G. Morrison (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Was he John G Morrison or Hohn H Morrison (listing next will combine). Neelix nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep the target article's name is "John G. Morrison", so the redirect is proper as far as the current target's article name is concerned. Renaming the article should be done first if that is the thing that is incorrect -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Hmmm I think I made a mistake. When I was clicking through the Neelix list both John H and John G targeted the same target, but I must have just slipped and clicked both at once. That is why if in any doubt I bring them to RfD. Speedily keep, withdrawn by nominator. Just a slip on my part. Si Trew (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- 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.
Roscoea lutea
- Roscoea lutea → Cautleya gracilis (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) rather than take this straight to CSD under WP:G6 housekeeping I give you this as a very good example to the one I listed below. Now, in the synonyms at the target, various things are listed and are said. Not one of which is this, so this is Neelix trying to reinvent the Linnean system, but how I expect to find an infobox on plants or animals User:Plantdrew do you agree? I don't have to click through the infobox, it ain't linked, but expect to find (at the target not this sillly redirect) who called it that abbreviated with taxonomic abbreviations (because it is an infobox and the narrower the better in the infobox). Si Trew (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- I managed to list this twice with the same title so removing that. Somewhere servers are lagging.... Si Trew (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Retargetto Curcuma zedoaria because its a synonym for this plant.Disambiguate because there is another plant I can find with this name as a synonym: Curcuma zedoaria. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Comment There are two Roscoea luteas described by different people (Roscoea lutea Royle and Roscoea lutea (Blanco) Hassk.); both are currently treated as synonymous with other species. There are some other cases like this on Wikipedia; although it's not currently very common, it has the potential to turn into a nightmare as more redirects from scientific name synonyms get created and are found to be ambiguous. One way to handle these is to turn them into dabs as was done for entries in Category:Species_Latin_name_disambiguation_pages. Another option is a redirect with a hatnote at the target. One name will be "legal" under the rules of nomenclature, and the other(s) "illegal". In this case Roscoea lutea Royle is a "legal" synonym for Cautleya gracilis, so we might keep the redirect and add a hatnote to Cautleya gracilis pointing to Curcuma zedoaria. I'd prefer to delete to avoid the headache here, but I guess I'm pretty deletionist for the RfD crowd. Ideally, Wikispecies would handle stuff that comes down to obscure technicalities and we could redirect to Wikispecies and sort it out there. Plantdrew (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks User:Plantdrew I concur better off deleted than ambiguous, WP:XY I think. I just thought it a very good example of a very bad redirect. There were stacks of other Lutea ones that I took straight to CSD under WP:G6 Neelix concession. Next up is a stack of apis ones for wasps, And I know a bee (apis) from a wasp (Vespa) but I don't know if they are good taxonomic names or just rubbish. Si Trew (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment There are two Roscoea luteas described by different people (Roscoea lutea Royle and Roscoea lutea (Blanco) Hassk.); both are currently treated as synonymous with other species. There are some other cases like this on Wikipedia; although it's not currently very common, it has the potential to turn into a nightmare as more redirects from scientific name synonyms get created and are found to be ambiguous. One way to handle these is to turn them into dabs as was done for entries in Category:Species_Latin_name_disambiguation_pages. Another option is a redirect with a hatnote at the target. One name will be "legal" under the rules of nomenclature, and the other(s) "illegal". In this case Roscoea lutea Royle is a "legal" synonym for Cautleya gracilis, so we might keep the redirect and add a hatnote to Cautleya gracilis pointing to Curcuma zedoaria. I'd prefer to delete to avoid the headache here, but I guess I'm pretty deletionist for the RfD crowd. Ideally, Wikispecies would handle stuff that comes down to obscure technicalities and we could redirect to Wikispecies and sort it out there. Plantdrew (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete redirects from obscure synonyms that aren't ever likely to be used as links are pointless. The search engine will find synonyms in taxoboxes; only the very major ones need to be made redirects. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Pelidnota lutea
- Pelidnota lutea → Grapevine beetle (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I have stacks of thesew coming it is in the infobox as a synonym but without explanation or source which normally bio articles do (there are loads of bio templates specifically to quote the designation). Could just be unsourced but Neelix redirect from the infobox I imagine Si Trew (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
KeepDisambiguate - The redirect is supposedly a synonym of it, but it might be an incomplete name. It looks legit though from a Google search. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete There's been a confusingly phrased bit about Pelidnota lutea in the grapevine beetle article for a long time, but Neelix added P. lutea to the taxobox as a synonym and created the redirect. Sources differ in whether or not P. lutea is a synonym or an accepted species. Catalogue of Life has "Pelidnota lutea (Olivier, 1789)" as an accepted species. The parentheses around Olivier are important, because they indicate that the species was originally described in a different genus. CoL doesn't have any entry for the original name in the synonymy section. ITIS has "Melolontha lutea Olivier, 1789" as a synonym of Pelidnota punctata, but doesn't list "Pelidnota lutea (Olivier, 1789)". I can do a bit of synthesis to infer that ITIS should have P. lutea as a synonym of P. punctata, but there's really no good source we can cite to support redirecting P. lutea as a synonym. It's troubling that both ITIS and CoL are missing one of the two lutea combinations; I don't really want to pick one of them as the reliable source to follow (though CoL has been more recently updated). The bottom line is, we don't have a source for treating P. lutea as a synonym, and if it is an accepted species, it better to delete the redirect and encourage article creation with a red-link. I'm leaving grapevine beetle as it is while the RfD is open, but it needs some work; please ping me on closing and I'll fix it up. Plantdrew (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- delete, If Plantdrew says delete and knows a damn sight more than I do about taxonimic names then I don't think you can doubt Plantdrew's expertise. That is a weight on his shoulders becase there are THOUSANDS of neelix redirects, some may makwe sence most not. If they are patent nosnese I take them via G6 housekeeping, but some I have doubt with. I think Rosa obscura trewii is red. Si Trew (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
RBLX
I dont what RBLX have to do with Roblox Flow234 (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - It looks like the former term is a often used abbreviation stated by users of the program. The "RBLXDev" project seems to be one of the biggest examples. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership
- 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership → The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) Not sure about this one. If anything it should go delete, but the "The" is part of the book's title, it is not that without the "the' it would mean anything. I bet it is a crap book cos I will quite happily refute 21 things about anything. I may not win the argument,but I can argue the tail off a donkeyű (especially if it is Eeyore but then he makes it too easy by having a detachable tail). Si Trew (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Blantantly obvious keep, since everyone sometimes forgets whether titles have a the in them or not. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep It's a reasonable redirect since all it does is drop the "The", and redirects of such forms exist for other topics with the same formulation created by many other users. Lazy users who drop the 'the' will get where they're going. -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to User:SimonTrew where the irrefutable laws of nature are clearly stated. Unfortunately most of them are red but I am working on that. Si Trew (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Sea-devils
- 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, WP:G6, by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs). I will note that anyone can boldly recreate the redirect if someone still wants it redirected to sea devil. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sea-devils → Lophius (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) I think sea devils in common English would more mean a sailor. I think in Blackadder II Blackadder addresses Sir Walter Raleigh as such (it may have been you old sea dog) the point is in common parlance, which is what was being playing on in that comedy, it would mean a sailor. Neelix redirect listing as procedure. Is in lede unhyphenated but readers could find it without it. Another of Neelix' attempts to subvert the Linnean system of classification Si Trew (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget this (and sea-devil) to the sea devil disambiguation page. There are other fish listed there. I'm not finding any sources that suggest that sea-devil is a common name for the entire genus Lophius. Google Books has some 19th century sources giving it as a common name for the common European species Lophius piscatorius and an Asian species now classified as Lophiomus setigerus. Plantdrew (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget per Plantdrew -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Swiftly retarget as above. Sea-devil is actually not a Neelix creation so I think fair to give notice to User:Ykvach who created it redirecting to Lophius piscatorius on 6 March 2013, it was changed on 1 July 2014 by Neelix with the edit summary "This term refers to the entire genus.". I think to list it separately is just makework, but that is not technically by the WP:G6 concession a Neelix redirect. I bet we have to try to find (or "go search") lots more Lophius ones that Neelix changed from species to genus, but this will do for now. Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- We don't need the Neelix G6 to just retarget something. Anyone can boldly do that. Legacypac (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I know that. I can do that and often do if it is bleeding obvious. I take them to CSD for deletion if it is bleeding obvious. I list the ones that I think are less than obvious. I've been doing the cryptic crossword puyyle in the Financial Times and that is screwing me head around bit I got eight across and six down but the style is diffeent from The Times so it is hard it is a metapuzzle to work out what the clues mean. With any cryptic crossword if it's done properly the answers are easy but the clues are difficult. Si Trew (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- We don't need the Neelix G6 to just retarget something. Anyone can boldly do that. Legacypac (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Frog-fish (disambiguation)
- Frog-fish (disambiguation) → Frogfish (disambiguation) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I am listing this mainly beause the front of the Anomie list of Neelix redirects said we did all the frogs! You missed this one then. I Think' quite patently delete and not {{R to DAB}}
but it don't quite fit the WP:G6 Neelix concession Si Trew (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, why not. There's a mess here with Neelix creations/retargets of frog fish, frog fishes, frog-fish, frog-fishes to the genus Lophius, while frogfish is an entirely different family (that doesn't include Lophius). I don't think Wikipedia's readers will expect the presence of a space or hyphen to take them to different articles in this case. Plantdrew (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Sea-devil (disambiguation)
- Sea-devil (disambiguation) → Sea devil (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This is a bit procedural. The DAB already exists at the target, this has a hyphen, and the title suggests (disambiguation) which generally is no good for editors wishing specifically to link to the DAB. I have marked it as {{R to disambiguation page}}
but probably should be deleted. Neelix redirect. Si Trew (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to sea devil as a plausible synonym. I'm also fine with a delete --Lenticel (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Mathematical recursion
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Mathematical recursion → Recursion (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I don't think someone who is looking for the logical concept of recursion wishes to end up at this film Si Trew (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Speedily withdrawn by nominator. I think that some Internet cache router in the way of me and the web server bank has a very odd idea of what I am doing, because I got something other than the target of this the first time. I am not sure the picture is the best way to illustrate it (and Magritte's were certainly self-referential but not recursive) so keep it, I just blundererd there. Withdrawn by nominator. Si Trew (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Probe test
- Probe test → Wafer testing (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Surely there are other kinds of tests that involve a probe. And there's on an article on test probe. Plantdrew (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Most of them make you cough. i don' think test probe is a good target. Si Trew (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete many other topics -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete although I could imagine a disambiguation page being made that goes to a variety of such tests CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as ambigous or maybe retarget to UFO :) Legacypac (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Jonathan Hartgrove
- Jonathan Hartgrove → Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) Not sure on this. He does not ever seem to be called just "Jonathan Hartgrove" rather than "Wilson-Hartgrove". I don't think you can play with double-barrelled surnames like that. (The owner of the surnames frequently do, they might as well get not so much a double-barelled gun but a blunderbuss, but I don't think we at Wikipedia can). Si Trew (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete we have tested this type of his name play before and deleted them all. Will tag. Legacypac (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, Si Trew is absolutely correct in that you can't break up double-barrelled surnames like that. The obvious exception would be if he also went by that name, but I see no evidence of that. -- Tavix (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I had not noticed that there was a declined speedy on this when I sent it to speedy delete. The editor that has taken two speedy tags off has only insulted me so far and not provided any rational for keeping here. Legacypac (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I think I sent it the first time. That is very insulting and the admin should be ashamed of his or her self. I shall try a third time and I bet it is declined but I do not like you being insulted by an admin. I don't mind insulting you, you half-arsed small brained fuckwit, but I don't like an admin doing that, that is not what admins are for. Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- That is now the fourth time that the CSD has been reverted. I don't know about you but I think admin User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz should come here to explain the actions, obviously either Legacypac or I am an idiot and I don't think it is Legacypac. This has consensus at RfD for deletion and I can only list by one criterion. The usual criterian is WP:G6 housekeeping per the Neelix concession. This has now had four times to be taken to CSD under the Neelix concession, always refused but never with the closing admin actually bothering to come to RfD and explain why they have refused it. Can you please explain it to us mere mortals that are trying to make the encylopaeidia better? (And yes I am pissed off.) Si Trew (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- You've been editing since 2009, so you know perfectly well that calling an editor you disagree with you half-arsed small brained fuckwit is beyond inappropriate. You've been editing since 2009, so you are expected to know that for an involved editor to put this speedy tag on a page [18] when the discussion has run only 48 hours, rather than the standard week is abusive and difficult to see as good faith. To rant and complain that I am not participating in a discussion you have not troubled yourself to notify me of is simply and undeniably rude at best. Given that you never responded to my comment that the redirect appeared plausible -- it doesn't matter whether the article subject ever used this form of his name, only that a user unfamiliar with the subject might search for it (just as it doesn't matter whether Emmylou Harris ever used the name "Emmy Lou Harris), it's evidence that attempted rational discussion with you has proved a waste of time. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- That is now the fourth time that the CSD has been reverted. I don't know about you but I think admin User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz should come here to explain the actions, obviously either Legacypac or I am an idiot and I don't think it is Legacypac. This has consensus at RfD for deletion and I can only list by one criterion. The usual criterian is WP:G6 housekeeping per the Neelix concession. This has now had four times to be taken to CSD under the Neelix concession, always refused but never with the closing admin actually bothering to come to RfD and explain why they have refused it. Can you please explain it to us mere mortals that are trying to make the encylopaeidia better? (And yes I am pissed off.) Si Trew (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is perfectly fine to add speedy tags to Neelix redirects during a discussion - that's one of the the reasons G6 Neelix got invented, so we don't need to run thousands of RfDs for a full week. Scroll through the last month (or even the last week) and you'll even find Admins speedy closing and deleting Neelix redirects. Legacypac (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- That's not at all representative of the consensus reached; the discussion made clear that uncritical tagging of plausible redirects was not within the scope of the proposal, and this is a nearly perfect example of a plausible redirect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do I recall correctly you oppose touching the Neelix redirects at all? Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, that's just a false statement you trot out when you want your way in a deletion discussion and can't refute a policy- or guideline-based argument against it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Changing the CSD criteria to cover your removal of CSD tags by three different editors on this page is interesting [19] Legacypac (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I changed the page to accurately quote the proposal which received consensus. The fact the proposal was misquoted two months after it was adopted in no way reflects any change in the consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Changing the CSD criteria to cover your removal of CSD tags by three different editors on this page is interesting [19] Legacypac (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, that's just a false statement you trot out when you want your way in a deletion discussion and can't refute a policy- or guideline-based argument against it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do I recall correctly you oppose touching the Neelix redirects at all? Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- That's not at all representative of the consensus reached; the discussion made clear that uncritical tagging of plausible redirects was not within the scope of the proposal, and this is a nearly perfect example of a plausible redirect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Delete - He doesn't refer to himself like that, and precedent is clear to get rid of these kinds of redirects. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Criticism of Berkshire Hathaway
- Criticism of Berkshire Hathaway → Clayton Homes (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Criticism of a constituent company is not criticism of BH itself, and in any event it's a minor criticism of a minor constituent company. ÷seresin 16:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete there is so little criticism about the entire organization this is a bad redirect or title. Legacypac (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- And that would have nothing to do with Berkshire Hathaway owning a lot of the US media? Or am I being too cynical to suggest that a media mogul may influence what was read or printed about him. But we haven't Berkeley brothers who own the Daily Mail while living in Guernsey and paying no UK taxes. But that is just my own opinion; so this should go as simply as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Si Trew (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- More to do with BH being a holding co with about 20 employees that takes a very hands off stance with management of its holdings. There is no history of Buffett has ever tried to manipulate his media holdings to do his bidding, rather quite the opposite. Also they stick to non-controversial businesses for the most part. The extreme success of Buffett, his simple lifestyle and his folksy ways have earned him significant praise and admiration. Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Of course there is no history of Warren Buffet being anything but a folksy guy who likes to spend time with his family. Who would ever suggest otherwise. Being a tax exile is not mentioned at all in the article, of course. New Hampshire is a lovely place to live. Si Trew (talk) 06:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- I will bet you all Lombard-street to a China orange that when he dies he gives an enormous fortune to charity. I have no truck against the man. I just cannot believe we have no criticism about him, but you're right in the wrong way that would be Criticism of Warren Buffet not of some subsidiary company, and we need to find criticism about that. WP:REDLINK. Si Trew (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- I should like to know how one chap who has no criticism seems to run a bit of a company here and there with only twenty employees. Can you get my drift? I don't care if he is a billionaire or a trillionare, but on Wikipedia I am surprised there is no criticism of he or his firm (I didn't even mention the man). THere shold be but I can't magically create the well-sourced article with criticism of Berkshire Hathaway because I can't find any sources. That is not because he is a nice guy. Donald Trump might be a nice guy Ronald Reagan was a nice guy. Need I put it more clearly? Si Trew (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Buffett has already given hundreds of millions to charity and has pledged to give 99% of his money to charity - via The Bill amd Melinda Gates Foundation and charities run by his three kids mostly. He lives and pays taxes in Omaha of course, wheee he has lived all his life. Legacypac (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- And that would have nothing to do with Berkshire Hathaway owning a lot of the US media? Or am I being too cynical to suggest that a media mogul may influence what was read or printed about him. But we haven't Berkeley brothers who own the Daily Mail while living in Guernsey and paying no UK taxes. But that is just my own opinion; so this should go as simply as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Si Trew (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Going to add that there should probably be some kind of discussion on Wikipedia in terms of criticism of Berkshire Hathaway (which can be cited to reliable sources (see: here and here), but the point remains that what this redirect is doing isn't right. If anything, having the text red encourages proper article creation. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Exploiting minority home buyers and selling homes with high levels of a carcinogen to Haiti are not minor criticisms. The information is supported by no less than seven reliable references from the Wall Street Journal, Seattle Times, Bloomberg and more. Warren Buffett himself addressed the exploitation criticism at a shareholder meeting of Berkshire Hathaway (see additional references at Talk:Clayton_Homes#criticism_section_—_more_refs_to_be_added_to_the_page) which demonstrates that this is not minor criticism of a "constituent company". Ottawahitech (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Wythy
- Wythy → Wythenshawe (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Contested CfD.
This is a trivial local nickname for Wythenshawe, of such little encyclopedic significance that it doesn't even justify a redirect. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- That has no encompass. I know damned well where Wythenshawe is and it is common parlance to call it Wythy for short (I don't know where Withy is an article about forestry). What's the problem'? Gets people to where they are likely to go WP:RFD#K5 somebody finds it useful. In the words of Wikd99, "no reason has been given to suggest deletion". I and Y are not easily confused in written english. Si Trew (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - That a name sounds goofy and trivial doesn't negate its validity as a name, and its not as if this isn't applied not just online but also in book form. It's easy to look up. As far as misspelling goes, there can always be a hat-note to "withy" added if need be. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Canna concinna
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Canna concinna → Canna indica (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) calling User:Plantdrew: I can't see this at the target at all (beautiful flowerby the way) Can you fiddle it taxonomically? (You hum it, I'll play it.) Si Trew (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. It's in the article, but the synonymy section of the taxobox is collapsed. Ctrl-F won't find it until the section is uncollapsed. Neelix created several dozen redirects from synonyms of this species. They should all be fine (I trust the work of the editor who added the synonymy list in this case, and Neelix was just going off that list). From what I've seen Neelix's redirects from scientific synonyms are unproblematic (though I don't have a clear picture of the quality of synonymy lists in frog articles). On the other hand, Neelix was creating redirects from abbreviations of scientific names (e.g. C. annaei, C. barbadica), and these often turn out to be ambiguous (multiple species with same abbreviation). The abbreviations redirecting to Canna indica seem to be unambiguous, but in general, Neelix's abbreviations will need scrutiny. Plantdrew (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Which is why I call for your help and trust your opinion. Some are absurd. keep per expert User:Plantdrew. Si Trew (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedily keep by nominator after discussion> close please. On a technical point infoboxes don't tend to count at things like WP:DYK an infobox is there to condense the body of the main text it is not a suubstite for it.And ctrl+f does note xexpandtthat for me. It is obscure only to put it there, it should be in the lede of the main running text, nevertheless it is there and no good comes of doing anything but keep it. Si Trew (talk) 17:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Artificialities
- 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, WP:G6, by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Artificialities → Artificiality (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) this is WP:MADEUP in the way that contrafibularities was in Blackadder III, expressing his hopes for Samual Johnson's complete dictionary. However it might mean something, but not this Since we have for example Antiquaries it sounds very late eighteenth century, an Artifice may be (but not much) a better target. Si Trew (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Artifice no good a magazine. Whereto? Si Trew (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep {{R from plural}} wikt:artificialities [20] -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Gee gee
- 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, WP:G7, by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Delete. The target is a DAB page at which it is not mentioned. In Britain, a "gee gee" is nursery slang (kinda onomatopoeic often to children like me who had never seen a horse) to mean a horse (please I don't have to link horse) and adult slang in gambling on horses is to have "a bet on the gee gees", "I had a bit of luck on the gee gees" and so forth. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, no content at target, a DAB. Not mentioned there. Si Trew (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete WP:G7, author requests deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Ottawa Gee-Gees sports team -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Nope that would be equally absurd as if I suggested it should go tgo Horse as
{{R from other name}}
. Delete it and be done with it. WP:XY let the search engine deal with it. Si Trew (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC) - Shit looking at the history it was me who created it and Tavix who retargeted it. I agree G7 author requests deletion and will take it this. Si Trew (talk)
- Nope that would be equally absurd as if I suggested it should go tgo Horse as
-
- 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.
File:East Logo.png
- File:East Logo.png → File:Shawnee Mission East High School logo.png (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Unused redirect from ambiguous name. LukeSurl t c 13:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. File was just moved from the title of the redirect in the past few days. The target file page was uploaded at the title of the redirect in 2008. There is a relatively high chance that external links could be broken if the redirect is deleted. However, with all that being said, I'm leaning towards delete since Wikipedia is not a host for non-free content (unless used in an article with a fair-use claim); with that being said, external links to the target file, a non-free image, or its redirect(s) (given that the file was at the title of the redirect for almost 8 years) should not exist, even if they do, since Wikipedia does not host non-free content for others to use since others using non-free content found here would be copyright infringement of the copyright holder's work. Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The file has been under this name for many years, and deletion of the redirect would create lots of unnecessary red links in old revisions of Shawnee Mission East High School. See also WP:R#SUPPRESS --Stefan2 (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Editors should take responsibility for any erroneous reverts to old versions, and since images are not part of the text of an article, I don't see why this redirect should remain. If this redirect is deleted, the deletion/move log will be able to inform editors where the file went. Keeping this redirect due to old revisions having the redirect used is akin to keeping a redirect like Dbhhbfijffjfhhffg since it formerly targeted Microsoft Windows and was linked in an old reversion of Microsoft. Steel1943 (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- What does breaking old revision have to do with reverting to old revisions? And what do you gain from deleting file redirects? The only thing you change is that editors who like to see how an article has developed will see red links instead of files when browsing through old revisions of the page. Why do you want to produce unnecessary red links? The page Microsoft Windows is not meant to be transcluded on other pages, so there are completely different reasons for keeping redirects to that page. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- THe policy for WP:REDLINK is clearly stated. But in general, it makes it harder for readers to search when there is this kind of clutter, it is also harder for editors who are trying to maintain or link to files. It is administrative, really, WP:WIKIGNOMEing, to clean up the mess. You have to ask what harm would there be by deleting it. Oh, to preserve the history of a file redirect? Nobody is ever actually going to check that. And even when deleted its history can be retrieved on request from any admin you ask. I know because I do it quite often well about three times a year. To keep it starts a combinatorial explosion of redirects to all kinds of things until we end up with greenisholives. Si Trew (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you suddenly start talking about preserving the history of redirects. I have only talked about preserving the history of articles. What do you gain by having a red link in the infobox Special:PermanentLink/718547389 instead of seeing an image? See also Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 56#G6 and several other discussions which discuss file redirects. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- THe policy for WP:REDLINK is clearly stated. But in general, it makes it harder for readers to search when there is this kind of clutter, it is also harder for editors who are trying to maintain or link to files. It is administrative, really, WP:WIKIGNOMEing, to clean up the mess. You have to ask what harm would there be by deleting it. Oh, to preserve the history of a file redirect? Nobody is ever actually going to check that. And even when deleted its history can be retrieved on request from any admin you ask. I know because I do it quite often well about three times a year. To keep it starts a combinatorial explosion of redirects to all kinds of things until we end up with greenisholives. Si Trew (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Editors should take responsibility for any erroneous reverts to old versions, and since images are not part of the text of an article, I don't see why this redirect should remain. If this redirect is deleted, the deletion/move log will be able to inform editors where the file went. Keeping this redirect due to old revisions having the redirect used is akin to keeping a redirect like Dbhhbfijffjfhhffg since it formerly targeted Microsoft Windows and was linked in an old reversion of Microsoft. Steel1943 (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:REDLINK does not apply solely to articles but to anything on EN:WP. What we gain is that people do not get a WP:SURPRISE by having a redirected file link that goes to a different file from what it might do, essentially WP:SURPRISE is what we gain by deleting it. If not, I can retarget it to File:London bus.jpg or whatever (I don't know if that exists) and how merry we all shall be. The gain in deleting these redirects is not to give readers a WP:SURPRISE. I probably did not make myself very clear. Si Trew (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- It does actually exist but I was just picking a title at random and I think that proves my point. Considering I went through all the titles on
{{London bus route}}
and none of the targets use this pic that is how it is misleading. I imagine most readers would expect to get a pic of a Routemaster. Si Trew (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)- WP:REDLINK presents advantages and disadvantages of red links which you are supposed to click on. Red links which are meant to be transcluded only seem to be mentioned in two sentences: Do not create red links to files. Such red links are categorized for cleanup at Category:Articles with missing files. So according to that page, we should not create red links to files, but that is exactly what you are trying to do. The reasons for keeping or deleting redirects which are meant to be clicked on are largely different to the reasons for keeping or deleting redirects which are meant to be transcluded.
- If you delete the redirect, then you surprise people who read historical versions of the article since they see a red link where they expect to see an image. On the other hand, keeping the redirect doesn't surprise anyone. You are confusing reasons for keeping or deleting file redirects with reasons for keeping or deleting article redirects. For example, people often search for articles by searching for article titles, but you rarely search for files that way. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- It does actually exist but I was just picking a title at random and I think that proves my point. Considering I went through all the titles on
-
Manhunt International 2009
- Manhunt International 2009 → Manhunt International 2010 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
confusing redirect. How can 2009 be 2010? Legacypac (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as Wp:R#D2 confusing. In theory 2010 could have originally been 2009 with an extreme delay (and IIRC we've kept some election redirects where that was actually true & sourced at the target), but in this case it seems like 2009 was simply cancelled [21]. In any case it's a bit of a moot point since all the articles about individual years (even the ones which actually occurred) will probably get deleted or redirected back to the parent article anyway. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Bbauer25/Bull Run Regional Park
- User:Bbauer25/Bull Run Regional Park → Bull Run Regional Park (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
User page under a long gone user created by User:Godsy while moving a good article back out of mainspace. Serves no purpose and is just clutter. Legacypac (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 2#User:Trekie9001/Duplekita. We've been down this path before. To quote a participant in that discussion, "It's a bookmark to let the draft's creator know where their draft went." —Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- The user left it at User:Bbauer25/Enter your new article name here (now a REDIRECT) not the extra brand new page nominated here. The draft went to mainspace again - and I suggest Godsy stop taking pages I move into mainspace and stealth deleting them by sending them back to stale draft status without discussion. A lack of listed sources for non-controversial info on a park is not fatal to the existence of a page. Legacypac (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Strong keep. I am very much against deleting user drafts or (as has been the case for me) moving them without my asking then to Draft space and then deleting wih no editor scrutiny and without any ask on my part as a stale draft. For if not, delete any content in user space. I know WP:OWN but there is a reason they are in user draft space because they don't meet the WP:Five pillars. Don't matter if it is two years they are not ready. WP:NOTFINISHED. Draft: namespace is a good idea but this is just WP:HOUNDING, the whole idea of Draft namespace or before we had that to put drafts in User namespavce was to keep them out of sight of readers. It's absolutely ridiculous to think this would be deleted, under the policies I said above. Si Trew (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. The content of this particular one seems to be empty, so not a particularly good start on a draft. But I have to say, you can't go deleting stuff out of user space. What the fuck did anyone even think of bringing it here for, it was perfectly idle as a no-bit idle remnant. If as the nominator said it was moved to namespace as an article, tag it as
{{R from page move}}
, done. I tend to clean up my homework when I translate and stuff (less need now) but there are probably loads of remnants in mz user page of little drafts and whatnot. WP:RFD#K5 someone finds it useful, keep to preserve history (and please nominator tag as{{R from page move}}
and tell us which article). Si Trew (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- User:SimonTrew I don't think you are reading the situation correctly. The actual article is perfectly find and found at Bull Run Regional Park after I moved it from User:Bbauer25/Enter your new article name here the space of a departed editor. Godsy moved it to a NEW page User:Bbauer25/Bull Run Regional Park that he created (the redirect up for deletion here).Legacypac (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Then put a
{{R from page move}}
om the redirect, as I suggested. - I need to put me foot down that I don't like things being hoist out of user namespace, put into draft space by some kind of Wikipolice who take stuff out of user draft and put it into Draft:, then deleted, as recently happened to one of mine. That is just out of order whatever WP:OWN says. Before Draft: was a namespace it was common and normal to put drafts in user space tucked under ones own name. The principle of taking them out of a user's draft spave, hoisting them into draft, then deleting them as a stale draft, is completely anathema to WP:NOTFINISHED. And I shall prove it by sticking to my strong keep vote. Legacypac is probably right on this particular one but I am not having it that someone can hoist an article out of user space grabbing another user by their private parts and clutching them by their throat launch them with a trebuchet unto the unknown. I built a nice trebuchet once. Worked reasonably well. It was only about 12 feet (3.7 m) high so not a very big one. Si Trew (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oh I guess Draft:Simon Trew whiuch was at User:SimonTrew/Simon Trew. which was or was not deleted as a stale draft goes the same way. Technically I took it WP:g7 after a lot of bullying by the Wikipolice that it was a stale draft. All that does (and patently I am not that Simon Trew, the military historian) is make Wikipedia worse. I don't think people should come here to make the encylopaedia worse. It was very very hard for me to find any references to him beyond his books as I imagine he is a very private person, even though notable. So it stayed at Draft so maybe someone at WP:MILHIST could fill in some details. To be hoist out and deleted by some idiot who doesn't know what they are talking about as a stale draft is just fucking nonsense. then to suggest we hoist it out of a user's draft space and delete it is still fucking nonsense. I have loads of stale drafts kicking around in my user space and can't even find em myself but WP:NOTFINISHED, I tend to request to delete when I move a draft into mainspace but this is over the line to go deleting stuff out of a user's namespace. For if not, I can delete User:Godsy's page, and that would be OK? I can nominate that for deletion or blank it any time I like. (Not picking on Godsy just as an example.) Si Trew (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Gold-black
- 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 all - early WP:SNOW close. Several of these have already been tagged for speedy, and I don't see a need to keep this discussion of Neelix related made up colours for a whole week. All deleted by admin — Amakuru (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Gold-black → Goldenrod (color) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Goldblack → Goldenrod (color) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Gold black → Goldenrod (color) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Gold blacks → Goldenrod (color) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Gold-blacks → Goldenrod (color) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Goldblacks → Goldenrod (color) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Goldish-black → Goldenrod (color) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Goldishblack → Goldenrod (color) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Goldish blacks → Goldenrod (color) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Goldish-blacks → Goldenrod (color) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Goldishblacks → Goldenrod (color) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Taking them all to CSD some have gone already.
Shakespeare said that all that glisters Is not gold, but now it blisters That black is not gold, here we find A creature of another kind Who mixed some colours Will ain't thought of And Wikipedia still aint taught of
These Neelix redirects doesn't make sense because Goldenrod (color) doesn't have any black in it. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete we went through other color+color redirects by Neelix a few times before - they are nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all as nonsense CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Mr. Gee
- Mr. Gee → Chris Lilley (comedian) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Mr Gee → Chris Lilley (comedian) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Mister Gee → Chris Lilley (comedian) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I think these Neelix redirects needs to be retargeted. Chris Lilley has played a character named Mr G. I'm not sure whether Mr G or the disambiguation page named Mister G is the better option. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Gee (surname). Recent consensus has been fairly strong about sending these type of redirects to the relevant surname page. -- Tavix (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget per T - stupid redirects Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget per Tavix -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
DeleteMr. G. does not necessarilly mean someone whose surname is Gee, but anyone's surname which starts with the letter G. I think that is the wrong target. For if not Mr T or Mr Tee can redirect to Trew a surname DAB, or anything else I made up. WP:NOTDIRECTORY.; WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete no person with such a moniker. Someone searching for Mr. Gee or Mr. Tee would search for the single letter. Mr. G can redirect to Mister G dab page though as there are multiple characters and people who use that as their common nickname. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to DAB Mister G by but not per AngusWOOF. Best suggestion so far. If AngusWoolf doesn't know that G (letter) is often said taught and pronounced "Gee" in English then I give up hope. That is why a Gee gee is a horse but a GG is not. (Both go to the DAB at GG). Si Trew (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Okay, so that there won't be more hopeless cases, I'm adding G to the Gee page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- We don't need to deal with terminal cases in some kind of mathematical recursion. That still don't solve where this one should go. Si Trew (talk)
- Okay, so that there won't be more hopeless cases, I'm adding G to the Gee page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Double marking
- Double marking → Double-marking language (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) Not sure could also mean double counting in Common Engish. Si Trew (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete could refer to road marking, student test marking, or a host of other things. Legacypac (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Far too much vagueness. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
DDW (language)
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- DDW (language) → Dawera-Daweloor language (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect). "DDW" is not at target. This is how we usually disambiguate natural languase, but there is no DDW (computer language) that we have, probably Delete. Si Trew (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep "ddw" is clearly in the target, it's the ISO 639 language code. The target is a natural language, a human language, and not a computer language. -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yep deffo keep. I was listing very quickly lots of Neelix ones and this stuck out like a nail on the thumb, I did check the article for DDW but for some reason my search didn't find it. Definitely keep, I don't know if this is considered Withdrawn by nominator or what. Thanks to 70.51 for double checking. Si Trew (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Da nada -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Etudes philosophiques
- Etudes philosophiques → La Comédie humaine#Philosophical_studies_.28.C3.89tudes_philosophiques.29 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Études philosophiques → La Comédie humaine#Philosophical_studies_.28.C3.89tudes_philosophiques.29 (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(Neelix redirects) More than one French philosopher had an etude or étude, or a philosophical study. In fact almost all of them did Voltaire did and so on, so Delete per WP:RFD#D1 unnecessarily hinder search. What worries me more is that Neelix thinks he can speak French but j'ai aurait bien chercher le wikipédie francais Si Trew (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
The Parker Square
- The Parker Square → Matt Parker (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
The "Achievements" section from the target article containing information about the Parker Square was removed in Special:Diff/718473867. This page was previously listed at AfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- In the achievements section, the statement "Parker's eponymous square is the first known square to satisfy nearly all the conditions:" was inaccurate, since, as shown by a web page referenced in the old parker square article, other people had already done it before Matt Parker, with better results (no duplicate numbers). I believe that for this reason, some editors believe that it is merely a joke.
- Maybe the word "achievements" is too strong, and should be rephrased "known for" or something like that. Dhrm77 (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing not at target. We don't need the ramble of when or where, it would help if a reason were deleted it is stated quite clearly at the top of WP:RFD (admittedly I should like the reasons to be more prominent than the procedure). Wandering in without a suggestion of what we should do with it is not a great help; sentence first, verdict afterwards, as Alice said. Si Trew (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per SimonTrew. A search within Wikipedia shows lots of towns that have a Parker Square. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
May 3
Religiose
- 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. Just Chilling (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Religiose → Religiosity (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
adjective "excessively religious" which is not at all the target. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Neelix redirect Legacypac (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:NOTDIC per Legacypac, and even if it were, it would be WP:RFD#D2 because religiosity is not being excessively religious (whatever that means, is the Pope or the Dalai Lama excessively religious? Is the Moderator of the General Assembly Of the Church of Scotland only moderately religious, or does he ensure that the Assembly's excessive religious views are moderated? Who are these moderate religionists or excessive religionists I have never heard of? Do they differ from religious moderates?) But then I am C of E (but never been christened but married by em) in which you can believe almost anything and still be a member. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I recall from the film that even Alex DeLarge is an adherent. Talk the C of E accepting anyone with a pulse. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Litigators
- Litigators → Lawyer (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) could refer to pretty much anyone in the legal profession or anyone bringing a case before a court of law although that would usually be a litigant. Jurist is probably out. Si Trew (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Barrister at least in Canada and the US this term only refers to a type of lawyer that handles court actions. Synonym for Barrister . The Litigators is a book. Legacypac (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Not in British English, I think. I don't know it would mean anything really in British English except bad English for litigant influenced incorrectly from too many North American legal dramas etc without understanding the difference. But then litigant also goes to Lawsuit but usually in English & Welsh law means the defendant or accused (in a criminal case) or plaintiff (in a civil case) it does not mean just anyone with a bit of legal knowledge who hangs around a court. Si Trew (talk) 23:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Singular "litigator" also redirects to lawyer.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to lawsuit, which explains that The plaintiffs and defendants are called litigants and the attorneys representing them are called litigators. Lawsuit is also currently the target of litigation, so it would seem natural for both of those terms to target the same article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Litigiousness
- Litigiousness → Lawsuit (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Litigiously → Lawsuit (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Litigious → Lawsuit (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(Neelix redirect) Litigious does not mean lawsuit. It tends to mean someone who likes resorting to the law or courts a lot (wikt meanings 2 and 3). WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment misleading redirects. Maybe a better target? Legacypac (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Frivolous litigation as a target? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect all to frivolous litigation as these are all pejorative terms for the same concept, more or less CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Retargetto Frivolous litigation ex parte Albert Haddock and Coffeemarkets. Si Trew (talk) 11:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)- Soft retargert litigious to Wiktionary and delete the others. I am also strongly opposed to regretting this frivolous litigation; a person can have a predisposition to litigating matters (rather than settling or seeking alternative methods of resolving problems), but that does not mean that they are predisposed to bringing frivolous claims. If we retarget this to frivolous litigation, then readers will get the false impression that litigious individuals bring claims for frivolous reasons. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Hahaha that was rather legalistic explanation! I think it does mean someone who unduly resorts to the courts, but I agree that frivolous litigation may not be the best target. Friviolous litiigation, in my mind, is someone who deliberately goes to the court not in the hope of winning or losing the case but to get the costs awarded from the other side. Being litigious is a little bit different. Albert Haddock was quite litigious (and quite frivolous) but went to the courts to prove a point. They are a bit different. I am very averse to take things to Wiktionary WP:NOTDIC if we have nothing we should say so, so Delete all. Si Trew (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Keep litigious. My philosophy on redirects to Wiktionary is that we should only redirect there when we don't have anything on Wikipedia. I don't think that's the case here as the article on lawsuit gives good indication to what litigious means. Delete the other two as that's too far. -- Tavix (talk) 03:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
White-berry
- White-berry → Whiteberry (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- White berry → Whiteberry (links · berry&action=history history · berry stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) I imagine there are lots of white berries other than a Japanese rock group. The mistletoe for example. Calling User:Plantdrew. Si Trew (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete there is no reason to hyphenate the name of the band - he just loves incorrect hyphens (hundreds and hundreds of these redirects). Legacypac (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Can we add white berry to the RfD (it also goes to the rock group)? Ugh. I don't think anybody searching for "white-berry" or "white berry" is trying to get to the band. White-berry/white berry/whiteberry (or white-berried, etc.) show up in common names such as "white-berry dogwood" (Cornus sericea), "white berry nandina", (a cultivar of Nandina domestica) "white-berry yew", "white-berry bush" (Flueggea virosa) and "white-berry snakeroot" (Actaea pachypoda)(except for the yew, these names aren't mentioned in the articles). I'm sure there are some more of these. The dogwood, nandina and yew are probably partial title matches (i.e., those terms are never dropped), and I'd expect the same of the snakeroot, but there are a handful of sources (e.g here) that list "white-berry" by itself as a common name for Actaea pachypoda. But I'd be surprised if people don't drop "bush" sometimes when talking about "white-berry bush" (though I can't find any sources to confirm this).
- Along with the above, per search engines, "white berry" often refer to a cannabis strain (as "White Berry"), or an alchemy ingredient in Runescape (apparently produced by the fictional "whiteberry" plant).
- If we must keep this, Actaea pachypoda is probably the best target (based on the articles we have and sourceability), but it's not currently mentioned there, and I'm not excited about adding it. Another option is making a crappy disambiguation page. Or we could move the rock band back to Whiteberry and delete the Neelix garbage redirects. Plantdrew (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I've added White berry to the nom as requested. I moved the band page because whatever whiteberry is, the band is definitely not the primary topic. Legacypac (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- I meant to add it myself but got lost in the midst of Neelixland. Fortunately it seems there are no plurals White-berrys, White berrys, White berries, White berries, so I think we can stick at those two (but I imagine some malformation of white berryed or something has escaped my notice. Either red or not. @Plantdrew: thanks as always for your expertise. Doing another Neelix shift on Eurpeoan time so expect me to handover to the North Americans with a few listings here for today (tomorrow). Si Trew (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Legacypac: If the band isn't the primary topic for "whiteberry", what would you list on the disambiguation page besides the band? The Runescape plant? A restaurant in Florida? Actaea pachypoda? If one (or more) non-fictional plants belong on a dab page at "whiteberry", I'd go with retargetting "white berry" and "white-berry" to the dab. Plantdrew (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Maybe White is just a descriptor. Let's look at Red berry Green berry Sweet berry sour berry. red car, white car, white leaves, white bark We don't seem to commonly have color-object pages but red berry is a good example of what could be done. Legacypac (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Legacypac: If the band isn't the primary topic for "whiteberry", what would you list on the disambiguation page besides the band? The Runescape plant? A restaurant in Florida? Actaea pachypoda? If one (or more) non-fictional plants belong on a dab page at "whiteberry", I'd go with retargetting "white berry" and "white-berry" to the dab. Plantdrew (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- I meant to add it myself but got lost in the midst of Neelixland. Fortunately it seems there are no plurals White-berrys, White berrys, White berries, White berries, so I think we can stick at those two (but I imagine some malformation of white berryed or something has escaped my notice. Either red or not. @Plantdrew: thanks as always for your expertise. Doing another Neelix shift on Eurpeoan time so expect me to handover to the North Americans with a few listings here for today (tomorrow). Si Trew (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've added White berry to the nom as requested. I moved the band page because whatever whiteberry is, the band is definitely not the primary topic. Legacypac (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Delete the Neelix redirects, move Whiteberry (music group) back to Whiteberry since there's nothing being disambiguated, and hatnote to Actaea pachypoda per Plantdrew. -- Tavix (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
White bands
- White bands → White band disease (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- White band → White band disease (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect). Surely there are plenty of white bands other than these. White armbands to signify surrender or captaincy, for example. As usual, going through the neelix redirects, have not had a chance to check yet. Si Trew (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as confusing. There are not many titles at wikipedia with the phrase "White band" but lots of things. Legacypac (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete there are many things known as white bands -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as above. I listed here because I was not sure to take it straight to CSD. We probably have the White-banded moth or some such so this is just WP:RFD#D1 hinders search. Si Trew (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Looks like an open-and-shut case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Green-Tao
- Green-Tao → Green–Tao theorem (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect). Have only cursorily glanced at the target but I imagine Green and Tao were different people and you can't I think quite combine in this way (do we have Marx-Engels or Newton-Raphson and so on. You probably can but on the Anomie list and not sure, eighty done tonight so please excuse me not thoroughly checking at first glance, rather referring to RfD if I think there is any doubt (and boldly rtagging but never retargetting some myself) Si Trew (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Indeed two different people. Just seemed to me it could be confused with some kind of green tea but haven't checked that line of country yet, does tao have much to do with tea? Don't think so (chi or cha does of course) but after too many Neelix redirects your mind works like that. Si Trew (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment yes two creators - and the names seem to be linked. Seems more like shorthand, maybe ok. Legacypac (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Probably OK. It made me think, in Science (with a capital S) it is always the two hyphenated, in Arts (with a capital A) it is always And. It is Lennon and McCartney in normal speech, not Lennon-McCartney isn't it, except on their track listings for Northern Songs (where sometimes it is McCartney-Lennon). Although the article is at Lennon-McCartney and the other two redirect to it, in normal speech one would say "Lennon and McCartney" or "Morcambe and Wise" or "Laurel and Hardy" well a double-act I guess but then you wouldn't say Crick and Watson were a double act or would you? I dunno. Si Trew (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- My own examples show that what I said is bollox. Quod erat nil demonstrandum. It is probably just in scientific speech or writing that the "and" is elided. Like I always wanted to know who Al was, you know who writes all these scientific papers for which the references finish et al, "and Al", he knows a lot that guy. Si Trew (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Delete The Green-Tao theorem is well-known among mathematicians who study number theory, but I have never heard it called (outside of informal elliptical speech) just Green-Tao. I don't see this as a plausible search term, so deletion would be no loss to Wikipedia. --Mark viking (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Colour key
- Colour key → Chroma key (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Color keyers → Chroma key (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Color keyer → Chroma key (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Chroma keyed → Chroma key (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirects) Will combine there are STACKS at chroma key and color key cos Neelix knew nothing about technology I assume, it is usually in inverse proportion the more Neelix knows the less he creates redirects. Which is essentially masturbation or something Si Trew (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I have not had time to check on Wikipedia or elsewhere yet but often there is a "colorist" or "colourist" listed in the end credits (on BBC you still get full size credits without adverts, usually, except their own adverts for the next programme) so it may be a term for kinda a person who does the colour balance in TV, a lighting technician essentially I don't know why they use that term but colorists I think equally refers on the adverts "On Other Channels" as the BBC used to put it as people who do hair dye. Si Trew (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Burn them all down if any of these are valid some informed editor can recreate them correctly. Neelix's obsession with useless redirects makes them all very suspect. I've combined these into one nom for you. Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. A colorist or colourist (as linked above) are people who fill in the colours in comic books. That is not what they are in TV, they are more some made up word for people who used to be called vision mixers before the days of digital TV. (and you hear it a lot on L'oreal adverts etc.) Since that target suggested by some idiot above, oh, me, is probably out, Add to the carbon footprint per User:Legacypac. Si Trew (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Color key has multiple meanings. It can be a synonym for the chroma key compositing method, but it could also refer to the legend of a choropleth map. I don't see the first three as compelling redirects. Chroma keyed seems OK and the term is out there. --Mark viking (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all of them except for Chroma keyed, which should be kept as a useful search term. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment as nominator I did not say delete or keep to any, but I agree with Coffeewithmarkets, if Chroma keyed is useful then keep it WP:RFD#K5. The rest through normal channels Delete. I think this is a good example of why I bring the Neelix redirects to RfD rather than just mass delete them, when I am not sure. Si Trew (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Disambiguate Color Key Color key has multiple definitions. PC Magazine has two definitions as prepress proofing and Chroma key. Popular Science magazine also supports the proofing, calling the process 3M Color Key [23] Colorist or color key artist is also a valid occupation [24][25], and CMYK is sometimes referred to as a key because K stands for key / black.[26] It can also refer to keys with different colors. [27] I would also Delete -keyer, -keyers, as those aren't they are referred to in the occupation. Keep Colour key. Color Key is also an art term for brightness and saturation. [28] [29] [30] and High key / Low key AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC) updated 18:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- A disambiguation page is a good idea for all the reasons you give and I'd support that option, too. --Mark viking (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Greets
(neelix redirect) WP:NOTDIC we do not have to list every form of a word. Not at target. Si Trew (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep WP:POFR/WP:VERB the verb form should redirect to the noun. The noun article greeting has not been deleted, and the AfD is malformed having no deletion rationale provided, being blank. -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Who said it was a verb? Who said that the word "meet" meaning "meeting" was a verb, or "greet" meaning "greeting" was a verb? No, no, that would be easy to mark as
{{R from verb}}
, I meet, he meets. That would definitely be WP:NOTDIC anyway, but in "meets and greets" the "meets" and the "greets" are not verbs but nouns ("meetings and greetings"). It could still go there but not by being a verb; but is WP:RFD#D2 confusing not at target. We could add a hatnote, but we have nothing encylopaeidic on meets and greets. Si Trew (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)- wikt:greet is a verb, and wikt:greets is a form of that verb. The noun-form for "greet" is greeting, so this redirect is functioning properly. As we have no article covering your alternate topic, there is no confusion engendered with non-existing coverage. Even if it was covered, a hatnote can be emplaced. -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, greets are not verbs. They are nouns. I can perfectly well form the second person of a verb and that is just WP:NOTDIC. Greets are not verbs, they are collective nouns. Si Trew (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Mr. Doe greets Mr. Roe with a handshake -- "greets" is functioning as a verb. The older form of the verb would be "greeteth"; It is the third person singular present form -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, greets are not verbs. They are nouns. I can perfectly well form the second person of a verb and that is just WP:NOTDIC. Greets are not verbs, they are collective nouns. Si Trew (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- wikt:greet is a verb, and wikt:greets is a form of that verb. The noun-form for "greet" is greeting, so this redirect is functioning properly. As we have no article covering your alternate topic, there is no confusion engendered with non-existing coverage. Even if it was covered, a hatnote can be emplaced. -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Who said it was a verb? Who said that the word "meet" meaning "meeting" was a verb, or "greet" meaning "greeting" was a verb? No, no, that would be easy to mark as
- Delete redirects to common word "greet" that would be removed for overlinking. A search for "Greets" brings up places like The Greets inn and other non-notable restaurants. It's different for Cats (disambiguation) because there are actually notable names that use the plural. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
John Faustus
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- John Faustus → Johann Georg Faust (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Because as a neelix list I thought I should give you this for the unspeakable bounty of human knowledge. I also know Fred God, Bert Devil and Harry Odin personally, but don't like to name drop. (Already at WP:CSD. Si Trew (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hang on no it didn't it went to Faust. Double check. Si Trew (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Because in double quick time User:Amakuru changed it into an RfD with the edit comment "Apparently it goes to Johann Georg Furst". Now, Amakuru, why do you think it does, apparently? May be apparent to you but not to me. Now it is at redirects for discussion, you're quick enough to bring it here so I bet quick enough to say why. (That was fifty seconds between listing and turning into an RfD while I was writing the edit comment and I touch type quickly but it was essentially an (edit conflict). A bit slower now, Amakuru is. Not so much fifty seconds now, there are seven days now to explain the sharpshooting.) Si Trew (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hang on no it didn't it went to Faust. Double check. Si Trew (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- OK I will fill in the details. In the lede at the target it says that Dr Johann Georg Faust is also known in English as John Faustus. That is a perfectly sensible and bleeding obvious retarget. The even more sensible thing to do with a redirect I was marking as RfD would be to avoid a mixup and simply take out the RfD and rcat it as
{{R from other name}}
and{{R from other language|en}}
rather than just bung in a retarget rather than get others to have to do your homework. Can you please go and finish the work you started and rcat it please, User:Amakuru? Si Trew (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)- Anyway, I didn't know you'd marked it as an RfD entry, I just saw the CSD and rather than just blindly following it, I did a little research and found that "John Faustus" is an Anglicization of Johann Georg Faust. I'd have thought my edit summary made that plain. CSD should be for things that obviously make no sense and need deleting, not for something that just needs retargeting — Amakuru (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Although having said all that, it's possible the original redirect was actually correct - this book here,[31] appears to be talking about the mythical Faust rather than the real life doctor on whom he was based. This will benefit from a seven day discussion I guess - the best outcome might even be a redirect to Faust (disambiguation. — Amakuru (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Anyway, I didn't know you'd marked it as an RfD entry, I just saw the CSD and rather than just blindly following it, I did a little research and found that "John Faustus" is an Anglicization of Johann Georg Faust. I'd have thought my edit summary made that plain. CSD should be for things that obviously make no sense and need deleting, not for something that just needs retargeting — Amakuru (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I can't believe you didn't know it was an RfD entry. It is not some little mark it is a "BLOODY GREAT BIG RED BOX ON THE TOP OF THE PAGE YOU WERE EDITING". I or you would have got an edit conflict. It had a BLOODY GREAT BIG RED BOX SAXING IT WAS LISTED AT RFD before you changed the redirect. IF NOT YOU SHOULD HAVE LISTED IT AT RFD. YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS OLD BEAN. You cannot take it OUT of CSD and then not procedurally inform the raiser that you have done so, so either YOU DID NOT SEE THE BIG RED RFD BOX, OR YOU DID, but you are not a WP:NEWBIE and I am not wet behind the ears. Now you are arguing against your own WP:BOLD change that has ended up with your retarget at this RfD being listed by me. What am I to do about it? You didn't list it. I listed something else. I am not to blame for that, probably neither are you except for not following CSD process by informing me on my talk page that the CSD was declined, by first removing the CSD notice and informing the editor, in one edit, then raising an RfD in a second edit but I am not that fussed.
Now, as it stands at an RfD that I have not even suggested should go to the current target another user who says he did or did not change the RfD is now saying put it somewhere else. procedural close as withdrawn by nominator, this is just a timing mess because Amakuru did not follow the CSD or RfD instructions, but I am not going to make a big deal of it. I realise now why it was not an EC, because the removal of the CSD and the retargeting of the RfD were combined in one edit. (At least I think so.) I had already added the RfD notice while it was at CSD, I do that sometimes when there is an existing RfD to inform the CSD admins (specifically for Neelix redirects like this one). Si Trew (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Congeals
- Congeals → Congelation (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) This is just my crossword head on, but any chance it could go to Conger eels? Probably not thence {{R from verb}}
, asking for well just in case it could as {{R from typo}}
. To list the Conger as a hatnote at Congelation would be absurd (wouldn't it?). The Conger and the Conga both cross-ref via disambiguations. (I have already done other more obvious ones such as congealed). Si Trew (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep WP:POFRED/WP:VERB, this is the verb form of congelation; wikt:congeal/wikt:congeals/wikt:congelation -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Labille
- Labille → Adélaïde Labille-Guiard (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Suggestions please. At User:Anomie/Neelix_list/1#Adelaide_Labille_Guiard on 27 April 2016 I put a stop message separating those above (some of which I have CSDd and gone red) and those below (with this diff) because the six below my STOP message there go to different targets from those above. This and another seem unecessarily general but I don't think there is any more likely topic (or rather there are probably many) therefore to RfD. All those above go to the same topic, all those below to another. I did suggest in the early days that it would be helpful to list the topic at the the list, and this was indeed taken up and done as a one-off on another of the early Neelix lists, but has never been incorporated into AnomieBot, thus making manual checking unnecessarily difficult user:anomie may wish to review the early Neelix discussions because they happened before this bot started this work and is, to be absolutely technically correct, not running with the bot right consensus it was given (I think).
- Before the bot runs again, preferably listing the redirects without them directing to the targets, and then the targets themselves, with perhaps easy links to their WhatLinksHere, stats and histories (if that sounds at all familiar), you can all check manually what I say is true cos I made the cut and I made it in the right place. Not all of us buy the quickest Internet ever (TM). I can get through these pretty quickly because I am a seven year old quad core beast I bought for about a thousand quid spec'd up by me to run no games or whatever but as a basic fast processor to go like shit off a shovel and to last for about seven years (the average time it takes me to buy a new box), but on laptops and other things I edit this is painful to go through the neelix list, even though they are newer than my box here. Which is fine but needlessly painful when retarget -> target is a fairly simple way to make it easier for those going through it. Anomiebot's six months WP:G6 concession is nearly up and I think we ought to review this before giving it another six months. Si Trew (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- AnomieBOT has no G6 concession. Are you referring to the temporary addition to WP:G6 for any admin (which does not include User:AnomieBOT) to speedy-delete Neelix redirects? Anomie⚔ 12:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- The bot was a one-time task (so it won't run again) and created the list in essentially random order, so which pages are listed together really has no significance. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Then presumably there is no point adding or removing from its list because it won't affect the percentages at the top. Which makes the discussion for the Neelix renewal of the WP:G6 concession moot because if it has only run once we have no idea how many we have done. What it amounts to is that we are actually squatting in User:Anomie's space and need to move this list elswhere outside of users space, since Anomie doesn't seem to wish to comment on it (understandably, probably fed up with it) so we should move it under WP:RFD/Anomie List or something out of that user's space. Si Trew (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- I would call it something other than "Anomie list" but since all the regs know it as "Anomie list" it would be confusing to do otherwise, unfortunately User:Anomie is going to have that on the search engine for years. Si Trew (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- It wasn't even a bot, I just executed a manual database query on Tool Labs and formatted and copied the output into a wikipage. Feel free to move the pages elsewhere if you'd like. Anomie⚔ 12:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Then presumably there is no point adding or removing from its list because it won't affect the percentages at the top. Which makes the discussion for the Neelix renewal of the WP:G6 concession moot because if it has only run once we have no idea how many we have done. What it amounts to is that we are actually squatting in User:Anomie's space and need to move this list elswhere outside of users space, since Anomie doesn't seem to wish to comment on it (understandably, probably fed up with it) so we should move it under WP:RFD/Anomie List or something out of that user's space. Si Trew (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment the redirects appear to always be clustered by target. The linked list is another example of a block that should be speedy deleted Legacypac (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as this is not how compound surnames work. The surname is "Labille-Guiard," Labille would be incorrect. -- Tavix (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Fruity noob
- Fruity noob → Newbie (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Newbie tests → Newbie (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Nub flakes → Newbie (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Lube noob → Newbie (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
None of these phrases are discussed at the target article. If they're simple synonyms for "newbie", they aren't adding much and are unlikely to make it materially more difficult to find the target article. If they mean something more specific, they're misleading readers. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all but nub flakes. That is probably also Delete, but it would not surprise me if either William Keith Kellogg or C. W. Post managed to name it for a cereal concoction. They were puritans in everything but neologisms, I think. Si Trew (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
[32] Legacypac (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- We should probably trademark it and try to sell the name to Kellogg's. In any case first use for a breakfast cereal is here at Wikipedia, and nothing we say here is copyright of Wikipedia, so I have first use as the name for a breakfast cereal. I imagine it would have raisins, cranberries, the stuff they sweep off the factory floor, and all the other chaff they put in their products but perhaps that is not a great advertising slogan.
-
(In an D major 4/4 please, with back singing by the Andrews Sisters)
- Frooty noobs
- They're the doobs
- they'll noob everything you wanna doo (b)
- Frooty noobs, they are the best for you
- Delete all as guff CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:IMPORTANCE
- Wikipedia:IMPORTANCE → Wikipedia:Notability (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Misleading redirect. It's stated clearly at WP:A7 that importance (also called significance) is a lower standard than notability. I suggest this gets retargeted there (or maybe WP:Credible claim of significance as Wikipedia:SIGNIFICANCE redirects there.) This could well be a major contributor to the common confusion between significance/importance and notability. Adam9007 (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget per nom. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Although
- Although → Contradiction (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 30#Though. Delete as WP:NOTDIC. Though I believe both to be NOTDIC, this is less likely to be a typo for through or thought so is a weaker case. Si Trew (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per the discussion for though. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
The GM
- 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 GM. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- The GM → The Greater Manchester University Technical College (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Some of the entries at GM may conflict with this. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. As a student and alumnus of UMIST (now part of the University of Manchester, which before that in its long history was the Manchester Technical College, I think this is implausible, especially considering that it is nowhere near the main universities in Manchester (or the University of Salford).
- According to the unreferenced article, it is sponsored by the University of Bolton, which means nothing, it just means someone from the University of Bolton gave them some money once. The article says it is an English Secondary School, and that is all it is. It has nothing to do with the former or present Universities of Manchester (none of which has ever been a Collegiate University).
- The target is an unreferenced stub article, and if someone wrote this from the College they should learn (WP:FIRSTSENTENCE) the difference between "formally" and "formerly" or the article should be called The Greater Manchester Sustainable Engineering University Technical College if that is what it formally is. The target really needs deleting per WP:SCHOOL, but that doesn't help us decide what to do with the redirect except don't keep it going where it currently goes. The catch-all implausible title sounds like it could be a diploma mill for foreigners, unfortunately, but I haven't checked that yet.
- Although proud to be an alumnus of UMIST (a long time ago), I add this personal knowledge of the higher educational establishments in Manchester, England in case it helps others to decide.
- The creator User:Crookesmoor could perhaps shed more light on why it was created. I couldn't help thinking in a Dickensian, which is my fault not the users, that it was "one more crook" but this editor has recently been thanked for adding content to UTC Oxfordshire and Global Academy. Si Trew (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. thegm
.co .uk /about /welcome / has no information about it (this is what Google brings me up when searching for The Greater Manchester Sustainable Engineering University Technical College, and it is on the page there), and usually in the UK bona fide educational establishments are in the top-level (administered by UK government) domain ac.uk (or if the site is run by the school often org.uk), not co.uk. Of course individual spin-off companies of universities or colleges that like to do such things, such as the Engineering Department of the University of Cambridge, often have co.uk, but that is the domain of the for-profit company not of the educational establishment, and they maintain and pay for it. Si Trew (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC) - Comment PRODded target, referring back to here. Si Trew (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy retarget to GM as obvious. The current target article should be added there if it isn't deleted. Just at a glance, there are multiple entries there that could be referred to with the definite article. --BDD (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to GM per BDD. In business it refers to General manager, in RPGs it's Game master, so disambiguation is most appropriate. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to GM -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to GM -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
17/2
- 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.
Delete. Article 8½ is about Fellini's film called 8½. It can be tricky to navigate to because most keyboards don't have a "½" button, so there are are a number of sensible redirects like "8 1/2". However 17/2 isn't sensible. No user wanting the page about the film is going to type "17/2". If a user mistook Wikipedia for a calculator, taking the reader to a page about a film doesn't help! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I went through and listed at RfD all the day/month combinations in both British and American date order with various punctuation from 1 Jan to 30 April a few years ago, deleting nonsense like this. (I can't find those listings now.) I stopped at the end of April and don't intend to start again because I got no help and some complaints for doing so. Therefore it does not surprise me that many still exist. I didn't list them individually – we were more lax back then – so there's no record of my doing so on an RfD page, but I bloody well know I did. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete nothing on that film article mentions 17/2 as an alternate name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- It's also nonsense in traditional Oddsmaking by the way (ie. divided a pound sterling by eight to give you half a crown). Theoretically (mathematically) it would be halfway between 8/1 and 9/1, but it you will never be offered those odds as you would and can be at a British bookmaker 5/2, 7/2, 9/2 11/2, 13/2 (it stops there because the fracs aren't worth it. You also don't get 3/2 because it is 6/4 for the same reason, roughly, the fracs get too "large" i.e. the denominator does not have enough resolution, so you make an improper fraction, then 5/4 and so on. Please don't ask me how I know this when I was just about born after decimal, but gambling isn't the cause -- a family friend who was a bookie's runner taught me when I was learning basic arithmetic age 6 or 7, I just about was born when Britain went decimal but all bookie's odds in Britain are still done in those fractions. I have tried repeatedly to improve our articles on bookmaker's odds and so on because they are a mess, but have trouble knowing where to start, mathematics of bookmaking is not the place to start.) Si Trew (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
6 (UTC)
- 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.
May 2
Pink people
- Pink people → Chickenhawk (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
No evidence that the term is used for any of the target's subjects; the most common use of the term seems to be the derogatory term for white people. Was this target chosen for political correctness? ANDROS1337TALK 21:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Interesting. My first impression was that this appeared to be overlooked vandalism from 2009. On a deeper review of the pagehistories, it may have been a poorly-structured attempt to redirect to what is now Chickenhawk (gay slang) based on some association between gays and the color pink. Even if plausible, that connection seems too tenuous so revert to the version that redirected to white people since there is some (though very thin) controversy over whether "pink people" really would be a better description of that skin tone. Rossami (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Revert to the 2007 target per Rossami -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as there is currently no reference to this term in any of proposed targets. older ≠ wiser 12:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as the term can apply equally to white people, LGBT people, a specific group of LGBT people, and fictional races of strongly pink color (see Guardians of the Galaxy). Even a disambiguation page could be problematic as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per both older ≠ wiser and CWM, who make excellent points. -- Tavix (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
AGBL
- AGBL → Agrostis blasdalei (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete. AGBL was created as a two link dab page for Agrostis blasdalei and Alliance Global Group. Alliance Global Group was apparently deleted at one point (and then recreated), and the dab was turned into a redirect. AGBL is not mentioned as an abbreviation in the article about the company. As for the plant, AGBL is the unique ID for the record in the USDA PLANTS database ([33]), but it is not a likely search term. Plantdrew (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- AcronymFinder returns three definitions for AGBL - American Girls Baseball League, Albert George Branch Library (in Needville, TX) and Au Gres Branch Library (in Au Gres, MI). All three are redlinked and in my opinion likely to stay that way. Interestingly, the PLANTS database symbol doesn't come up in that source. Despite that, the USDA reference is a strong enough source for me to keep the redirect, especially since it is apparent that nothing else is competing for that acronym. Rossami (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, not mentioned in the article, which is confusing for someone searching for uses of the acronym. There are a couple super minor uses of "AGBL" on Wikipedia, so it would be better for our readers to encounter search results instead of a plant article. -- Tavix (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Rossami, and add redirect documentation {{R from alternate name}} [34] to the redirect to indicate why it exists -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Interesting case. There appear to be at least three separate companies that use the name "Alliance Global", only one of which has an article: the Philippine conglomerate which has the current article at Alliance Global Group and which does not appear to use the initials, an American manufacturing and technology company without an existing article and which does not appear to use the initials, and the Middle Eastern life sciences company which had the previously deleted article at Alliance Global Group which does use the initials. There was also a software company called Alliance Global Services which in now part of EPAM Systems which does not have separate article and does not appear to use the initials. It seems there should be (or at least could be) a disambiguation page at Alliance Global. But for this specific initialism, at the moment there is no mention in any existing article. So unless someone wants to add the USDA reference to the Agrostis blasdalei article (and I'm a little surprised there isn't a parameter in the taxonomy infobox to allow addition of standard identification codes), I'm inclined to delete this redirect. older ≠ wiser 15:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, pointless and/or potentially confusing. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Call of Duty (working title)
- 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.
- Call of Duty (working title) → Call of Duty (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete, old outdated redirect. "Call of Duty" isn't a working title for anything, but the actual title of several games. -- Tavix (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep because it helps trace the history of a disputed pagemove early in the life of the article. Tag it with {{unprintworthy}} if you like but it is not in the way of anything and does no harm. Rossami (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep. It vaguely suggests it would be the working title of something other than the target, but it isn't, and it preserves history and gets readers to where the information is, if slightly WP:SURPRISEd thinking there may be a difference. It would be correct but redundant to say at the target, "The working title of Call of duty was Call of duty", and I imagine the content would be swiftly removed, so there is little better we can do. @Rossami: It has on the other hand redirected to various sections of the target during its long life, I presume as new titles came out or were announced, so in that sense it has been a bit kinda WP:CRYSTAL in the past (in the way British weatherforecasters tell you what the weather was like yesterday), and has been retargeted to several sections presumably to whatever was the Next release of Call of Duty (red, I know). Si Trew (talk) 14:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Not a term used by reliable sources, not a likely search term, one of many redirects that get created every year as speculation of the next CoD game begins in Feb-Apr time frame. (Another is below this request) I don't see anything of real importance in the history. There was two double redirect fixes, then after the game in question had a main article, it was redirected to a Future section of the main series, which no longer exists. Based on the first edit summary, important history has already been merged long ago into the main article for MW2. -- ferret (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The page history is easy enough to trace from existing titles. Deleting this will have a link to this discussion, so it should still be pretty straightforward. --BDD (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Call of Duty: Blood Lines
- 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.
- Call of Duty: Blood Lines → Call of Duty (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Hoax reported by an unreliable source. The1337gamer (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's too speculative to be sure it's a hoax but it definitely is a WP:CRYSTAL violation. Delete. Rossami (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete This year's title is clearly known to be Infinite Warfare now. Blood Lines was one of several hoax/rumor/speculation titles. No official announcement of any game by this name. -- ferret (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Fig jam
Also refers to the food product 'fig jam'. Dschslava (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- We have no article for the fruit preserve specifically made of common figs and from what I can tell, we are unlikely to get one that will ever become more than a permastub so redlinking is not a viable option. In the meantime, this redirect is a plausible capitalization/grammatical variant for the disambiguation page. Keep. Rossami (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget
both Fig jam andFIGJAM to Butterfingers (Australian band)and hatnote to Fruit preserves#Jam.The acronym derives its notability from the song, so there's no reason to have the other entry. -- Tavix (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Observation: Figs are not mentioned anywhere at Fruit preserves. Query: How likely is the song "Figjam" to be rendered as two words? --BDD (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I doubt the song would be rendered as two words. Fig jam is very briefly mentioned at Common fig#Culinary use, so this could be retargeted there. OTOH maybe delete per Wp:REDLINK, since it seems like reasonable articles can be written about various flavours of jam (c.f. tomato jam, coconut jam). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 16:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Many food items without a current article often deserve one, and I think this is such a case. I don't have any of it, personally, but now I want some. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Weak retarget to Common fig#Culinary use. Seems like the best option right now. --BDD (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
File:Andorra la Vella police station building.jpg
- File:Andorra la Vella police station building.jpg → File:Les Escaldes police station building.jpg (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Unused redirect created after move from incorrect name. LukeSurl t c 15:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Used in historical revisions of Police Corps of Andorra. There is no reason to create red links in the article history. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
File:TheWedge.jpg
- File:TheWedge.jpg → File:The Wedge (poetry anthology).jpg (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Unused redirect. Potential for confusion with media relating to other "The Wedge" works LukeSurl t c 12:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- This redirect is used in Special:PermanentLink/702275325. There is usually no good reason to create dead links in the history of an article. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
File:TheBigFellow.png
- File:TheBigFellow.png → File:The Big Fellow (Vance Plamer novel).png (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Unused redirect. Potential for confusion with File:Thebigfellow.png LukeSurl t c 12:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Used in two historical revisions of The Big Fellow (novel), Special:PermanentLink/711124721 and Special:PermanentLink/694165191. It seems unnecessary to introduce red links in the article history. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Jamie Curry
- 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.
- Jamie Curry → List of YouTubers (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Jamie curry → List of YouTubers (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Jamie's World → List of YouTubers (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Jamie's world → List of YouTubers (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Jamies World → List of YouTubers (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Jamies world → List of YouTubers (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- TheJamiesWorld → List of YouTubers (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Thejamiesworld → List of YouTubers (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
List of YouTubers has a notability criteria to it. Logically, that means there shouldn't be redirects of this nature to the list: either Jamie Curry and/or the channel is notable, and there should be an article written about it, or it's not notable, and there shouldn't be an entry on the subject at the list. Either way, the redirects should be deleted: if the subject is notable, this makes a perfect WP:REDLINK case to encourage creation of a proper article. If not, there shouldn't be an entry on this list, making the redirects misleading. There is not currently an entry at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete for WP:REDLINK Ollieinc (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete also for WP:TOOSOON. Article that demonstrates notability should be developed first. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Jamie Curry and Jamie's World until and unless notability is demonstrated. This old AfD decision suggests that he is not notable and that WP:REDLINK would be inappropriate. As the evidence behind some of these very pages show, making a title into a redirect can serve to discourage users from re-creating articles that we've already decided we don't want. Yes, we could protect the title instead but SALTing a title is an extreme step that should not be taken when a redirect is sufficient. The fact that the subject is not currently on the "List of..." page is not a problem.
The capitalization and spacing variants have no such history of deterrent effect - but they're also harmless. Rossami (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)- I think you have it backwards. When something gets deleted over and over again, salting is the appropriate action to prevent something from being recreated. A redirect would work when there's content to redirect to, but in this case there is none. -- Tavix (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, actually the standard is in favor of redirects. The logic behind that rule is that notability can change with time. Someone who didn't qualify for an article last year might easily qualify today. If the title has been turned into a redirect, any ordinary editor can boldly overwrite the redirect with content. Other editors who watchlisted the title will evaluate the new content and either confirm that notability has changed (by not reverting) or simply turn back the clock. No special admin powers are required. On the other hand, if we SALT a page, the only way to create the content is to first find an admin, then petition to have the page unprotected, prove your point in one or more different forums and finally actually get to start writing. This adds bureaucracy and delay - features contrary to the very nature and aspirations of a wiki. SALTing a title is sometimes necessary but should never be the first choice. Rossami (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think you have it backwards. When something gets deleted over and over again, salting is the appropriate action to prevent something from being recreated. A redirect would work when there's content to redirect to, but in this case there is none. -- Tavix (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- So the proper solution is to redirect this to a random list that makes no reference to Jamie Curry or Jamie's World? Tell me how that makes any sense at all... If the notability for Jamie Curry were to substantially change, all someone would need to do is make a post to WP:DRV and explain why recreation should be allowed. It's not pointless bureaucracy but an important process that keeps non-notable stuff from being reverted by fanboys. That's one of the purposes of Deletion review: deletion review may be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. -- Tavix (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- At the moment, delete, but I note for posterity that she is very likely to meet GNG at least, so an article will probably be written in the future. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. It makes no sense to redirect to an article that makes no mention of the name. older ≠ wiser 15:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Andrés önd
- 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.
- Andrés önd → Donald Duck (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I might be gone from this site for the most part. But I am making an exception since this is a redirect that needs to go. The only times redirects from other languages are acceptable is if it's the original language, that's not the case here, Donald Duck is originally from the United States, therefore his name in Icelandic shouldn't redirect on the English Wikipedia. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as unlikely needed as only an Iceland speaker would likely search this. SwisterTwister talk 00:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:RFOREIGN, Donald Duck has no affinity with Icelandic. -- Tavix (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
April 29
Tunbridge grammar school
- Tunbridge grammar school → Tonbridge School (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete to avoid confusion with Tonbridge Grammar School. Certes (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- It's a traditional name and spelling of Tonbridge School.[35] Rather than deleting it, it would be better to create a disambiguation page. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well spotted! There are only two articles to disambiguate, and each has a hatnote to the other. I don't think "Tunbridge grammar school" is a valid search term for the state school except as a misspelling. In the light of that information I think we should leave things as they are, unless we need to consider Tunbridge Wells Grammar School for Boys and Tunbridge Wells Girls' Grammar School. Certes (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete or disambiguate. The small-caps pushed this over the edge from {{R from historical name}} to {{R from incorrect name}}, so weighing it all up I think it's best to delete. Or we can create some sort of Tunbridge Grammar School (disambiguation) with the four schools, but keeping the redirect as is doesn't feel right. COI: Old Tonbridgian Deryck C. 11:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- On the point of nomenclature: List of English and Welsh endowed schools (19th century) in its introduction makes the point that older English grammar schools didn't have standardised names (there was no "grammar school system" as such). Upper case is a relatively recent convention. It might be fair to say "confusion" is inherent in the history. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Disambiguate as per the above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I'm American, but Tunbridge Wells isn't typically just called Tunbridge, is it? So it seems unlikely that its grammar schools would be referred to by this name. If Charles is correct, the target article is the best fit. The second best option, Tonbridge Grammar School, is already hatnoted there. Given its much later founding date, it being referred to as "Tunbridge Grammar School" seems much less likely. --BDD (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Deryck Chan. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The Fakir (2016 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. It is clear from the discussion that the film will almost certainly not be a "2016 film". It is speculated that it will be a "2017 film" so this closure does not apply to the equivalent 2017 redirect, but doesn't preclude a separate RfD on the 2017 redirect. Deryck C. 17:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- The Fakir (2016 film) → Marjane Satrapi (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
There actually is no 2016 film by this title, it having been established that the film, if released at all, won't be released until at least 2017, and a redirect to Marjane Satrapi having been created under The Fakir (2017 film). There's no point in keeping this redirect around. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete both redirects per WP:CRYSTAL. When a release date can be reliably sourced, then the proper redirect can be created. -- Tavix (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- NOTE Reading Tavix's comment about deleting both redirects, I just remembered that the history behind this included an AFD already: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fakir (2016 film). The outcome was to redirect; it seems to me that that conclusion now pertains to the 2017 title, but we can now delete the 2016 title, because this simply isn't a 2016 film, according to the text itself, and the question of whether to keep it no longer has anything to do with it being a future film, but with that title referring to something that will never exist. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Basshunter:Now You're Gone: The Album
- 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.
- Basshunter:Now You're Gone: The Album → Now You're Gone – The Album (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
For me it is sure it is to speedy deletetion but someone blocked it so I went here. This is variation of artist pseudonym and album nowhere linked. Eurohunter (talk) 09:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as appears implausible, especially with the missing space at the start. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 12:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Artist name is not part of the album like this. Other albums and singles are not titled Basshunter:(album name). A redirect of Now You're Gone (album) would be acceptable though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete due to spelling and naming errors --Lenticel (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Afon Twrch, Clwyd
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 9#Afon Twrch, Clwyd
April 27
Hutterites in Australia
- 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.
- Hutterites in Australia → Rocky Cape Christian Community (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete. Implies that the Rocky Cape Christian Community is the only place in Australia where there are Hutterites at all. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, and also WP:REDLINK if this is potentially notable. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as this is likely a valid topic for its own page CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Poop toilet
- 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.
- Poop toilet → Toilet (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Again, like with the "Pee toilet" redirect, I don't think the toilets are referred to by these names. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete No-one uses these terms. st170etalk 22:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - The use of toilets is not limited to the excretion of feces.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as above. This is just baby slang, and we are not the Children's Encyclopaedia. The distinction between a urinal and a sit-down toilet is maybe helpful to a gentleman (or even me) in need of one or the other, but this is just baby slang. Si Trew (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy-delete as obvious vandalism. Rossami (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - Nonsense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Pee toilet
- 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.
- Pee toilet → Urinal (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I don't think urinals are ever referred to by this name. . . Mr. Guye (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete This is just a made up phrase obviously. st170etalk 22:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - One can also urinate in a "poop toilet". Sort of misogynistic as well.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete this is just baby slang. It's not misogynistic, the fact that blokes have a penis to both piss out of and do other things out of, and women have separate tubing that ends up with them needing to sit, is just a biological fact that comes with its own consequences both to women and men, but nobody is claiming it this is somehow against men or little boys, that is a stupid thing to even suggest that it is mysogyny. The gyns may miss sometimes but the blokes do too, and we use less toilet paper. Si Trew (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy-delete per above - vandalism. Rossami (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Blade Runner 2 (film project)
- 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.
- Blade Runner 2 (film project) → Blade Runner (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete. Useless and dormant redirect created 3 years ago during misunderstanding of how to go about creating articles on one editors account. There's no other movie called Blade Runner 2, so it's unnecessary. Rusted AutoParts 20:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Blade Runner 2 (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 speedy delete. Though the IP ultimately has the stronger argument here, the nominator is the creator, so G7 applies. In light of Blade Runner 2 existing, I'm going to go ahead and delete, albeit on a bit of a technicality. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Blade Runner 2 (film) → Blade Runner (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete. Useless and dormant redirect created 3 years ago during misunderstanding of how to go about creating articles on one editors account. There's no other movie called Blade Runner 2, so it's unnecessary. Rusted AutoParts 20:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Blade Runner#Sequels - BD2 is under development and information is present in the target article. Principal photography is set to start in July 2016, just a few months from now. Nominator is wrong in claiming that films are the only use. There is a novel also called "Blade Runner 2" that was released many years ago. Also WP:CHEAP the redirect is correct it points to an article where information about the film exists -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- ....There's a redirect for Blade Runner 2 here. We don't need the Blade Runner 2 (film) redirect as nothing has been added to it since 2013. Rusted AutoParts 05:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- The redirect is functioning correctly, and the novel "Blade Runner 2" is detailed in the Blade Runner article, so the existing of the redirect "Blade Runner 2" is not for the film, rather it can be interpreted as being for the novel. Further wP:CHEAP -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- The edit history is made up entirely on information for the film, as opposed to what you think it is for. And regardless of WP:CHEAP, the redirect that i nominated here is still an unneeded redirect, so it should be deleted, considering no edits has been made to it since 2013 as I said. Rusted AutoParts 16:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Redirects do not obtain edits in the normal course of things, so that does not matter. This is functionally correct, and is WP:CONSISTENT with how real film articles are disambiguated, so serves as a clear marker pointing to where information on the film is located. The novel is unrelated to the new film and has been released many years ago, so people expecting that things that have been released have articles first would expect that a "(film)" redirect would point to the film while the one without may be about the novel. And it is still WP:CHEAP so there's no real good reason to delete it. -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- The edit history is made up entirely on information for the film, as opposed to what you think it is for. And regardless of WP:CHEAP, the redirect that i nominated here is still an unneeded redirect, so it should be deleted, considering no edits has been made to it since 2013 as I said. Rusted AutoParts 16:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- The redirect is functioning correctly, and the novel "Blade Runner 2" is detailed in the Blade Runner article, so the existing of the redirect "Blade Runner 2" is not for the film, rather it can be interpreted as being for the novel. Further wP:CHEAP -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- ....There's a redirect for Blade Runner 2 here. We don't need the Blade Runner 2 (film) redirect as nothing has been added to it since 2013. Rusted AutoParts 05:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Well no offense, but I'm not going to take in the input of an IP who just started editing yesterday. Rusted AutoParts 15:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - If/when there's solid talk of a sequel film that gets consistent reliable source coverage, then this redirect should exist. Not before. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Banana (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.
- Banana (2014 Film) → John Abraham (actor) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete. Useless and misleading redirect. There aren't bananas in the Abraham's article, there is no film called Banana starring John Abraham, and most importantly there isn't any film called "Banana" and produced in 2014 [36]. Cavarrone 19:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Neither of these sources are strong enough to support an article but they do suggest that the movie really existed. [37] [38] Probably, anyway. Both do confirm that John Abraham was (or would be) involved in the film.
Still thinking about what that means for the redirect. No opinion for now... Rossami (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC) - Delete. Rossami's sources don't really help, so here are some better ones: [39], [40]. All sources I've seen refer to "Banana" as an upcoming film, so I'm assuming it never got finished for whatever reason. More to the point of the redirect, I wasn't able to find any sources mentioning that the film was released, especially not in 2014, so the redirect is misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as is not at target. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Even if Rossami's refs proves that this film exists, then at best this is still a WP:REDLINK deletion --Lenticel (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: WP:REDLINK would only apply if we actually wanted an article at that title. I can barely find evidence that the film exists. There is no evidence that it would meet generally accepted inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, no such notable film in 2014, and it's in caps anyway - should be (2014 film) instead of (2014 Film) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - It's not clear if the film even existed. This redirect should just be trashed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Hircine
- Hircine → The Elder Scrolls (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Fictional god not mentioned at the target article. He appears in The Elder Scrolls III: Bloodmoon, and its probably his biggest role in the series, so I'm not opposed to a retarget there, but I'm leaning towards a WP:NOTWIKIA delete. (N.b., this is also an obscure word in English.) BDD (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Retarget to The Elder Scrolls III: Bloodmoon. It's not a bad word in Scrabble, but WP:NOTDIC. (Ovine is usually better if you hold the B.) Si Trew (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ovine goes to Sheep, but Bovine and Porcine go to Bovinae and Suidae, respectively. So Capra (genus) or Goat could also be possibilities, though the word is so obscure that that might WP:ASTONISH. (Side note, related to domestic animals and fantasy fiction: Magic: The Gathering has the delightful Ovinomancer, a wizard who turns enemies into sheep.) --BDD (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to The Elder Scrolls III: Bloodmoon. It's not a bad word in Scrabble, but WP:NOTDIC. (Ovine is usually better if you hold the B.) Si Trew (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Soft retarget over to the Wiktionary page on this exact word CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to goat. This seems to pertain to goats more than TES. Google search got hits from the 1700s and 1800s though which confirms nom's claim that this is indeed an obscure and old term --Lenticel (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to goat. Yes literally it means "of a goat", like ovine means "of a cow", lapine "of a rabbit", feline "of a cat", vulpine "of a fox" and so on. (I haven't checked canine but imagine it goes to teeth and if it does or does not was probably hard fought for.) But with BDD I was thinking that might be WP:ASTONISH too which is why I refrained from saying what BDD said better. However I think it more astonishing, despite WP:NOTDIC, for it to go where it currently goes. Si Trew (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to goat per above. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Capra (genus). I prefer that over goat, since that article covers all goats, not just domesticated goats. -- Tavix (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing great agreement here. I've drafted a dab, since it looks like we might be headed that way. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
LTE (telecommunications)
- LTE (telecommunications) → LTE (telecommunication) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This redirect is not necessary from my point of view as the shorter and almost identical form without any different spelling is the destination of this redirect. It does not aid any accidental misspelling, which could be considered useful. A deletion would also not harm redirection as the name of the link-destination suggests to me that it is found more easily than this redirect. As far as I can see there is also no relevant edit history to preserve. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I hear the plural form more often. As Telecommunication says, "The word is often used in its plural form, telecommunications, because it involves many different technologies." As for the redirect itself, it's unambiguous and not harmful. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, but reverse the redirect. Despite what the article says (that BDD notes), "telecommunications" is not a plural here but an abstract noun. It is, I would suggest, by far the more common term than telecommunication. It would be like saying "she works with computer" rather than "she works with computers". There's no harm in keeping it but it makes sense to move the article over the redirect. Most if not all of our articles use the -s form, such as Telecommunications in Tunisia not Telecommunication in Tunisia (but, nothing is perfect, Telecommunications redirects to Telecommunication). Someone has been overly pedantic with the singulars; what is widely known as BT is not legally known as British Telecommunication plc for example but British Telecommunications plc. Si Trew (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I would prefer to match the main article, though there's never been an RM there. (In its talk page archives, an IP opined in 2006 that the plural form should be used.) --BDD (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's fine for the main article, I think that is rather a coin-toss really, but the prevalent usage I think would be with the -s to describe the state of the art, rather than the concept of talking at a distance. (Nearly ec'd but we missed.) It's not really a plural, despite what the article says, but an abstract uncountable noun depending on when you learned your grammar. (Grammarians make a good living redefining grammar.) Si Trew (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I would prefer to match the main article, though there's never been an RM there. (In its talk page archives, an IP opined in 2006 that the plural form should be used.) --BDD (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Revers the redirect the real article should use "telecommunications" and the redirect from "telecommunication" to the article should exist -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- If the concensus is to follow this proposal of Si Trew, the articles UMTS (telecommunications) and UMTS (telecommunication) should be treated equally, otherwise this does not make any sense. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: While I have voted, I'm also curious about other titles that use these disambiguators. Is there a standard? Should there be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Pluralization and other grammatical variants are not only allowed but encouraged. That said, I have no opinion about which should be primary and which the redirect. That can be left to sort out on the respective Talk pages (hopefully informed by the comments to-date here, of course). Rossami (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Oh, keep (I think I said that) but this is not a plural except in a strict syntactic sense, it is like thinking "the heavens" is a plural whereas "heaven" is singular, doesn't stop them being one and the same thing just because it has an S on the end of it. (I may queer my pitch there because "the Gods" were definitely different, separate entities to the Greeks but "the Gods" as the area at the top of a theatre a long way from the stage, the cheap seats, is singular (we'll get a seat in the gods, not any particular seat, just a single area of the theatre). So these -s's are not kinda concrete plurals like apples or oranges. But that's just my pedantic grammar head on. Si Trew (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- The only thing I suggested was yes we might wish to reverse the redirect (also I would remove the thing at the target saying it is a plural when I don't think it is, but I don't like to do that when something is being discussed.) Certainly UMTS (telecommunication) (s) should go the same way if we decide that telecommunications is the common word and telecommunication the less common, but we haven't made our minds up on that yet.
- To perhaps declare an interest, I worked for a company doing test equipment for wireless communications and are very familiar with both specifications, so perhaps that rules me out, no conflict of interest because I don't work for them now (about five years ago) but just the words we used at that company may not reflect how the whole world uses them. Si Trew (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Right here's the test. Would it make sense to put
{{R from plural}}
on it? What would be the difference between LTE communications and LTE communication (deliberately chose two red ones so as not to obscure the details). Si Trew (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have no idea why this is non my talk page where blatently there is a forum to discuss it and the admin should be well aware of that but I copy paste
"LTE (tele)communications" and "LTE (tele)communication" are wrong because the technology is simply called "LTE" or "long term evolution"... or at least those grammatical constructions aren't used "in the wild". It is right that we don't have articles or redirects at those titles.
- LTE (telecommunications) ↔ LTE (telecommunication) won't be {{R from plural}} or {{R from singular}} because the main noun is "LTE", not "communication". The correct tag for the redirect, whichever one it ends up being, would be {{R from other disambiguation}}. Deryck C. 17:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
If the admin is incapable of finding an open discussion I start to doubt the competence of the admin. I am well aware of what LTE is I fucking worked with it for eighteen months so I don't need to be told. Being a bit modest I didn;t want to have to expalain [[quadratrures] and IQ planes and so forth. Si Trew (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as a plausible misspelling. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Russia (1991-1993)
- Russia (1991-1993) → Russia (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Russia (1990-1993) → Russia (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I don't know what the significance of this is. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment the period between the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the adoption of the constitution in 1993, making this a period that is a different country from 1993 onwards -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep 1991-1993 as it indicates a particular country called Russia. Weak keep the other one as a conceptual misspelling or a political viewpoint on the collapse and reconstruction of Russia. (This would be like indicating the French Third Republic or Fourth Republic or Fifth Republic as years) -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete because date is irrelevant, its just the same article AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- It was created as a redirect to Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic#1990s. It'd be one thing if we had an article on Russia from these years, but it looks like our series of articles of the History of Russia starts at 1991 (History of Russia (1991–present).) For these reasons, I say delete. -- Tavix (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
For the reasons Tavix gives I say weak retarget; to History of Russia (1991–present).Normally I am against directing the specific to the general, but I think this is specific enough. Unlikely search term, though, and stats on both are below noise level. None is used outside discussion pages. It comes up as the first hit when I put "Russia in 1990" into the search engine, but only the third when I put "Russia in 1991" (the first being FC Neftekhimik Nizhnekamsk and the second Moscow Ladies Open); the tags may obscure the result of course, or my linking here change their prominence). Si Trew (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete by Tavix but not per. Since Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic#1990s and History of Russia (1991–present) seem equally likely, WP:XY per WP:RFD#D1 inhibits search. Si Trew (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep the "1990-1993" version because it contains history of content which I believe was later merged into other pages. (A history-merge would be too likely to introduce spurious changes to the content and is not worth the trouble.) It does no harm to keep it as an artifact of the development of other articles. Weak keep the "1991 version because it does no harm. Rossami (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep the 1990 redirect as an {{r from merge}}, delete the 1991 one as unnecessary. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Pueblo of Laguna
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Pueblo of Laguna → Laguna Pueblo (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(Neelix redirect) I must admit I can't hang me hat on this one, it is the "of" that is bugging me. The whole phrase is not at the target, but there is no doubt if it goes anywhere that it should go there. But it seems unlikely to me to put an english "of" between two spanish words. Pueblo de laguna, Pueblo del laguna, and any other nonsense like that (in a sad attempt for Pueblo de la laguna and so on), are red. People of the lagoon and Lagoon people are red. Si Trew (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Their official website uses Pueblo of Laguna, so this one's a real alternate name. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 12:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedily keep as nominator. As I say, if I have any doubts about a Neelix redirect under the WP:G6 concession I bring them here. A lot I just rcat and also keep, steadiy we will get there, but listing about twenty a day I can't (and the CSD admins can't) check everything. Nice call, speedilyy keep. (Procedural close as withdrwan by nominator, me Si Trew (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC))
- 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.
Slipper jack
- 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 "Slipperjack", delete "Slipper jack". JohnCD (talk) 09:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Slipper jack → Ruby Slipperjack (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Slipperjack → Ruby Slipperjack (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(Neelix redirects) These are a bit nonsense, but I was expecting them to go to detective Jack Slipper, the famous Scotland Yard detective.They don't so it is a bit (WP:XY) as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Probably delete per WP:G6 housekeeping but not 100% sure, others may bave better ideas for example shoehorn (being a jack (device) although you really shouldn't need one for your slippers. Si Trew (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well the one without the space is a sensible R from surname or whatever, the one with the space is not her surname so is just absurd. Si Trew (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Slipperjack, it is just a standard redirect from surname, delete the other. --Cavarrone 11:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment' without prejudice I have marked the non-spaced one as
{{R from surname}}
, but I am with Cavaronne, one makes sense the other does not. Keep Slpperjack and perhaps{{R to full name}}
as well; Delete slipper jack as WP:RFD#D1 hinders search, WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. It is not as if it (she) is a trolley jack or something like that. Si Trew (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Oh I am surprised we don't have trolley jack, is that a pecliarly British English thing fot them? Si Trew (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Slipperjack as an {{r from surname}}, delete Slipper jack as implausible. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Slipperjack and delete Slipper jack as per the above reasons CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Taciturnity
- 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.
- Taciturnity → Silence (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(Neelix redirect) Not sure about this one. Taciturn also goes to silence but taciturn does not quite mean silent but reluctant to talk. Si Trew (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as an implausible search term. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Redirect to Abandonment (legal), per Taciturnity (Scots law), as disambiguation of the word is not necessary. The article on silence does not use the word. wbm1058 (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Redirectto Abandonment (legal) (and possibly add a hatnote there) per wbm1058. I'm wondering if Taciturn (which now redirects to Silence) shouldn't be turned into a dab page (given the legal meaning and also this). Uanfala (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Irritant (biology)
- 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.
- Irritant (biology) → Irritation (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(Neelix redirect). At the top of the target it says "an irritant, in biology". I'm just wondering if this blocks search for other irritants such as Wikipedia editors. Irritant (disambiguation) does not have it (I think) Si Trew (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as just about plausible. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep but redo the DAB. Irritant -> Irritation should be the primary topic, and the DAB page for the band and the album should be labelled as such. See Bleach AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Sad Paki Loser
- 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, G6, by RHaworth (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sad Paki Loser → List of ethnic slurs (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This was created as an unsourced article on May 21, 2006, and redirected to the current target on the same day. It doesn't appear that the list has ever contained any discussion of this term, and in any case it doesn't now. Since there's no discussion of this at the target, and since it's unlikely that anyone will type this exact phrase into the search box as a way to find the entire list, preserving this serves no purpose. It should be deleted. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per 64.105. If we had any information on this phrase, it would be a different matter, but as it stands Paki is offensive to some (not to others), Sad Loser is offensive to some (not to others), stick the three together and you can be nothing but deliberately trying to be offensive. That is OK WP:NOTCENSORED but without anything at the target to explain the etymology of this phrase it is just downright offensive. I think it was a line in a British film once, but search engines don't get me very far, it may have been shouted during an international Test Match Cricket game, but not England versus Pakistan, it was in a different game India, I think, so was incorrect and offensive at the same time when shouted (the Englishman was kindly escorted to by the constabulary to help them with their enquiries, but I may be thinkiung of something else); gsearch brings up nothing for me, ; others might search better. It's in a dictionary (I assume) at dict
.youdao .com%20›%20常用查询 (but then, that's in chinese script not even in sanskrit but the results are in English) but I can get no farther than that. Unfortunately I don't think we have any Pakistanis contributing to RfD or any I could point to who could know, perhaps worth pinging [[Wikipedia: Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan.But the phrase is very much British not Pakistani. Si Trew (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC) - Delete though not for any of the reasons given in the nomination. I can find no evidence that this phrase actually exists except within Wikipedia or sources that I could show are derivative of it. This appears to me to be a hoax that should have been sorted out via AfD back in 2006, not punted to a redirect. It's past time to clean it up. Rossami (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- To be clear, I meant offence caused in Britain to British Pakistanis. I am not of that kind, I am just biologically a mix of German, old English, and something my great-grandmother got up to once, a hybrid. THere is no need to cause offence to the British Pakistani population through a stupid redirect. Si Trew (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
DeleteSpeedy delete as completely implausible. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Illuminato
- 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.
- Illuminato → Illuminati (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
(neelix redirect) This is not at the target. I know it is the singular of Illuminati but the target does not say so. I could imagine that it could be a typo for Illumination. I have never heard anyone in English saý "The illuminato" not even as a joke (like I might say, for a single hand clap, an applau. WP:RFOREIGN perhaps, or WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. (The target should really be at its redirect The Illuminati because in English is is always a collective noun) and is as Fowler would say a siamese twins (linguistics), the "The" and the "Illuminati", but that's for another day; nobody in English says just "Illuminati". It's a bit like in English there is "the hoi polloi" even though the first word actually means "the" in Greek, and the "the"is of course elided in Italian but not in English.) Si Trew (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:G-Neelix. Could be a typo for Illuminati, could be a mishearing of Luminato, could be a bunch of other things. Let's not waste time on it, that's what the special G6 criterion is for. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per above. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete typing in Illuminato will pull up options for likely search terms such as Illuminator (several terms under this) and Illuminati anyway. The singular would be Illuminatus as folks would be searching for the singular like alumni / alumnus not alumno. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Myopically
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 9#Myopically
Heighth
- 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Not a Neelix redirect, but refer yáll to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_9#Highth. This just has an added T. Literally no incoming links beyond this discussion (nothing on any other talk pages etc let alone articles) and stats are below noise level at about 2 a week. Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Si Trew (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I added this redirect simply to cover all bases for alternate words spellings (a là heighth and width). FWIW, Dictionary.com lists this as a "nonstandard spelling". — Loadmaster (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- That would not cover all bases, height and width are differnt things. Both are linear measures in different axes (generally orthogonal but in planar geometry) or non-euclidian geometry can sometimes be differet. That does not help anything, that is like saying "Which way is Up", it depends on a point of reference. You didn't cover all bases because otherwise we'd have widthth to worty about. Si Trew (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Also, there are indeed a few WP pages that contain that particular spelling (but not links), mostly from excerpts of old British texts: search. — Loadmaster (talk) 16:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as a plausible typo. The fact that the redirect is currently an orphan is irrelevant. Remember that in an ideal world, all redirects would be orphans. Redirects can have value anyway. Rossami (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - this is a colloquial variant that is not uncommon in speech though it is frowned upon in formal writing. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- @SimonTrew: See http://grammarist.com/spelling/heighth/ and http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/is-heighth-a-word. I think this is more common in American English at least in modern times.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm actually going to recreate Highth per http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/is-heighth-a-word (It was included in the Oxford English Dictionary at a time).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- And what are you going to put there beyond saying it is a variant spelling, WP:NOTDIC. I have in no doubt that it is a variant spelling, but this is not encylopaedic content. If you can put that Shakespeare or Chaucer or Washington used it once, that would still not be encylopadic; the article needs to be about Heighth (a bloke called Heighth or whatever). It is not, so that is just NOTDIC. I have dictionaries too, mainly in woodware. I can look something on reliable sources on my fingers in woodware before coming to Wikipedia and having to look up unreliable sources. The links you gave are not reliable sources. You say "it was included in the Oxfored English Dictionary at a time" which is just your personal opinion, the OED the dictionary based on etymological principles does have a reference to it, but you can't find it and I can because I subscribe to the OED. Put that in your pipe and punch it, it is still not encylopaedic. No idea why this is in small. Si Trew (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Delete. WP:NOTDIC. Wiktionary do have it, (I added the crosslink above right now, so it was not in the discussion before this), but I am very averse to making links to wiktionary because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:NOT. If Godsy adds some encyclopeaic content about the word then great, but what more can one do than say that is ust a word. @Godsy: if it is any help, I and another user created
{{ety}}
to help fill in etymologies. Si Trew (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Because Godsy's sig cocks it up. Get the balance on the sups and subs right old bean. Now it is all in bright cyan. Sheesh. I could be doing somethig else than fixing Godsu's sig with qll the sups and subs and color font and meta. Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Si Trew: You accidently posted your comment in the middle of my signature markup. All is well now, I went ahead and cleaned it up. Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that {{ping:Godsy} and no hard feelings on either side. I edit in plaintext and see all the HTTP markup when I edit, I do everything longhand. Thanks for fixing it, now we can get back to the discussion, which I disagree with you. (edit conflict) Si Trew (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think it is a valid synonym, not a "novel or very obscure" one, which would warrant deletion.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Because Godsy's sig cocks it up. Get the balance on the sups and subs right old bean. Now it is all in bright cyan. Sheesh. I could be doing somethig else than fixing Godsu's sig with qll the sups and subs and color font and meta. Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as valid synonum. Godsy has shown from somewhat dubious sources that this is used in real life. No good comes of deleting it, it is not as if it goes to Carpathian Mountains or whateer. Godsy has provded evidence it is used in real life, and that's good enough for me WP:RFD#K5 someone finds it useful.
- Keep as harmless and a plausible misspelling/variant spelling; it's not getting a lot of hits, but WP:CHEAP applies. Sideways713 (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as a plausible misspelling. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as plausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Wah ah ah ah (Monkey Thing)
- 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.
- Wah ah ah ah (Monkey Thing) → Down with the Sickness (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
I don't think this is something the reader would type into the search box. Wah ah ah ah is a red link. Note: This redirect has history. SSTflyer 05:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - odd but harmless, and refers fairly unambiguously to a sound produced in the song it targets. Is mentioned there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, it isn't referred to as "Monkey Thing" in the article... It's one of the most nonsensical disambiguations I've ever seen. -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. ("Monkey", "wa" aer not even at target. History is in its history log, that is no argument to keep it. Monkey Thing is red. Si Trew (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as implausible. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Tavix. Monkey thing not mentioned as a key lyric or catchphrase. And it would need to start with Ooh, according to the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
I ♥ Mother Teresa
- 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 Speedily deletedby User:Liz as WP:G3 vandalism. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I ♥ Mother Teresa → Mother Teresa (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Delete: joke redirect, unencyclopedic opinion. -- Tavix (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- According to the history, it's not a joke redirect but an artifact of the revert of pagemove vandalism. Still, delete. Rossami (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I put it up for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G3.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as a result of vandalism and isn't a likely search term. Mz7 (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Discussion about the close |
---|
|
List of U.S. Senators called David Stewart
- 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 G7 tagged (non-admin closure) --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- List of U.S. Senators called David Stewart → David Stewart (U.S. Senator) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- List of U.S. Senators named David Stewart → David Stewart (U.S. Senator) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- List of U.S. Senators with the name David Stewart → David Stewart (U.S. Senator) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This just seems silly, and is an implausible search term. ¡Bozzio! 01:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I've added two variants. -- Tavix (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. The target is not a list of US senators called David Stewart. Si Trew (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-
Procedural hang fire. The target now redirects to the DAB at David Stewart, which I doubt it did wen it were listed. Si Trew (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)- Hmmm and it always did. Tavix sectioned the DAB and marked the target R as
{{R from incomplete disambiguation}}
(today 27th) but I don't get how a bot didn't fix the double redirects; there;s nothing on any to say{{nobots}}
or anything like that, but still they are nonsense as they stand, a DAB is not a list article and the best way to let editors find out about this US senator is to take them through the DAB, either to David Stewart (Maryland) or David W. Stewart, both listed there. Neither has hatnotes to the other. I note that David Stewart (Maryland) as at that DAB -> David Stewart (Maryland Senator) which is probably{{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}
and I don't want to muddy the waters further. WP:DABPIPE [sic] suggests we don't put redirects at DABS but to change it now could muddy the waters, but we should probably do that on closing (regardless of the result.) The article for the maryland senator was created at that title, as far as I can see, and none of these are redirects from moves as far as I can see from their histories. Si Trew (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm and it always did. Tavix sectioned the DAB and marked the target R as
- Delete, we do not disambiguate this way. bd2412 T 17:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete at author's request: Oh dear. Sorry about that --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Pigot Diamond
- 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. Converted to article. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Pigot Diamond → George Pigot, 1st Baron Pigot (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This redirects to a section in George Pigot, 1st Baron Pigot that is unreferenced and apparently incomplete. There is a better writeup in Spoonmaker's Diamond that has references and says the info in George Pigot is one of several stories. The better article actually links to the inferior one. I could change the redirect to the better section, move the text to the Pigot article and keep the redirect as it is, or move the text here and make this a short article. I think the latter may be the best approach. Mb66w (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Mb66w: WP:JUSTDOIT, WP:BOLD. Let us poor fellas at RfD know how you want this closed, you're the expert. Si Trew (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I was look for other opinions. Should Pinot Diamond be it's own article so that the discrepancies can be dealt with in one place? I'll do that and turn the redirect into an article if no one else has an opinion. Mb66w (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Making an article (splitting them out) even as a WP:stub article is a great idea. After you do that, or while you do that, I am more than happy to do any WIkipedia tidying as a sub-editor or WP:Wikignome, just ask. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged., right at the top of WP:RFD. (If all else fails, read the instructions, but just do it! Procedurally closing here or elsewhere is no big deal, it's just gnomework) Si Trew (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have written an article at Pigot Diamond; it is no longer a redirect. (I hope it's not a problem that I have done this before this discussion was closed.) Mb66w (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Making an article (splitting them out) even as a WP:stub article is a great idea. After you do that, or while you do that, I am more than happy to do any WIkipedia tidying as a sub-editor or WP:Wikignome, just ask. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged., right at the top of WP:RFD. (If all else fails, read the instructions, but just do it! Procedurally closing here or elsewhere is no big deal, it's just gnomework) Si Trew (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- I was look for other opinions. Should Pinot Diamond be it's own article so that the discrepancies can be dealt with in one place? I'll do that and turn the redirect into an article if no one else has an opinion. Mb66w (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
April 24
Moderate conservatism
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete. This discussion has established that the title may refer to different concepts in different places and we can't agree on an appropriate target. There's a majority favouring deletion so it is appropriate to delete. Deryck C. 13:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Moderate conservatism → Liberal conservatism (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
In American usage only, these terms would be equivalent, but in a global context, it's a very misleading redirect. I don't know if there's any page that really addresses moderate varieties of conservatism in general. This has some of the same problems as Progressive conservatism. BDD (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. The best analogy I have for this would be to compare them as Dungeons & Dragons alignments: The redirect is "Neutral Good" or "Neutral Evil" whereas the target is either "Lawful Evil" or "Chaotic Good", depending on one's opinions regarding political stances. Anyways, the redirect is not the same as its target. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Cast a spell of delete per Steel1943. If it's not the name of a specific political ideology, then "moderate" is just an undefined modifier on conservatism. It could be middling conservatism or mild conservatism or conservative-ish or leaning conservative
or compassionate conservatismbut none of those actually mean anything. There are many possible targets but none that are really matches in an encyclopedic sense, so we should let the reader refine their search before we try to guess at what they're looking for. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Oops, compassionate conservatism is a real thing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. In the European context "liberal conservatism" and "moderate conservatism" are used mostly as synonims. --Checco (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I find this interesting, considering that this term means different things in different places ... which actually creates a WP:XY issue. Steel1943 (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Synonyms? In practical terms, it appears more that 'liberal conservatism' is a general philosophy with a reasonable definition and 'moderate conservatism' is a poorly defined ideological frame that's both a subset of the former concept and also an amalgamation of other influences. It would be somewhat like considering 'silverware' versus 'plastic forks' as synonyms. The latter is a partial subset of the former that also has peculiar elements (happening to be plastic) unlike much of the larger set. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. As above, it works as a redirect for a synonymous term. Also, En.wiki is a 'world' resource, and should not be limited to North American English terminology.--Autospark (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Then, that means this term has initiate ambiguity, depending on where the term is used. That seems more likes grounds to delete or disambiguate this title. Steel1943 (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Let's not disambiguate this. Without a proper definition, listing various ideologies under a heading of moderate conservatism (as we would on a dab page) is entirely POV. We might as well have a crunchy apple dab page where we list all the varieties of apple which are crunchy. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Moderate, like Moderate (politics) does. Si Trew (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as a not at all well-defined adjective-noun combination that you could basically apply in so many different ways similarly: intelligent liberalism, thoughtful progressivism, caring socialism, homespun conservatism, et cetera. I would contrast with labels such as 'progressive conservative' because those are actually used in political party names and direct statements by party leaders elaborate on things. I can maybe support a retarget to center-right politics, which discusses the variance between what is 'moderate, leaning conservative' and 'conservative, leaning moderate' as well as the differences in 'right'-ness depending on the circumstance. That would be less optimal, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I could also support Center-right politics. --BDD (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- I still prefer a redirect to liberal conservatism, but I can live also with Centre-right politics. --Checco (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- I could also support Center-right politics. --BDD (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - It may be worth relisting this to go through the points a bit more, particularly in terms of rearget possibilities. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 20:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I think "moderate conservatism" is a vague term which means different things to different people. "Liberal conservatism" is a somewhat more precisely defined term, and sometimes when people say "moderate conservatism" they indeed mean "liberal conservatism", whereas other times they don't mean anything that specific. SJK (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as appears inaccurate. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Mike Strong
- 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. I have created Michael Strong (disambiguation) and targeted this redirect there. Deryck C. 14:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Mike Strong → Milwaukee Brewers minor league players (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
not listed at target page Spanneraol (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Michael Strong. Mike is a common nickname for people named Michael. -- Tavix (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget per Tavix.--Yankees10 17:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Make a dab page and retarget there. There are a few other Michael Strongs listed on Wikipedia that would make a DAB legitimate (Murder at the ABA, County Court of Victoria). I see no evidence the actor is known as Mike, so pointing it to a theoretical DAB seems like a better choice. Nohomersryan (talk) 14:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Disambiguate [41] per Nohomeraryan -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Crap (rapper)
- 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 WP:G10 by Mojo Hand (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Crap (rapper) → Bizarre (rapper) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
"Crap" has never been the name for this rapper, as stated by Millionsandbillions in the reason for reverting the move by The Bread. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WP:G10: appears to have been a practical joke, looking at edit summary used by The Bread when moving. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
History teacher
- 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.
- History teacher → Teacher (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Many other types of teachers are red links. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
English teacher
- 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.
- English teacher → English as a second or foreign language (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- English teaching → Teaching English as a foreign language (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Teach English → Teaching English as a foreign language (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Teaching English → Teaching English as a foreign language (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Could equally refer to someone who teaches the English language (English studies) to people as a first language. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete There are also English teaching, Teaching English and Teach English, which all redirect to Teaching English as a foreign language; these don't appear to be the names of anything mentioned in the articles. Peter James (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Peter James: I added 3/4 of the redirects you mentioned to the nomination.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete WP:REDLINK -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all, as WP:RFD#D1 hinders search per WP:XY. An English teacher could be someone teaching English language either in England or elsewhere; or any of the English people teaching the language or anything else. I am English and teach something other than the English language in somewhere other than England, for example. Si Trew (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:REDLINK. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. While there's an overwhelming majority here favouring deletion, there is disagreement on why this redirect should be deleted, so this RfD should not set a precedent for similar redirects involving other invisible unicode characters. Deryck C. 14:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- → Zero-width joiner (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This invisible redirect is the string U+200C ZERO WIDTH NON-JOINER, U+200D ZERO WIDTH JOINER. This could equally target Zero-width non-joiner or Zero-width joiner, so delete per WP:XY. Gorobay (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - If it's a clear-cut case of WP:XY, then lets just trash it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Both articles clearly link to each other in their respective "see also" sections. A redirect to one of them puts the reader on a path to finding his/her answer instead of blindly trying to guess what this unicharacter is. WP:XY is a lesser problem than leaving the reader stranded with no way to find either X or Y. Rossami (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. As a matter of principle, I don't think there should be any redirects whose titles consist purely of non-printable or whitespace characters. I can't see how anyone would actually use such a redirect. Even discussing such a redirect is painful, as this very discussion attests (the section heading is blank, you can't click the link) SJK (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per SJK. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete from the edit summary and template used it looks like this was a mistake. The correct title already exists. Peter James (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete and salt all non-printing characters (if not already). There is no reason to have a redirect that you can't see. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Incels
None of the disambiguated subjects at Incel takes an -S to pluralize (all three are proper nouns). This page was deleted at AfD. I thought there was at least one page that mentioned it that could make sense to redirect to, but I couldn't find any. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Harmless. The Wiktionary entry, linked from the disambiguation page, can be plural. SSTflyer 01:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- If that's the only possible plural, it might make more sense to retarget to wikt:incels then. -- Tavix (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Harmless isn't a very good keep rationale. A redirect from asdfafadfasdfadfasdfadf to Cat is also harmless, but isn't the point of a redirect. I would also argue that it's not harmless, as someone searching for "Incels" will almost invariably not be looking for one of the subjects we disambiguate between -- and that one item that takes a -s on Wiktionary is specifically what we've deleted and salted to keep off Wikipedia. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - I believe it's the case that the term "incels" pretty much exclusively refers to "people that claim to have a particular kind of sexual dysfunction", and we don't have an article specifically on that for good reason as per the past AfDs. To be honest, I'm not really comfortable with going to wikt:incels either since even the use of the term there is questionable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep per SSTF, WP:CHEAP the wiktionary pointer would use it correctly for the plural form. Tag as {{R from plural}} -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Breaking down the idea of a [soft] redirect to Wiktionary.
- The only pluralizable "Incel(s)" is the one on Wiktionary.
- That "Incel(s)" definition on Wiktionary is the abbreviation for "Involuntary celibacy" (member of the community of people who identify using that term)
- Wikipedia has had many prolonged deletion discussions and reviews on this subject: Incels AfD, 1st Involuntary celibacy AfD, 2nd nomination (first deletion review, second deletion review, third deletion review), 3rd nomination, and 4th nomination.
- The fourth and final AfD was closed by a panel of three uninvolved admins as "delete and salt" -- no redirect, no merge.
- If Wiktionary wants it, that's not my concern, but taking the unsalted version of the page on Wikipedia and redirecting it to the very subject there was consensus to delete and salt undermines that decision. Wiktionary can have it because their inclusion criteria and processes are different from ours -- and that's also why existing on Wiktionary isn't an automatic soft redirect here. Given this context, arguments based on "redirects are cheap" or "harmless" are insufficient. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't undermine that decision - the question there was whether it's something that an article can be written about and not just a dictionary definition. Peter James (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as is. The controversies over "involuntary celibacy" make that an irrelevant discussion here. The disambiguation page is the least-bad target and while it would be unusual to refer to one of those in plural format, it's plausible - if not deliberately then at least as an error. The redirect to the disambiguation page includes those plus the Wiktionary entry.
And by the way, "harmless" is a very good reason to keep a redirect as long as it does not create confusion for our readers. If someone took the time to create a non-harmful redirect, we should assume good faith that at least they found it helpful. The bar for redirects is intentionally quite low. Rossami (talk) 05:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Even if it doesn't make sense for a person to pluralise any of the current disambig targets, someone might nonetheless do so by accident. Pluralising something which doesn't take a plural (e.g. a proper noun) is the kind of error which a person could conceivably make, so it is harmless in a sense in which redirecting asdfafadfasdfadfasdfadf to Cat is not (totally arbitrary redirects are harmless, but keeping this redirect is not totally arbitrary.) SJK (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as appears unnecessary. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirect to Wiktionary. Peter James (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, WP:NOTDIC, and WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:XY to send it to Incel. Si Trew (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- I would prefer to keep primarily because there are three pluralized links in the former dab page: first the interwiki link already mentioned above, second, under a link in a discussion page on the talk page, and third, in at least one interlingual page. Ninefive6 (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. And I'm calling out this charade. We know damn well someone who searches for "Incels" is looking for the subculture that was deleted at AfD. For better or worse, we don't cover that topic. Let's at least own up to it and be straightforward. Don't tease readers with a runaround to a dictionary entry. --BDD (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- In case there was any doubt that this is an attempt to subvert the delete/salt consensus of the last involuntary celibacy afd, the same user who created this subsequently created redirects for Involuntary celibate and Love-shy (which had not been salted, and which were speedy deleted). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
April 21
Nineth Wonder of the World
- 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 9th Wonder of the World. --BDD (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nineth Wonder of the World → Chyna (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Misspelling of Ninth Wonder of the World, redirects to 9th Wonder of the World. That article has a notice about this redirect's target. Adam9007 (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to 9th Wonder of the World and tag as {{R from misspelling}}. This is a reasonable misspelling as adding -th to nine seems intuitive, especially for our ESL friends. -- Tavix (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - just saying, the state of the articles of the Ninth Wonder of the World album and its singer Witchdoctor (rapper) doesn't seem to fit WP:GNG to me. Perhaps Chyna should be the primary topic... starship.paint ~ KO 11:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to 9th Wonder of the World, per Tavix. Although Starship.paint is absolutely right about that page being a mess, it's not really appropriate to redirect a near-perfect title match for an existing article to some other article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget per Tavix. Plausible typo. Rossami (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget per Tavix, noting that we can change things in the future if the album and rapper are judged as non-notable CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget per Tavix. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Momsanto
"Momsanto" is mentioned at The Series Has Landed, but it's a trivial reference. Would people be more likely be looking for Monsanto itself as a typo? Or perhaps it's better to delete per WP:XY. -- Tavix (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Retarget to The Series Has Landed. It is mentioned there, however briefly. I think this is a typo that ought not to be corrected: if a reader is searching for information on the agricultural conglomerate by typing this, they're making an error that should be corrected, otherwise we might be saying that "Momsanto" is a verifiable alternate name for the company, and it's not. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- It's not a very subtle parody is it, in The Series Has Landed#Cultural references. I don't think that helps many people to target it there; if they thought "I heard this on The Series Has Landed but didn't know what it meant" they would search for The Series Has Landed; if not, they are most likely looking for Monsanto which is after all one of those made-up marketing names like Diageo or Mondeo deliberately intended to be equally incomprehensible worldwide but kinda sounding like it should mean something in a Latinate language; "monsanto" presumably is supposed to echo sounds of "mum's health" or "my health" even though it doesn't mean that, or indeed anything other than the trade name. Si Trew (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Monsanto as
{{R from typo}}
. The letters N and M are next to each other on many keyboard layouts, also in many alphabets. Si Trew (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC) - Retarget to "Leela and the Genestalk", the episode that features this company in the plot. "The Series Has Landed" used the actual company name Monsanto and is therefore not the correct target. Reach Out to the Truth 20:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- That article does not mention the term "Momsanto" at all, which at least The Series has Landed does with a reference saying "Also, The Goophy Gopher Revue is said to have been sponsored by "Momsanto", which is a parody of the agricultural-bioengineering conglomerate Monsanto, from the United States.". That's still pretty WP:WEASEL since Monsanto is not "from" the United States (it is an international conglomerate listed and headquartered in the US; employees <22,000, essentially a holding company (as at Ref. 88 ""Monsanto Forms Holding Company to Invest in International Fruit and Vegetable Seed Companies") and there is no need to apologise and say "it is said" if you provide a reference. Nevertheless, retargeting it to an article which makes no mention of it would be absurd. Si Trew (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- The source says it's Monsanto in the second episode, and I remember it being Monsanto. I'll check the subtitles tonight, but for now I've reverted the Momsanto mention due to verification problems. (Confirmed: "The Series Has Landed" says "Monsanto" and not the later parody name. Reach Out to the Truth 22:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)) I agree the exclusion of Momsanto in the Genestalk episode should be remedied but I've not seen it yet. I'll see what I can do. Reach Out to the Truth 21:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- You are hoist with your own petard. There is no doubt, at least not here, that Monsanto goes to the company (although that article can't seem to make its mind up what it is called in the lede). What remains is two sketches alluding in a not-so-subtle way to the company. It's a fairly standard trick, but even if they did, the intent is to make people think of Monsanto. They are not trying to find information on Momsanto, if they got the joke, they knew that already and where it came from (unless they have very short memories). Si Trew (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- The source says it's Monsanto in the second episode, and I remember it being Monsanto. I'll check the subtitles tonight, but for now I've reverted the Momsanto mention due to verification problems. (Confirmed: "The Series Has Landed" says "Monsanto" and not the later parody name. Reach Out to the Truth 22:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)) I agree the exclusion of Momsanto in the Genestalk episode should be remedied but I've not seen it yet. I'll see what I can do. Reach Out to the Truth 21:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- That article does not mention the term "Momsanto" at all, which at least The Series has Landed does with a reference saying "Also, The Goophy Gopher Revue is said to have been sponsored by "Momsanto", which is a parody of the agricultural-bioengineering conglomerate Monsanto, from the United States.". That's still pretty WP:WEASEL since Monsanto is not "from" the United States (it is an international conglomerate listed and headquartered in the US; employees <22,000, essentially a holding company (as at Ref. 88 ""Monsanto Forms Holding Company to Invest in International Fruit and Vegetable Seed Companies") and there is no need to apologise and say "it is said" if you provide a reference. Nevertheless, retargeting it to an article which makes no mention of it would be absurd. Si Trew (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Momsanto is futurama's play on Monsanto. It subsequently is a company that mom created on the show and was featured in one whole episode. I think this should be kept for that reason. Ilikeguys21 (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Easy. Add content about "Momsanto" at List of recurring Futurama characters#Mom, including an explanation of its name, with a link to Monsanto. --BDD (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Do what BDD says, he's usually right and he's right in this case. This should point readers to where the parody is discussed, with a link to the company. It should not bypass the parody in favour of the company. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I am kinda agreeing with doing what BDD says, but that just shoves the problem somewhere else doesn't it? I set my stall: I have no idea about in-jokes in Futurama but would guess, without even watching it, that Momsanto was a parody of Monsanto. So I am coming as an intelligent but ignorant reader. What would I expect to find? Something about the parody, not something about the company, nor something about Futurama in general. I think we can find a better target, not a perfect one, but a better one, I suggested a few above. It would make no sense, pace BDD, to add content at the list. That is what articles are for', we can't start writing encycloaepidic content at lists. Either the encyclopaeidic content exists in an article, or it does not.I have no trouble to create it as an ignorant but intelligent editor, but the list is not the place to put it. MomCorp already redirects there. Si Trew (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I think this is what we should do----Say something like, Momsanto (with added information regarding Futurama and then state that the name is a parody of Monsanto kinda like what BDD said. Ilikeguys21 (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
List of Deployed HSUPA networks
- 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.
- List of Deployed HSUPA networks → List of HSUPA networks (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This redirect is not necessary (and also unommon WP:UCN) as a list of networks (almost automatically) indicates to a reader that these are deployed, unless the title is clarified with additions like "planned" or "former". This is also the impression I have from a look around similar technology related list-articles. A deletion would also not harm redirection as the name of the link-destination suggests to me that it is found more easily than this redirect. As far as I can see there is also no relevant edit history to preserve. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep. It's redundant but harmless, until the target lists undeployed (withdrawn) networks; as it stands it lists only deployed networks. Si Trew (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Please also keep in mind that List of HSUPA networks exists and will likely soon be a redirect itself. There is an ongoing proposal to concentrate all deployment steps in List of UMTS networks. To many redirects which are almost equal surely do not help at this point. A clear structure is needed. A clear naming structure including redirects makes sense and aids confusion. See also User:Nightwalker/Wireless_Data_Standards. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- So what? When List of HSUPA Networks changes to be a redirect, and so forth, that can then be discussed, but we are not discussing the article but the redirect. I have no (or every) idea what you mean by "A clear structure is needed"; redirects are there to help people to find things in the absence of that structure. We have categories, search tools, WikiProjects, portals, all with the intent of trying to get people to find information. We have people to help us out such as User:Plantdrew to sort the wheat from the chaff with Linnean binomoal names and wonder whether an anterhynum is a red hot poker or not. We have pedants like me who can tell you the difference between being disinterested and being uninterested. (Which quite rightly are red, because that would be WP:DICDEF). Si Trew (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- For "too many redirects does not help at this point", I refer you to the discussion seven years ago for Albert the First (or Third) Furst), at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_23#Alfred Candidus Ferdinand Windischgratz, where I argued the same point. But I brought all the redirects to that discussion, not just mentioned there might be others. Si Trew (talk) 17:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict)
- Thx for the example. I see it's a good point to find all respective redirects and have a discussion including all to decide which of them to keep, instead of single ones. Will do so next time. Will extend User:Nightwalker/Wireless_Data_Standards to create an overview. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Harmless. There is no such thing as "too many" non-harmful redirects. See WP:CHEAP. Rossami (talk) 21:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- wikt:non-harmful Ahem WP:RFD#D1 "hinders search". I refer all to the discussion I mentioned above, which does have some valid logic to it. Nobody but Rossami in this pone has said "non-harmful, and the WP:RFD#KEEP redirects make no mention of "non-harmful redirects". I suppose this is why Wktionary nor Wikipedia know about non-harmful, I suppose I better cut the pedantry and chase my non unblack dog across a non ungreen field with a non unwood stick. Si Trew (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- Variant redirects do not "hinder search" but to the extent that you think they do, that can easily be fixed by applying one of the several templates that tell the search engine to ignore a particular redirect. {{Unprintworthy}} used to be the most common but there are probably others now. Rossami (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- wikt:non-harmful Ahem WP:RFD#D1 "hinders search". I refer all to the discussion I mentioned above, which does have some valid logic to it. Nobody but Rossami in this pone has said "non-harmful, and the WP:RFD#KEEP redirects make no mention of "non-harmful redirects". I suppose this is why Wktionary nor Wikipedia know about non-harmful, I suppose I better cut the pedantry and chase my non unblack dog across a non ungreen field with a non unwood stick. Si Trew (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- They can be applied by deleting them. I probably more than any contributor here to RfD tends to tag redirects as various Category:Redirect templates and say so. A deletion makes it much much easier, a tag does not get seen by the person launching through the redirect and wondering why they got there, it has a tiny thing at the top of the article to say it was redirected. We come from a totally different perspective, Rossami, an WP:INCLUSIONIST versus WP:DELETIONIST perspective, when it comes to redirects. I don't vote to delete them to make the encylopaedia worse but because I think it might make it better. That is a gamble because the stats will not show how much more the articles get hit and the readers pleased if the redirects are deleted, that is why it is such a tricky and intelligent job here. Sorry for the late reply but I was kinda copy editing Climate of Hungary at another user's request. Not far off the first copy edit, not well referenced yet. Si Trew (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- 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.
Iexplorer.exe
- 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) -- Tavix (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Iexplorer.exe → Internet Explorer (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Iexplorer → Internet Explorer (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This is a separate program, this is never used for Internet Explorer. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Keep as
{{R from incorrect name}}
(which it already is). WP:NOTDIRECTORY and there are plenty-o-sites to tell you "what is this file?", but I can't see they do any harm, in the absence of anything else going by that name.iexplore.exe
is mentioned at the target, but notiexplorer.exe
. I think it's just a misnomer. I'd be more worried if it were malware and we had inspired a false sense of security, but I don't think it is. Iexplore and Iexplore.exe already target there. Si Trew (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per SimonTrew.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Before the relisting I said two things already targeted it, which were the exact two we are discussing. Obviously I had searched for viable alternatives, but it is patent nonsense for me to suggest "already redirect there" when those are the redirects we are discussing. My bad; I was probably thinking of Iexplore.exe to same target but not listed at this discussion, too late to add? Si Trew (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as a reasonable mistake made from an incorrect yet plausible name. We can add a hatnote or other change things in the future should the iExplorer product appear to become notable enough for its own page or a full section in some other page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I think this is a plausible misspelling given that the application is known as "Explorer"--Lenticel (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Library of Congress Authorities
- 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 to encourage article creation. This redirect may be re-created when relevant information is written in an article. Deryck C. 09:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Library of Congress Authorities → Library of Congress (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- Prints and Photographs Division → Library of Congress (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
These are important parts of the Library of Congress's work, but they're not discussed at the target article. The Prints and Photographs Division probably warrants a section. Authorities could probably be a standalone article. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment If a standalone article is made, then that's fine, but until that happens, shouldn't both of these direct to the overall organization? SilverserenC 20:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Not if there's no information about them there. That's just going to mislead readers into thinking we have content that we don't. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Seems like the simpler option would just be to add a sentence or two of content into the Library of Congress article about both of them. SilverserenC 21:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not if there's no information about them there. That's just going to mislead readers into thinking we have content that we don't. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- @BDD: can we separate these two into separate discussions because the first and the second I have different bargaining points on? Library of Congres patently is an authority (WP:RS says so, I think) but may not be a likely or useful search term. The second is more dubious; several reference libraries have print and photographs divisions or collections.
-
- I think we can hash it out here. You're misunderstanding the first one, though. It's not about LOC being authoritative. LOC Authorities is its authority control system. It incorporates the Library of Congress Subject Headings as well as names of people, corporate bodies, and places. It's a major VIAF contributor. --BDD (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- @BDD: Not everything is the United States. The Library of Congress, a relatively recent creation of 1800, is hardly newer than some early photographic collections and certainly a lot newer than many British collections of prints, since that chap, er, William Caxton imported it from the Dutch with the banner headline "CAXTON INVENTS PRINTING PRESS". I should prefer if we split the two out. The Times es colletion (excuse grammar because of Wikimarkup) goes back before the Library of Congress existed. I'll argue more fully if we separate them. Si Trew (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Si Trew (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- But the Library of Congress may be the only thing with a "Prints and Photographs Division". I tried searching the phrase on Google with -"library of congress" but couldn't get that operator to work. But browsing through those results, I don't see anything else. cf. WP:NCGAL, "if the agency or office name is unique or is by far the most common meaning". --BDD (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- @BDD: Not everything is the United States. The Library of Congress, a relatively recent creation of 1800, is hardly newer than some early photographic collections and certainly a lot newer than many British collections of prints, since that chap, er, William Caxton imported it from the Dutch with the banner headline "CAXTON INVENTS PRINTING PRESS". I should prefer if we split the two out. The Times es colletion (excuse grammar because of Wikimarkup) goes back before the Library of Congress existed. I'll argue more fully if we separate them. Si Trew (talk) 05:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Si Trew (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think we can hash it out here. You're misunderstanding the first one, though. It's not about LOC being authoritative. LOC Authorities is its authority control system. It incorporates the Library of Congress Subject Headings as well as names of people, corporate bodies, and places. It's a major VIAF contributor. --BDD (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. For some homework, we do not have print and photograph division, prints and photographs division nor prints and photograph division, print, photograph division or anything similar I could find. Kinda listing those to say we haven't. (Deliberatly in lowercase, I tested all variants I could think of in caps through the search engine, and I hope need not multiply examples. Si Trew (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - After looking into things, it seems that the authority control system used by the organization arguably merits either its own page or its own detailed special subsection somewhere. Neither of those exist and red text encourages article creation. As far as the other redirect, it appears that other, similar institutions such as the British Library usually phrase things differently, with that specific organization having print and photograph related "catalogues" and "collections". I feel, though, like the concept is too broad to just associate with the Library of Congress alone. I would delete that redirect as well, though in that case I'm wary of future article creation (though not necessarily opposed, especially if it's a disambiguation page). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
International Telecommunication Union region
- 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.
- International Telecommunication Union region → ITU Region (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
- This redirect is not necessary from my point of view as it is a false spelling of the target article of this redirect. It does not aid any accidental misspelling, which could be considered useful. A deletion would also not harm redirection as the misspelling has been taken note of straight away resulting in a content move to the new destination. As far as I can see there is also no relevant edit history to preserve. Further the article name does not comply with WP:UCN and it seems very unlikely that it will ever come into use, as reader will more likely search for ITU Region or ITU. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Page International Telecommunication Union region has many incoming links. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as a plausible search term. The nominator should note that WP:UCN applies to article titles, not redirects; even if this redirect doesn't comply with UCN, that's no reason to delete it. (If it does comply with UCN, that's a reason to move the article.) Sideways713 (talk) 22:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Weak Delete. per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:RFD#D1 hinders search. Considering that we have, for example, International Postal Union -> Universal Postal Union and ITV region, it is unclear to me what someone putting the effort in to type this with "region" but getting it wrong would be looking for (it is both formally and actually telecommunications not telecommunication). It's an unlikely search term, but no harm in that; to my mind the main purpose of redirects is to serve in reader space to get people where they want to go; their secondary nature as editors' shortcuts is not at issue here, and their third purpose of saying "we don't know anything about this" is served by WP:REDLINK. The way to sort out the links in the articles is to fix the articles, not keep a wrong redirect. Si Trew (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- This certainly helps rather than hinders searching, and I have no idea what makes you think "telecommunications" would be the right spelling; our ITU article uses "telecommunication", the target article uses "telecommunication" and ITU itself uses "telecommunication"... Not to mention this was the actual article title for almost 9 years. Sideways713 (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete @Si Trew: Yes, you're right, WP:RFD#D2 and WP:RFD#D1 are the right points here. WP:RFD#K4 can also easily be avoided. @Sideways713 An uncommon or misspelt title is still uncommon and misspelt 9 years later. This is not an argument from my perspective. ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: This "delete" opinion is the nominator. While it is acceptable and even encouraged for a nominator to continue to participate in an XfD debate, your opinion is obvious from your initial nomination. Please avoid using the bolded "keep/delete" format in subsequent comments because it creates potential for confusion and double-counting by the closing admin. As you can see by the backlog, their job is hard enough already. We should not make it harder. Thanks. Rossami (talk)
-
-
-
- Of course it is the opinion of the nominator. That is why the nominator's username is on the nomination and on the nominator's vote. It is not my fault if other readers cannot read up. If the nominator bothered to worry about it and list it, in the nomination without giving a !vote at all, that nominator may not have been sure about what to do with it. Please read up, there was no delete or anything else at the start, so the nominator has only !voted once. After a little discussion the nominator gave out some points and came to a conclusion. Even though the nominator has said "Yes si" I don't actually think that is the right logical conclusion, but might be the best for Wikipedia, that is why we discuss things. But I don't understand your reasoning: nominators list because they're not sure, and we now only !count !votes that are keep? Plenty go for retarget or for DAB or for making into stub articles, not that I've seen you do any. Si Trew (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Keep. It is not a "false spelling" and is a distinct aid to navigation and linking. At best, you could call this a pluralization variant but that also is explicitly allowed for redirects. "Not necessary" is explicitly not a valid reason for to delete a redirect (since that is a value judgement based on how you navigate the wiki). Rossami (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirects are not primarily an aid to editors inking', they are an aid to readers searching. If it is right that this goes there, so be it, that is why I only weakly voted for delete.
-
- I am all for getting readers to where they want to go; if I feel it hinders search or could do (which necessarily is guesswork and homework) I say so.
- I suggested badly that in common English usage it is telecomunications (or telecoms) not telecommunication. I never ever suggested it was not the formal title (although for British Telecommunications plc it was and Post Office Telecommunications it was). I would suggest Rossami might read up and check the links provided by myself and other good-faith editors here. Si Trew (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
ITU region
- 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.
- ITU region → ITU Region (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
This redirect is not necessary from my point of view as it is a false spelling of the target article of this redirect. It does not aid any accidental misspelling, which could be considered useful. A deletion would also not harm redirection as the misspelling has been taken note of straight away resulting in a content move to the new destination. As far as I can see there is also no relevant edit history to preserve. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a straightforward redirect from alternative capitalization. The article’s title had lowercase “region” for twelve years and the article’s text still does, so the lowercase variant is clearly plausible. It is certainly not a “false spelling”. Gorobay (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a {{R from alternative capitalization}} and {{R from move}}. -- Tavix (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, as Tavix said. Si Trew (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Gorobay and Tavix. Rossami (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Hurricane Wendy
- 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 Wendy (disambiguation)#Storms. JohnCD (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hurricane Wendy → Hurricane Wilma (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
As someone else noted in the talk page, there is no such thing. There is a Tropical Storm Wendy (1999), a 1957 typhoon, a 1965 tropical storm and a 1972 cyclone (see Wendy (disambiguation)#Storms), but no hurricane, Clarityfiend (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Weak retarget to Tropical cyclone naming#North Atlantic. If the 21st tropical cyclone of the 2019 North Atlantic season reaches hurricane strength, it will be Hurricane Wendy. If it only reaches tropical storm strength then we'll have to disambiguate. (I'm assuming that named tropical storms are inherently notable, but I don't know) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)- Straight Delete: While the 21st named storm of the 2019 Atlantic Hurricane Season could be a hurricane, named Wendy and be notable as a land impacting Hurricane. There are too many ifs and buts for it to be a valid redirect to tropicalstormnaming.Jason Rees (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. There's never been a Hurricane Wendy, likely there won't be one anytime soon. Only one season out of 165 has had more than 20 named storms, so in the 0.006% chance we get to the 21st named storm, and it's in the one-in-six chance of using the name Wendy (it's a rotating list of names for each year), that's a 0.001% chance of this name getting used. I don't think that justifies keeping the redirect here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Retarget to Tropical Storm Wendy (1999) as the mis-identification of a tropical storm as a hurricane is common, and the layperson shouldn't be expected to know offhand the difference, and said massive storm was a notable event due to the loss of life and other factors.CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Well, if that's the case, then shouldn't this go to Wendy (disambiguation)#Storms since there are multiple storms this could be ambiguous with? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, retarget to Wendy (disambiguation)#Storms as even if the 1999 storm is the primary topic there's varying options there as well (and the 1999 storm is, of course, right in the middle of the page) CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Well, if that's the case, then shouldn't this go to Wendy (disambiguation)#Storms since there are multiple storms this could be ambiguous with? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Wendy (disambiguation)#Storms, to match up with Tropical Storm Wendy. I agree with CWM's rationale, but since there are other storms with the name it should go to the dab. I also oppose Ivanvector's suggestion, as it's WP:CRYSTAL. -- Tavix (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Yep, that's a fair comment. Struck. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Wendy (disambiguation)#Storms, roughly per CWM and myself. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Wendy (disambiguation)#Storms per above.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget' to the section of the DAB page, as above. Meteorological nomenclature is not my forte, but in common parlance a tropical storm could easily be thought of as a hurricane. See the lede at Michael Fish, poor old sod; he did wear suits that made your telly go funny (due to syncronisation pulses on the low-bandwith colour single resonating with the camera signal from his tweedy jackets) but is most notably remembered for predicting that the UK would not have a hurricane, they day before it did. Si Trew (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Retarget to Wendy (disambiguation)#Storms. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Hyperbolic Geometry:Poincaré half plane model
- 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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hyperbolic Geometry:Poincaré half plane model → Poincaré half-plane model (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
WillemienH (talk) 08:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- @WillemienH: Not sure if you made a mistake with a template but you haven't provided a rationale or a proposed action for this redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, anyway. This is a page move redirect from a page which was created at the wrong title and then corrected on the same day, more than 12 years ago. There is no risk of accidental external linking. Redirect has almost no hits at all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:R8 recently created, unlikely. Taking WP:CSD WP:G6 houskeeping, I don't think there was any need to list here. While doing so I shall try to find any others without the French acute accent on Poincaré. Si Trew (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Çomment. We also have Poincaré disk model but not Half-plane model at all, so this is WP:RFD#D1 hinders search. There are several likely targets that mention this model and this chap, but none is this target. Simply a good-faith editor's mistake and I think can be easily deleted. Tehchnically the colon in the title puts it into its own namespace, which I doubt was the intention, and technically makes it an intelligent but stupid WP:XNR from "Hyperbolic Geometry" namespace to mainspace, but I don't think anyone is arguing about that. Si Trew (talk) 06:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment'. It is tagged for speedy delete and I agree with that, and I am sure Wilhelm, in his absence, would do too, I just put the various reasons above in case there is any doubt. (I didn't tag it.) Si Trew (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Redirects to Nepali-language terms
- 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 WP:CSD#G6 uncontroversial housekeeping. JohnCD (talk) 08:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redirects to Nepali-language terms → Category:Redirects to Nepali-language terms (links · history · stats) [ Closure: (@subpage) ]
Redirect to category space not for readership - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Agree and will take WP:G6 housekeeping as WP:XNR, I doubt anyone would suggest there is a sensible place to redirect this to in reader space. Si Trew (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- strong delete wP:XNR to pipeworking, per nom; distinction is not for the readership -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- Footnote. Actually I don't think Champ's proposed reason nor my agreement for not being in reader space stands up, categories are there to help readers find things; categories are very much in reader space. I just though this particular one would hinder rather than help that, and have kinda got away with it this time. Si Trew (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- To a reader, it doesn't matter if something is a redirect or is the actual article, since both result in the same reading material, so the distinction of categorizing redirects is not readership material. Not all categories are readership material, many of them are editorship material, the target of this redirect is a category for the editorship. -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Indeed. Redirects are annoyingly wrong where they send readers to where they are not very likely to want to go. I just procedurally fucked up on this one and said so, quite happy for it to go, but the reasons stated don't tally with the result. Consensus is to delete, and I don't mind, but realised afterwards I had said the right thing for the wrong reasons. (There are three times as many redirects as articles, so I don't imagine our work here will be finished any time soon.) Si Trew (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
-
|