Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates
Files
Possibly unfree files (PUF)
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 do not have any incoming links. That is not a sufficient condition. Please do not list this as the only reason to delete a redirect.

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

Please be aware of these general policies, which apply here as elsewhere:

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

  • 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?[edit]

Shortcut:
Further information: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes

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.

Shortcut:

Reasons for deleting[edit]

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):

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange. (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. 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.)
  7. 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.
  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.
  9. 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.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
Shortcut:

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Someone finds them useful. You might not find it useful, but this may be because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. stats.grok.se can also provide evidence of outside utility.
  6. The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form, or to some other grammatical form.
  7. 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 criteria does not apply to redirects that are indefinitely semi-protected or more highly protected.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut:

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:

  1. 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).
  2. 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).
  3. 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[edit]

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[edit]

Shortcut:
I.
Tag the redirect.

  Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion, and enter }} at the very end. Example:

{{subst:rfd|content=#REDIRECT [[Foo]]{{R from move}}}}
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page.
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
  • If the redirect is to a template that is currently in use, you will need to use {{rfd-t}} instead (see that template's documentation for instructions).
II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
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.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. For convenience, the template

{{subst:RFDNote|RedirectName}} ~~~~

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[edit]

November 24[edit]

Baldridge-Dumas Communications[edit]

Delete. Subjects are not mentioned in target article, and their only connection to the target article is that the businesses happen to be based in cites that are located in this region. These are two of many pages that were created by a block evading vandal whose edits are focused on the Ark-La-Tex region. Tdl1060 (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

November 23[edit]

Poo pooed[edit]

Delete. Frankly, it's silly, immature, and childish to have these redirects to a dab. I don't see how they are helpful or useful. -- Tavix (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget all to Pooh-pooh. I was surprised to discover that Wikipedia did not have an article for the informal fallacy known as "pooh-pooh", so I went ahead and created the article. I think most of the search terms listed above refer to the act of committing this informal fallacy (with the possible exception of "poopoos"), so I would redirect them to the article for "pooh-pooh". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Follow-up comment: As the article for pooh-pooh explains, "poo-poo" is an alternate spelling of "pooh-pooh" used by some sources. Per WP:RPURPOSE, reasons for maintaining redirects include "[c]losely related words" and "[a]lternative spellings". Therefore, it would seem only natural that a person searching for "pooh-pooh" (the fallacy) may type one of the phrases listed above. Whomever closes this discussion should also take note that the delete voters have not cited policy in their opinions. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget all per User:Notecardforfree. Thanks for making the stub. We're WP:NOTDIC and this is mostly used as a verb, but it can be used as a noun to describe the act or result of pooh-poohing. Si Trew (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Baaaaaah! Sorry Delete per General Melchett. Or the Major will Poo-poo the poo-poo or something like that Captain Darling...--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 21:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget. Peter James (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Pooh-pooh per above. Nice catch. --Lenticel (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all - more unlikely or unnecessary modifications. Actively harmful because as the discussion above shows, there are multiple possible targets, and these all obfuscativeinglyness the search engine. However I'm pleased that we got pooh-pooh out of this discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Ivanvector. Steel1943 (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Even with the new article, I still favor deletion Legacypac (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all, obviously. BMK (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken, why is this obvious? Do you think these are "[c]losely related words" per WP:RPURPOSE? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Blackishgray[edit]

Discussion for Blackishgray[edit]

Similar to another color where most say delete, we have 64 variations on this color name, many invented words or that could refer to other colors. See [1] Legacypac (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I brought the whole group because they were created together. I don't think they should all be deleted, we need to sort out retarget, delete etc Legacypac (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to shades of gray, which also covers shades of black (they are the same). These are mostly reasonable searches for someone who wants to find, say, slate gray, but doesn't know what it is called. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all - it's not possible to quantify gray this way, "blackish gray" is literally just gray. You might as well say "blackishdark" or "clearishtransparent" or "light white". Interestingly, Drmies already deleted blackishgray, he shouldn't have stopped there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The World, the Flesh and the Devil[edit]

Discussion for The World, the Flesh, and the Devil[edit]

Nominating 123 redirects that versions of this phrase, including punctuation and word order differences [2]. They all point to one article even though there are books etc listed here The_world,_the_flesh,_and_the_devil_(disambiguation). Requesting someone with tools to ax most of them. Legacypac (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep, or keep many of them. This is one single instance (out of 80,000) where Neelix is not engaging in mere mindless wordplay but rather inputting search terms, capitalization, and word order that the average person might input. Even the dab page doesn't have the mid-phrase uppercase letters, so typing them into the search field won't trigger the correct page (I don't think) if the person wants the origin phrase or the dab page. If I'm wrong here feel free to correct me or enlighten me. Softlavender (talk) 07:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep or retarget but do not delete. Point them at the theological article or the disambiguation page, but let them remain, if they are correct grammatically and spelled properly, and proper-caps/allcaps/camelcaps/small-capped/title-case/sentence-case, and in English or Latin. Those that are not should be listed separately and proposed later. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Special:Search gives me, reasonably prominently, Mortification (theology) and Flesh (theology). Seems reasonable to me to keep the DAB. The DAB's hatnoted at the target, as it should be. Si Trew (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all except The World, the Flesh and the Devil, Mundus, caro et diabolus, and any that stats show are highly used; delete all of the rest. Hear me out here. All of these capitalization variants point to the article already, so if these redirects did not exist then readers would get to where we're pointing them anyway since the search tool is not case sensitive. Were these redirects deleted, someone typing variations into the search box would be presented with search results with this article high on the page, along with other highly relevant information and competing usages. Currently, someone intending to find one of the published works who starts typing the title into the search box (assuming Javascript is enabled) ends up with a confusing list of variations of this title which all point to this target, whereas if these were deleted they would see the thing they're looking for. So per WP:RFD#D1, these make it needlessly difficult to use the search engine - they are a net liability because they don't add any functionality the software doesn't already provide, but they do limit other functionality. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
True. We should probably invoke WP:RFD#D1 more, as unnecessary case (etc.) redirects do make search unnecessasrily difficult. Time was when the search engine was not (always) case-insensitive, so some of these may have been helpful when created, but are harmful now.
That being said, I think we should reverse the redirect The World, the Flesh and the Devil and its target at The world, the flesh, and the devil (disambiguation) since all the entries at the DAB have initial caps and none uses the Oxford comma. I can knock up an encylopaedic stub for the expression itself and we can keep the DAB for the publications. Si Trew (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Before you do that, would the stub be any different from the current target, The world, the flesh, and the devil? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
You're right, it wouldn't be; I had got a bit confused with what content we had where: which is why I think reversing the DAB and distinguishing on WP:DIFFCAPS would be useful. (I think to distinguish just by the Oxford comma is way too subtle, but for example we haven't The world, the flesh and the devil, The world, the flesh and the devil (disambiguation), The world, the flesh and the Devil or The world, the flesh and the Devil (disambiguation))Si Trew (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Women's Mogul Skiing[edit]

The subject isn't mentioned at the target article. From a bit of research, it looks like this is an event at the Winter Olympics, and I suspect other notable events as well. (Contrary to the target article's claim, apparently not the FIS Alpine World Ski Championships.) If there's only one notable competition in women's mogul skiing, it may be appropriate to retarget there. Otherwise, delete until we can describe the topic, such as is done at Women's association football or Women's basketball. I note that we don't have Women's skiing or Women's alpine skiing. BDD (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Lists of deaths at Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital[edit]

Redirect to a section that doesn't exist any longer anyway, and with an incorrect name to boot (lists? List should have been sufficient). Fram (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

New College Compact[edit]

This is an education plan of Clinton's, but it's not mentioned at her article, nor at Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 or Political positions of Hillary Clinton#Education. BDD (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK - if we don't have content about it then it's a misleading redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I made the redirect. I believe at the time there was a mention of the New College Compact in the article, though it's been a while so I can't say for sure. Either way, I don't feel strongly about whether the redirect is deleted or not. — Hunter Kahn 18:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Enn Uil[edit]

No evidence that this redirect gets ever used, doesn't seem to be a used pseudonym nor a likely typo Fram (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep pending explanation - Rich Farmbrough created it, I believe he probably had a good reason, though I can't reason what. Looks like maybe a phonetic redirect, but not any phonetic alphabet I'm familiar with, and the way I would pronounce these two names is not very similar. If not for who created it, I would tag it WP:G1 patent nonsense. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    • It is an alternative name listed at VIAF. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC).
Neat. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:FORRED may come into play here. Library authority control has some important differences from Wikipedia practice, and foreign transliterations of names are frequently recorded. See, for example, the record for William Shakespeare. Many of these forms would not be accepted as redirects, such as Vilyam Shekspir or Tsikinya-chaka. In this case, the only authority record I see linked to her VIAF is the ISNI one, which includes forms in other scripts, such as Arabic and Japanese. Perhaps it can be demonstrated that she was known this way in English, but I'm skeptical. It looks like a romanization of a foreign form. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
It's probably not harmful though. A naming authority outside of Wikipedia gives this as a proper alternate, we didn't just make it up here, and I doubt this could refer to anything else. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. It's a Russian transliteration. Since she has no affinity with the Russian language, I see no reason to go against our norms here. -- Tavix (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete It's a back-transcription of Энн Уил, which is also a standard Russian transcription for many similar-sounding names (e.g. Anne Will, also a journalist, with a similar lack of association with the Russian language as Anne Weale). Furthermore, anyone who speaks Russian would search for Энн Уил rather than transcribing it, while anyone who speaks English would never come across that except in contexts where either woman's real original name is already mentioned. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WPT:GGTF[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete, G7. --BDD (talk) 14:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirect from the main space to Wikipedia space. Recently created, WPT is not a standard namespace abbreviation (I couldn't find other WPT redirects, but the search is not too good for this kind of things). Fram (talk) 09:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Presuming it is a pseudo-namespace, then WP:RFD#D6 cross-namespace redirect applies; if not, then I suppose, technically, not (D6 only applies to mainspace redirects), but I hope we still use common sense. Perhaps it's just a slip: WT:GGTF redirects there. Si Trew (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
    • D6 applies if it is not a pseudo namespace, and it doesn't seem to be listed as one. Fram (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - WPT is not a pseudonamespace, it's probably intended as either WikiPediaTalk or WikiProjectTalk, but neither is valid. The Wikipedia talk: pseudonamespace is WT:, and there aren't special namespaces (or pseudonamespaces) for Wikiprojects. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2015 (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.

Snowclose[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 to avoid a snow close. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:R#D6: "cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace." -- Tavix (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2015 (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 nicknames for Farmers[edit]

Delete as misleading. These redirects imply a list of nicknames, but there isn't one to be found at that article. -- Tavix (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

November 22[edit]

Wikipedia:Superprotect[edit]

Superprotect has been removed, so this redirect is no longer meaningful. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep it's got links from other pages, some of which are talk page archives. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and for history's sake, the protection policy should also list no-longer-used and not-used-here types of protections. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and explain per Oiyarbepsy. OR: restore superprotection from the archives of that page and create a new one here, marked historical. That's what we usually do when marking things historical, but this was part of a policy. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. It exists, and was used on the (I believe) German Wikipedia at one point. I do agree that the content should be restored, but have no strong opinion on whether it should be restored at the target article or restored as content overwriting the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable (disambiguation)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. This is not the forum to dispute a close. Use WP:DRV for that. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Relisting for deletion. This is NOT a disambiguation page. Acceptable is already a redirect to Acceptance_(disambiguation). Nothing points to Acceptable (disambiguation) page or should ever point to this page. The page serves no purpose and does not do what the page title claims. Previous discussion here[3] Legacypac (talk) 07:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep – procedural close. This redirect was recently discussed and the decision was to retarget, which has been done. Also, the Proper dab page links to this redirect, or would if the nom would stop removing it. Backlinks should not be removed until this discussion has closed (if and only if it closes as "delete").  Paine  07:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
This user is protecting a page they created for no reason I can understand. They reversed a reasonable change at Proper twice now. Rather then making procedural arguments please explain the actual value and purpose of the convoluted setup being protected (Proper (a DAB. but not called that) -> Acceptable (disambiguation) but actually a redirect -> Acceptance (disambiguation) -> something a reader might learn something on.) Also, no one is restricted from editing links to a page while it is under discussion, it happens all the time as we try to improve on what we find. Legacypac (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Legitimate arguments have already been made – the previous discussion is closed. Why kick a dead horse? I know of no policy nor guideline that "restricts" the removal of backlinks; however, it is customary to leave them alone until a discussion has closed as delete. It makes no sense to delete backlinks, because according to WP:RFD, not having backlinks is not a good reason to delete a redirect. Be prosperous! Paine  08:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural close – per recently closed nomination. You could have discussed with me first instead of renominating this for deletion so quickly. sst✈(discuss) 08:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, sst✈ given the points I put up here and in the closed discussion are you willing to withdraw your close and let an admin look at it (since us non-admins can't delete?) Legacypac (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I stand by my previous discussion closure as retarget, and will not undo my close. If you disagree with it, you may take it to WP:DRV. sst✈(discuss) 08:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you even DRV a Keep (retarget)? Seems like the directions and all the recent ones support only reversing deletes.... leaving us the option of renominating. Legacypac (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
gentle fyi: First paragraph at WP:DRV = Deletion Review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion. Be prosperous! Paine  13:12, 22 November 2015 (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.

Universal arrow[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) 04:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

As of this nomination, the target does not discuss the topic per se (and thus the redirect is unhelpful for the readers.) -- Taku (talk) 04:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. "Universal arrow" and "universal morphism" are terms used by mathematicians to refer to universal properties. If we don't have redirects for synonyms, then what are they for? The redirect may be helpful to a novice who sees the term "universal arrow" in a text, and goes to wikipedia to look it up. Ideally Wikipedia should have an article listing the term. But failing that, redirecting to a synonym is still helpful. Note that both terms (arrow and morphism) have redirects, but only the arrow term is proposed for deletion, so this deletion proposal is incomplete. (Disclosure: I am the creator of the arrow redirect). -lethe talk + 15:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Because I don't think they are synonymous; in fact, "universal arrow" is not even defined in the article (resulting in mystifying the readers). Note Mac Lane uses the term in a specific way (cf. Glossary of category theory#U). -- Taku (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Withdraw. Scratch what I said; sorry, I didn't read the article carefully. Yes, they are synonymous so the redirect makes sense. I'm going to add a note that they are synonyms. -- Taku (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2015 (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.

Loud roaring[edit]

Hard to understand what the idea of this redirect is, but lions roar, as do machines. Neelix creation for Admin's who might want to G6 it Legacypac (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

People are Exalted[edit]

Hebrew meanings of a name, unlikely search term and vague as there are likely other names or uses for these terms. Neelix redirects (see similar nominations) Could be G6'd Legacypac (talk) 04:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete or disambiguate WP:BIAS there are other religions in the world besides Judaism-related ones -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Stepmotherness[edit]

These are all obscure , incorrect constructions by Neelix, part of a long list of step- redirects he made all at once. Legacypac (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Temporary test page[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

This is only a temporary test, and is not really software testing as indicated by its target. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Not really a redirect but a test in a main page. I tagged it G6 Housekeeping. No need to discuss this one. 04:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)
  • Delete and salt testing in mainspace -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Some things can only be tested in mainspace due to namespace-dependent behaviour. However, phab:T108727 was fixed after two months with a deployment in October so the test is no longer needed. It has been speedily deleted by Sphilbrick. If the bug had still been unresolved then I would have said keep. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2015 (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.

Estheticisers[edit]

These are redirects from a long list of Neelix redirects created in one sitting that should be deleted. They are extremely obscure (under 500 ghits, including mirrors of Wikipedia) or fake words. Legacypac (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all Should go to Aesthetics if anywhere, but not needed. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Aesthete[edit]

These redirects are mistargeted. Suggestions? Legacypac (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Aesthetics, as {{R from related}}. Si Trew (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep They are not mis-targeted; why do you think so? An Aesthete is not someone who engages in Aesthetics, but in Aestheticism. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Aestheticizations[edit]

Neelix redirect for an obscure word. This word is used in the title of at least two other Wikipedia Articles that are not about the style of art discussed at the target. Legacypac (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

We have Aestheticisations, Estheticisations and Estheticizations all → Aestheticism too. I'm not sure the largely US (and Canadian?) spelling without the initial "A" should then have the "-isation" form, since the "-ise" form was abolished in preference to "-ize" in the same spelling reform (i.e. Webster's), I think. ("Ae" + "ize" is fine.) Si Trew (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak redirect to Aesthetics, or delete. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Estheticist[edit]

Obscure off target variation of the targeted word by Neelix. Google thinks it's a mistake for Esthetician. Legacypac (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Google is right, on the whole. To Aesthetics would be more appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nazist collaborator during World War II[edit]

Among 77 redirects to this target created by Neelix in a row.Turns out Natzist is not really a thing, more like an error. Update: Nazist collaborator is also not a real thing. The variation Nazist is not commonly used in English, but can be a synonym for Nazism the ideology. One might collaborate with the Nazis but you can's collaborate with the ideology. The simplest version of this batch gets 14 unique ghits, at least 2 of which are related to this discussion and the rest are from this phrase escaping into the wild from the redirect. Legacypac (talk) 00:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. These aren't Natzist, they're Nazist. @Legacypac: your slip? I couldn't find "Natzist" used anywhere. I'm being pedantic, but with a purpose, since I wonder if you also searched etc. with that slip. Si Trew (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I did search a typo, so I updated the rational. Nazist is not used much in English either (lots of non-english results come up) but the stronger point is these are completely improbable constructions. Legacypac (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

November 21[edit]

Draft:Transactive Energy[edit]

Delete as a redirect from the draft page. Beagel (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

  • You know, I don't see any need to ever delete this. One particular reason is that if the draft is moved by someone other than the creator, and the creator is a new user, that new user might then think that their page was deleted for being no good. In this case, it looks like the creator moved it themself, but there is still no harm in having this redirect here. It communicates to all that a draft was promoted, and there really is no benefit at all in deleting. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep {{R from move}}, WP:RFD#K5. I don't see any reason to remove redirects from drafts moved to article space, unless the article gets deleted (WP:G8) or the author of the article requests it (WP:G7). Otherwise it's harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as an {{R from move}} Comment. This redirect serves to help the draft's creator or anyone who may have edited the draft locate their work. Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I wish some official guidance had been created on this question when draft space was implemented. Individually, these seem harmless, but collectively, they amount to a lot of clutter. (And somewhat misleading—this redirect, for example, does not take a reader to a draft on the topic.) Personally, I don't leave redirects when I publish my own drafts, though non-admins would need to use a CSD tag to do that. Just thinking aloud here, I could see value in setting an expiration date from redirects like that. A year, say, or six months. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @BDD: Good point. This one clearly serves a different purpose than that "(2)" redirect that appeared recently. Thus, I have changed my "Keep" to "Comment". Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • G13 uses six months as its "expiration date." Maybe we could work on a proposal to extend that to redirects? -- Tavix (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Re targetto the article talk page Thats our standard practice to maintain attribution. I have no idea why it wasn;t done here--usually the program does it automatically if it is moved via the AfC process. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @DGG: Is that documented somewhere as a policy? Steel1943 (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

13 November 2015[edit]

Someone is trying to make this attack have a 9/11 style name. Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I added the redirect for "13/11" (I didn't make the others) during a time when the title "13/11" was listed on the attack's page as an alternate name. I'm fine if you delete it. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac:

  • Delete all - Strong delete the first one, and a trout for whoever created that one. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep the first possibly convert into a set index for events of that day. But it is clearly a reasonable search term for this topic. 11 September 2001 exists -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Retarget 13 November 2015 to November 13 as plausible redirect since both the attacks and other Nov. 13, 2015 events are stated there. Delete the rest as unlikely synonyms since my google search points me to bible verses instead of the attack. --Lenticel (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep 13/11 attacks, an American (and many others) alive since the mid-90s would be likely to search for the Paris attacks article in this way due to having lived through the 9/11 attacks. Retarget 13 November 2015 to Portal:Current events/2015 November 13, an acceptable cross-namespace redirect between two reader-facing spaces, and a page which presents the searcher with a list of the various content they may be searching for. 13/11 is already deleted and should have been anyway, it's too vague, it could refer to the number or a ratio or who knows what. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

EMHC[edit]

Change to a disambiguation page or redirect to Extraordinary minister of Holy Communion RJaguar3 | u | t 21:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - is there any evidence at all that the church official's position is ever abbreviated? The hockey club is. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • disambiguate GHits for the minister run about twice those for the hockey team (which isn't surprising, considering the number of Catholics). Mangoe (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Gyprocks[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.The arguments for deletion are convincing and the pre-nomination stats are so negligible that it is not a likely misspelling. Just Chilling (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a correct spelling. It is the name of a .au company in the drywall business. Should point at an article about the company, if such an article is appropriate Legacypac (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak delete - Gyproc is a brand name of drywall, and it's broadly common in North America to refer to all drywall by that name (much like Kleenex is a brand of facial tissue). "Gyprock" is pretty close, but the plural does not add an S, so this construction is nonsense. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as a mispelling of 'gyprock' (yes "gyprock" commonly appears [4] so, not just 'gyproc') -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
but remember Gyproc is like sheep-never spelled with an S.Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. It's not "like sheep": "sheep" is a countable noun (one sheep, two sheep) that has the same form in singular and plural (like "three fish[es]", "ten head [of cattle]"). "Gyproc" is an uncountable noun. (Less relevantly, I'm not sure that "gyproc" is a genericized trademark like "kleenex", in English at least. I found some sources that say it is, but I think it would need a court case to decide it.) Si Trew (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
At least in my area we buy gyproc- say "100 sheets of gyproc", or "You need to pick up some gyproc" even "there are 5 kinds of gyproc" in at Home Depot. There is no plural and everyone knows you mean drywall or gypsum board Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
That's the point I was trying to make as well. Nobody (that I know of or have ever heard) refers to "gyprocs" or "drywalls". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈(discuss) 14:07, 21 November 2015 (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.

Douzaine[edit]

Just the french word - we are not a translation service Legacypac (talk) 21:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Parishes of Guernsey, which describes (what I believe is) the only encyclopedic topic regularly called "Douzaine" in English (elected bodies which administer each parish). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • REtarget to Roulette where it is used as the technical naming of features; hatnote Guernsey. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, passe currently redirects to Fashion, which doesn't mention it (or passé). I'm inclined to retarget that too if we do this. Manque redirects to manqué. impair is red, pair is a DAB with the entry "Even number, in roulette etc", and rouge a DAB that doesn't mention roulette, similarly noir. 'Sieurs et dames, faîtes vos jeux. Si Trew (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, sst✈(discuss) 14:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Leader theory[edit]

This seems far too vague. Redirect to Leadership, perhaps, where various theories about leaders are included. I wouldn't object to ruling either of these an unlikely search term, though, especially the wordier "theory of the leader". --BDD (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to leadership per nom. WP:BIAS This is not the North Korea Wikipedia, there are other leader topics in the world besides the Kims. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Leader[edit]

This phrase isn't used at the target article, though "Great Leader" and "Sacred Leader" are. It seems like a rough match for Great Leader (a dab). And for what it's worth, it's been a target for political vandalism (e.g., redirecting it to Obama). --BDD (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Why prefer the list to the bio, when the latter mentions the name early on? Are people likely to be looking for information on his other titles, or on him? Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Donal Wales[edit]

This is a partial-title match and a novel or very obscure name for our Dear Leader. BDD (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment since redirects are not disambiguation pages, PTMs are fine, if they are not obscure in use -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
But PTMs are proscribed for dab pages exactly because they're not likely search terms. --BDD (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It's Jimbo Wales, why not have some spare redirects just for him? WP:CHEAP -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep for now per anon. I was thinking that this would be a plausible misspelling for "Donald Wales" but we don't have an article with that name. I only found List of Bluebird record-breaking vehicles#Donald Wales at the moment. --Lenticel (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete since Jimbo is never known simply as "Donal Wales." I'll change my !vote if anyone can provide me a reliable source calling him that. -- Tavix (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix, unless someone disproves that logic. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

November 20[edit]

Show killer[edit]

Not the same concept, as the history shows. BDD (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong meh - The topic which Show killer was about is not on Wikipedia, so far as I'm aware (maybe one of the Golden Raspberry Awards?), and the phrase could just as easily refer to jumping the shark, unless we have sources saying that it specifically and only refers to actors (in which case it should probably be turned back into an article). --NYKevin 18:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Retarget to Ted McGinley due to plausible BLP concerns. However, this is the closest article that I got that is related to Happy Days and "Jumping the Shark". One of the show's writer calls McGinley as "Ted the Show Killer" and the reason of the show's decline --Lenticel (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Boning the fish[edit]

Fan creation not mentioned at the target page. Most search results are for the actual process of boning fish. BDD (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment – I vaguely recall that there was once an article that linked to that "page", so I created the redirect to resolve it. It appears to be obsolete now. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely synonym. If this is "deboning the fish" then we might have something to work with as a plausible redirect for Advanced meat recovery or other related articles --Lenticel (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Courtyard by Marriott – Downtown Detroit[edit]

Until January 2014, the Courtyard by Marriott article had some very run-of-the-mill information on a few particular locations. It's rightfully been removed, including the target sections, making these specific locations unhelpful as redirects. I question their likelihood as search terms anyway, except among readers who completely misunderstand Wikipedia's purpose (cf. WP:NOTTRAVEL). --BDD (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but WP:NOTTRAVEL starts "Wikipedia articles should not..." (my emphasis). Says nothing about the titles of redirects, only articles. I have been bashing on about WP:TITLE applying to redirects "except when it doesn't" by which I mean that if it is an {{R from misspelling}}, patently it is misspelled but doesn't mean it should be a French misspelling, if it is {{R from adjective}}, obviously it is not a WP:NOUN, but that doesn't allow it to be simultaneously a Greek slang plural from common name (unless it has, or could have, those tags too). I think I was wandering towards this in an aside with you yourself and with Ivanvector saying much the same thing, but even worsely put than this stab at it that I am having now. Si Trew (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
You're right, but the problem was indeed with the (target) article. When individual hotels were discussed at the article, the redirects had utility. But precisely because NOTTRAVEL proscribes such content, it shouldn't go back. That keeps these redirects perpetually confusing and unhelpful. --BDD (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll take the title argument to talk, when I have a chance (still doing the London Bus Rs...) but as it is you're right too that these secs are useless: no, my mistake, harmful: Someone searching on this term would expect specific information on it, and winds up disappointed. Delete all per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:SURPRISE, s Si Trew (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all - The main article provides no information about the specific properties that are the redirects. - Whpq (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The Spyring[edit]

Seems a pretty generic term, I'm not sure redirecting it to this article (which doesn't mention the term) is productive. Jenks24 (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment. That's odd. All the top 20 ghits are for this book, but it's not mentioned, nor at Eileen Chang, the writer. It looks like it was the working title: http://www.zonaeuropa.com/culture/c20081005_1.htm. Si Trew (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Espionage where spy ring leads, and add a hatnote for the current target -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    • That's fine by me. Jenks24 (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keepand hatnote the target. The definite article, capital S and the non-standard word "Spyring" instead of "spy ring" show that it is about a creative work, or specific organization, rather than a generic term. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC).

Holger Wahlström[edit]

Redirect from Middle Name Last Name makes no sense when the person went by their first and last name. Legacypac (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Hornerwoman[edit]

These terms are made up by Neelix, or at best Urban Dictionary junk. Only a man can be cuckold, so the women variations are even more implausible. Legacypac (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete All. No realistic chance of an editor searching under of these words. Neelix creations.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. In sexual fetishism, a woman cuckold is a cuckoldress (at the target); a gsearch (for "cuckoldtrix") assumes I mean "cuckoldrix", which is an odd mix of Old English and Latin. I imagine that somehow the creator has wrongly back-formed "horny" (DAB; first meaning) from "hornier, horniest" and somehow managed then to form these; although it may be from Cuckold#Metaphor and symbolism.
I'm delighted we have an article for cuckquean (but not cuckqueen), so we can take the female ones there if need be. Just an edjumacated guess from other weird formations I have seen lately (those swallows flying north, for example). Si Trew (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. "R N" lowercase in many typefaces is cunningly similar to "M", but we don't have Homer man or similar. Si Trew (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - madeupistic nonsenseations. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Nice Unwinese. Si Trew (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Demon of the pit[edit]

It looks like Neelix made this up roughly from the meaning of the target's name. There has to be other meanings to it Legacypac (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Cerberus#Etymology. A common pattern in Neelix redirects is to take part of an etymology out of context and assume it is a WP:DICDEF. But even if it were, it would be an, erm, WP:DICDEF. cf. The dictionary definition of Κέρβερος at Wiktionary where he is a spotty dog (not a spotted dog nor Spot the dog). I've fixed Κέρβερος to say it is an R from grc (Ancient Greek), not el (modern Greek). Si Trew (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a wholly inaccurate redirect. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's not quite a Neelix creation (or if it is, it's independent). F'rexample http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~breno/CIS-5357/fall2004/kerberos.pdf has it as essentially the title, from presumably Autumn 2004 (three years before), in (I presume) an introductory Computer Science course. Most other ghits are the def from the target at WP, though. Si Trew (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The Ruby (programming language) README documentation at http://www.rubydoc.info/gems/cerberus/0.4.3 quotes from Wikipedia, and says it does. I presume that the ety in Cerberus was changed, I really cannot cart through all the history there although I do have all night until the missus gets home in about four hours, but this escaped to the wild from Wikipedia, I think, but Wikipedia itself imported it from somewhere else. So the blame do not entirely lay at Neelix' feet; only the blame for blindly copying unsourced etymologies. Si Trew (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment A very active editor of the target, User:Paul August, kindly responded to my question on his talk page. I hope between us we can make the etymology section of the target OK, because this bollox Wikipedia definition floods most online searches, that have scraped it (only a few with attribution of any kind, let alone CC-SA). Si Trew (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
IF this was a one off I could believe that he got it from somewhere other then his head, but as pointed out above it is a distinct pattern of reorganization of meanings into nonsensical redirects. Another pattern is rearranging long names of people and cutting off the first name to make a redirect from Middle + Last Name. Definate patterns Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I am starting to make out not one but several patterns (taking synonyms from nouns as if there were no other meanings for those synonyms; adding suffixes and prefixes aplenty; taking parts of etymologies as if they were dictionary definitions in their own right: and even if they were, would be WP:DICDEF). But it's irrelevant what you believe, and WP:NPA please, no personal attacks. I really don't think Neelix intended to do harm (and I strain at that when my maxims for living are don't hit, don't lie, don't cheat, but at least I made them for me, and weren't handed them to me by anyone) but tonight I have been struggling with my schoolboy Latin, prepubescent Spanish, and nonexistent English, besides Greek ruins. But this one in particular must, then, be a coincidence; I found it at
(My underline.) Paul has found it in an index for Robert Graves' The Greek Myths as ker berethrou (the -ou vs -n is just a tense change, "of the" as Ionic or something else tense, it's the same word as the -os nominative). I translated a little Spanish which shows that some think it may be used (as "Demon") in Sumerian or Ancient Egyptian stuff. Sometimes I am not as green as I am cabbage looking: some of these predate Neelix' insert here. Most likely, it was at Cerberus, but has since been amended, but has become feral and now the whole Interweb quotes Wikipedia (usually without any kind of CC-SA, or even a mench, we just get the shit and jokes for being "wrong" or "inaccurate", as if every newspaper and every dull comedian who can't think of material doesn't make Wikipedia the fifth most visited site in the world).
Therefore I say Strong delete. Si Trew (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete there are many demons of pits -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or disambiguate. Cerberus is not the only "demon of the pit" and this claimed etymology is dubious. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

My father is exalted[edit]

A translated Hebrew phrase is not a good redirect. This is the meaning of the name, but it likely the meaning of many other names in other languages. Legacypac (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Weak retarget to Honour thy father and thy mother; it's a stretch but it's what I thought of first.I also assumed that Abiram was the just another way of writing Abraham (Ibrahim, etc), though (and not of course the same person as Abraham, who at WP gets top billing); but I am no religious scholar. Si Trew (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Deep in Abraham we find the claim that a possible name meaning is Father is exhaulted. If that claim were stronger, and if we are in the business of targeting meanings to Hebrew names, the famous guy would be a better target then the two guys no one has heard of. Legacypac (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Naval of Sicily[edit]

The word is Italian for naval but he directed it to a city with the mixed language nickname "Ombelico" of Sicily. I'm not convinced the nickname of a town in Italy is a good target for an Italian word. I found [5] L'Ombelico del Mondo which is 1/2 way across the island n the coast not the interior, and another reason to delete. Legacypac (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete both as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, WP:RFD#D2 confusing and for the second WP:RFOREIGN (for the first, kinda RUNFOREIGN as an unsourced translation).
  1. For "Naval of Sicily", the target does mention the godess Demeter's grove, the Latin: umbilicus siciliae, but not an English translation for it.
  2. For "Ombilico", we have umbilicus mundi, which would be the Latin equivalent of [l']"ombelico del mondo" , but that goes → omphalos which is Greek language and Greek place.
I toyed with the idea that "naval" might just refer to an historical Sicilian navy, since mariners tend to prefer a littoral setting over one in the interior: but it seems not; the wars mentioned at the target make no reference to a Sicilian navy (or any other navy) specifically. Si Trew (talk)
Ombilico = umbilical as in cord, or the belly button. Legacypac (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm aware of that, but "naval" does not mean belly-button, a navel, it means "of, or relating to, a navy". Navel of Sicily is red. Si Trew (talk) singing Rule, Brittania! 19:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I might expect the first one to lead to a description of the naval forces of the Kingdom of Sicily, though we don't seem to have any such content. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't find any. Lots of wars around the target, indeed it was a target, but no Sicilian navy as such. Perhaps they mistakenly had the Navy in the interior... never a good place for a navy... put 'em next to a bit of water, first rule of admiralty. Si Trew (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Unisexy[edit]

  • Delete per WP:MADEUP, WP:RFD#D8 "obscure synonym". Only hits from gsearch are for word-lists, I don't think "Unisex" is an adjective that can be verbed, "to unisex", so these forms are ridiculous. See also #Singlesexing, below. Amusingly (to me), my gsearch results for "unisexing" give lots of pictures of shirts, Hungarian: unisex ing meaning "unisex shirt", but perhaps that is just because of my location. Si Trew (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete you can't do these things to this word. I did find Unisexy as a slang term, but very weak results. Look at him in those girl jeans, that's unisexy. was the example. Legacypac (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
...So I suppose he wears them unisexily, as one of those unisexers who exude unisexiness. Fortunately we don't seem to have bisexy &c. Si Trew (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The creator forgot the most important redirect Unisexyistnessly Legacypac (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Unisexy does get some usage, but I highly doubt anyone is going to type it into a search bar instead of Unisex. Same for the others, except with even less usage. Hut 8.5 11:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all - implausibleing modifiersly. This is possibly a typo for unsexy, but at least on QWERTY the extra I keystroke would be implausible, having to occur after the right-hand index finger moves from the top row to the bottom row then back again in error, or using the right-hand ring finger which isn't involved in this word at all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed the I stands for Implausibility. I do Y/Z confusion all the time as I use both QWERTY and QWERTZ. I also have I think the only surname in the world that is sequence in the QWERTZ and QWERTY sequences so I can type it on one hand leaving the other one spare for, er, a cup of tea. (I hate AZERTY keyboards.) Si Trew (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Fecklessly[edit]

These are non-words that only confuse, as far as I can see at the target. Delete? Legacypac (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep given that "feckless" points to and is actually discussed at the target, and these redirects are straightforward and widespread derivatives of it. They certainly are not non-words; they have tens of thousands of GBooks hits ("fecklessness" is now several times more common than "feck" itself [6]). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RFD#K3, likely search term (although not that likely, stats are negligible except a double-digit peak for both on 29 September 2015, the day it was created), these are real words and there's a link to Wiktionary, although it doesn't stand out as such; I am going to add "feckless" to the Wikt box, since it's a separate headwoard in Wikt. Will rcat. Si Trew (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Feckless was created the same day, 29 Sept '15, to same target by same user. Si Trew (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep' since "feckless" is discussed there, so these variants would be viable search terms -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Improprieties[edit]

This is an Unacceptable redirect. It's almost immoral, but not quite. Ditto with the other one. What to retarget too? Legacypac (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wood-block print[edit]

Weak retarget to Woodblock printing, like Woodblock print and derivations. I would normally just boldly do this, but we have open discussions on #Japanese wood-block printings (below), so that would be unwise. User:Johnbod changed it back in 2006 with this edit. So it's been around unmolested for a long while, but perhaps we need to consider whether some of the Japanese ones should go to woodcut likewise. Si Trew (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Not as simple as you might think (ec) By strong convention "Wood-block print"s from the West are called woodcuts, but from Asia (unless pretty modern) are called "woodblock prints" (as woodcut tells you at the start). But many people don't know this, and also Woodblock printing is mostly about book-printing, with some on textiles, but doesn't cover printmaking (the hatnote says: "
    For Western art prints, see woodcut. For the related technique invented in the 18th century, see wood engraving. For Japanese woodblock printing, see woodblock printing in Japan.
    "), so it's not a great target. Woodcut does cover Asia, at a pretty summarized level. It's all confusing certainly, but there is a good case for leaving it where it is. Note that there are two: Wood-block print and Woodblock print. The should have the same target. I've changed my mind in the past, but o On the whole I think "Woodcut" is the best target. Conceivably a disam page should be set up. Nothing including "Japan/ese" should go to either of these targets. Johnbod (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
But then surely it is odd that Wood-block printing goes to a different target? It did go to Woodcut from 2004 to 2013, but was then retargeted to Woodblock printing. I imagine some of the Japanese ones will go as "not particularly Japanese", but we should kinda know if some are technically incorrect, even if we end up keeping them as {{R from incorrect name}}. I'm not worried particularly about this redirect, but thought it worth bringing it up in the hope of reducing confusion (rather than adding to it, as I seem to have done).
The difference, written, is slight and kinda like WP:DIFFCAPS; spoken, is nil (or perhaps emphasis/stress?) Si Trew (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is messy, that's my point. I've edited Woodblock print twice, changing my mind, but not being Neelix, never thought about the other. This isn't at all like WP:DIFFCAPS - there is no difference in meaning or pronunciation - don't let's confuse things more than we need to. Nearly all specialist sources will use "woodblock", but I think many less specialized will use "wood-block", and it would be going too far to call it incorrect. That's why we have redirects. Johnbod (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I meant it's like it in the sense it's a very subtle distinction (and one that is missed by the search engine, without some help). Si Trew (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Not even that - it's just a different spelling. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
No, that's exactly what it's not, as far as I understood your explanation. If they were just different spellings, the two would have the same target. Si Trew (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they are, and should have the same target (as I say above), but at present the two spellings were set up by different people; imo "woodcut" is best. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
could be best. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Franz Ludolf Ahrens[edit]

Different ways to arrange the guy's name that are invented by Neelix. Like many others we have gone delete on. Legacypac (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

A gsearch for "Franz Heinrich Ahrens" bringsup genealogy sites for a chap born in 1891, presumably not notable. "Franz Ludolf Ahrens" brings up only WP mirrors. So Delete the two starting "Franz" as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. "Heinrich Ludolf Ahrens" and "Ludolf Ahrens" both bring up book search results for Latin: De Graecae Linguae Dialectis ("On Greek-language dialects"), and that work is listed at the target, so Keep those two as WP:RFD#K3 likely search term, {{R from incomplete name}}.
I don't know (yet) whether "Ludolf" is part of his surname; I'll checking other-language WPs in case that clears it up. We could perhaps add a {{confused|Heinrich Ahrens}}, who is someone different but contemporary (philosopher 1808–1874 vs. philologer 1809–1881). Si Trew (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. From the authority controls and the Russian WP, which conveniently has "surnames, first names" as its article title format for bios, it seems demonstrable that his surname was just "Ahrens" (cf. eg. David Lloyd George). Interestingly (or not), German and Italian articles don't mention "Franz" at all; Russian and Portuguese do. LoC also lists in the Latin form as "Ahrens, Franciscus Henricus Ludolfus". Si Trew (talk) 11:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete Ludolf Ahrens, it's ludicrous if that is his (second) middle name to have it as a title; Keep Heinrich Ludolf Ahrens as (very) likely search term, WP:RFD#K3. Si Trew (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Wang Li (chess player)[edit]

Misleading redirect. Wang Li (male) and Wang Lei (female) are two different chess masters. See FIDE profile for Wang Li. Zanhe (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete simple person A does not equal person B. Legacypac (talk) 08:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above and Wp:R#D2. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 and WP:REDLINK. I don't know if chess masters are inherently notable but if someone wants to write about Wang Li they can. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yikes. Softlavender (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I nominated this at CSD at 13:35 UTC for WP:CSD#G6 housekeeping (saying it was something of a test case to bring it under G6, stating I was not involved and I still am not, and stating a WP:SNOW here at RfD). It's still in the CSD queue (currently 120 entries.) Sorry to be cynical, but are they drawn off in sort order?Si Trew (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not necessary or advisable to speedy these anyway, we're just jamming the queue. There are enough admins paying attention to this that WP:SNOW deletes will be as expedient as they need be. Let the CSD queue be for the really necessary-to-delete cases, like the G10s and such. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Stubbify with some basic information -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I doubt he's notable, so stubbifying would be inappropriate. Sideways713 (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

George von Beckedorff[edit]

A range of Neelix invented variations on a guy with a one sentence bio. These clutter up search and make it hard to find anyone else (there are several) people that have the same last name mentioned on the site. Legacypac (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep "George von Beckedorff", which is how he is often called, and possibly the second. I can't in fact see any other "von Beckedorff"s at all in WP, except one in a list at X Corps (Grande Armée), which is why "von Beckedorff" redirects to him. Since he was given the title, and it is not a common name, only his descendents will be "von Beckedorff". The 3rd can go. Johnbod (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I did not mean to Nom "George von Beckedorff" - withdrew that one. Legacypac (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, Delete the 3 as now nominated. Johnbod (talk) 10:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Singleslits[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy Deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury under R3 (non-Admin close)Legacypac (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

If it is single, how can this be plural? It just invented nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Or, it's an {{R from verb}} as third person singular, "he or she singleslits".... which it isn't. Si Trew (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2015 (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.

Singlesidedness[edit]

Single siding and all these variations are not even things (Google them). All seem like useless redirects Legacypac (talk) 06:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Single ships[edit]

Single-ship actions is clear, but these redirects could mean all kinds of things, including the state of not being married. The fact they now target two places is a good example. Legacypac (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, not helpful, potentially misleading. —Kusma (t·c) 10:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, WP:RFD#D8 novel or obscure synonym. If the "singleship" was an attempt at a synonym for singularity#Natural sciences, target it there. Si Trew (talk)
  • Comment a "singleship" is a type of warship in the Known Space fictional universe, which is crewed by one person, and uses a fusion drive as a primary weapon, along with bomb-pumped X-ray lasers. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Singlesexing[edit]

There are many things that are single sex, from washrooms to schools. Guys go to bars looking for it. There is no mention of these terms at the target. Legacypac (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete many possible meanings per nom. Johnbod (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D8 "obscure synonym", see also #Unisexy, above. Si Trew (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

DWLC-TV (Studio 23 Laoag)[edit]

Deleteper WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_19#DWAS-TV. Si Trew (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Piatkus Books[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 fixed by Salavat (non-admin closure) Legacypac (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete both. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Si Trew (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The target page has been changed to Little, Brown Book Group (the correct Little, Brown company) which mentions that "Piatkus" is an imprint of the company. As a result their should be no more confusion. Salavat (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2015 (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.

ATOM Books[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 fixed by Salavat (non-admin closure) Legacypac (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Si Trew (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The target page has been changed to Little, Brown Book Group (the correct Little, Brown company) which mentions that "ATOM Books" is an imprint of the company. As a result their should be no more confusion. Salavat (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2015 (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.

Central bell panel[edit]

The "see also" section of Doorbell article includes "Central bell panel", which redirects to Doorbell article in a loop. Central bell panel is not the same as a Doorbell - a Central bell panel refers to the 18th-19th century servant-calling bell systems. There is an article for Bell pull which links to a main article of "Central bell panel", but that just redirects to Doorbell. 206.196.184.98 (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Stubbify as you have already explained it, why not stub up an article here? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I don't know how! I'm a N00b at wiki, and it's past midnight where I live. My roommate's bugging me to go to sleep. Just hoping someone else can help. Thanks and sorry!! 206.196.184.98 (talk)
      • You press the edit button at the top of the page, near the title, and add information, and then at the end add {{stub}} ; And then you press save page at the bottom of the edit window -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget. to Control panel (engineering) although there is not much control over them, at least by the observer/listener; we don't have a separate article for indicator panel, nor slave panel nor slave indicator (the slave being the device, not the person using it – I think).
Though I could probably stub that, with RS from the Trew Mobile Woodware Library, to be more than merely a definition, e.g. to discuss ergonomic ("human factors engineering") aspects of layout and so on. Si Trew (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Japanese wood-block printings[edit]

See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_19#Print_making_in_Japan, yesterday.

  • Delete all per WP:MADEUP, WP:RFD#D8 "obscure synonym". Printings is not a word. No internal links beyond this discussion; stats are <1 a day. Si Trew (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all ^^^^ what Simon said. various kinds of block can be used for print making, not only wood but steel, rubber etc Legacypac (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all Plausible mistakes; most people are unclear as to the terminology of printmaking, which has already resulted in a regrettable batch of deletions I saw too late. "Printings" of course is a word, as in "His book went through many printings", as here. Johnbod (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
If you want to recreate something you can, but someone relisted the last batch. They still need to be deleted, since there are many ways to make a print as shown at printmaking and the Japanese are not restricted to wood blocks. Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
See that discussion! Johnbod (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I'll qualify mine: "printings" might be an (IMO ugly) synonym for print run ( → Edition_(book)#Print_run), but that is not the sense meant here, which refers to the process, not the result.
It's a perfectly normal plural, the singular is a near-synonym, though at least in the printing industry they are not interchangeable. A print-run always comes with a quantity. Johnbod (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm quite au fait with print trade jargon; I've worked for various branches on and off for many years. We have Impression (publishing) to the same target, for example; but not printings, and that's not at the target. You're assuming (I think: I don't want to put words in your mouth) that "printing" is OK as a (countable) noun, whereas I was saying no, it is only a verb. So I chucked "ten printings" into gsearch and indeed it is used in the sense of a countable noun in RS. I am still not sure it applies beyond the book trade. Si Trew (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
We also have an anomaly in that wood-block print → woodcut (18 redirects) whereas woodblock print (and most others derived from "wood", "block" and "print") → woodblock printing (16 redirects). Si Trew (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I've raised that separately at #Wood-block print, above. Si Trew (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Now only 14 redirects - 2 with "woodcut" in the title should obviously go there, and now do. Johnbod (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Those being Woodcut printing andf woodcut printing. (I checked.) There's nothing wrong with the quantity of redirects: I mentioned them because the Japanese target on its own has several times more, and "woodcut" and "wood-block printing" gets by with far fewer, and most of them quite uncontroversial.
I've added {{R to section}} to those that are thus. I note Color woodcut is to a section (and I've added a category as such) but Coloured woodcut and Colored woodcut are not; Colour woodcut is red. Si Trew (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Nug nug[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 SNOW CLOSE and Retargeted (non-admin close) Legacypac (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense redirect. Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2015 (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.

Cooking gas[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retarget Discussion lead to retarget to fuel gas. (non-admin close) Legacypac (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Cooking gas isn't always natural gas. For camping, for example, it's usually propane, and butane I think is used sometimes as well. There isn't just one cooking gas, but I can't off-hand think of a better target. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Coal gas (← town gas) and liquefied petroleum gas (← LPG cooking gas) too. Basically, any gaseous hydrocarbon (which article doesn't meantion cooking or anything related). I couldn't find a good target either. Si Trew (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Set-indexify create a set index for the most commonly used gases for cooking (propane, butane, methane, ethane, natural gas, biogas, coal gas) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll support that, if you're volunteering. You forgot LPG. Si Trew (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't try cooking with that, you'll blow yourself up! Johnbod (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as no alternative adequate redirect Johnbod (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Index per 70.51. Don't forget white gas. I can see this being a search for the gas commonly used in household gas cooking appliances, which is (I think always) natural gas. As far as I know it's the only gas delivered directly to households as a utility, whereas the others are sold in portable containers or delivered individually by tankers (i.e. propane heating gas). But it was just created yesterday, so at best I'd say natural gas should have a position of prominence in the proposed set index. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 08:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    • In rural areas, propane is used the same way natural gas is used in urban areas, except periodically delivered by truck. Most natural gas appliances can be converted to propane use, either by the dealer or by purchasing a kit. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, not delivered by pipeline is what I meant. It's also possible to do that conversion in reverse on a propane appliance, if natural gas service is available. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
When North Sea gas came into the UK in the 1970s, they just changed the burners on the top of the stoves, cos natural gas was about twice the calorific value of town gas. Saved having to change the meters etc, they just doubled the cost of a British Thermal Unit (according to the meter) and knocked down the output when it mattered. (And of course, had to change if the meter couldn't cope with the higher pressure). Si Trew (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
FYI propane is delivered in pipes just like natural gas in some towns that lack access to the natural gas distribution system. For example [7] Legacypac (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete unless index/list is written. —Kusma (t·c) 10:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:JUSTDOIT then. The normal way is for someone to do a Draft:Cooking gas or put it similar under the R. I will do that, but as a DAB, cos I can't be bothered to look up whatg should and should not be in a set index, and someone else can do the work to knock it into that (perhaps 70.51.... :) ) Si Trew (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to fuel gas. Si Trew (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to fuel gas per Si Trew, that's a better target and basically already is a set index. It could be expanded if anyone wants to. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I've made a draft DAB (at Draft:Cooking gas), but I'm inclined to retarget. I only found fuel gas along the way of doing the DAB, or I would have suggested it earlier. Si Trew (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to fuel gas per above discussion. Mangoe (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to fuel gas per above discussion. Good find. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2015 (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.

1987 Lone Star Soccer Alliance[edit]

These redirects imply details on that respective season, but there's nothing of note at the article save for a list of league champions. Someone searching for a specific season would end up disappointed by getting nothing but a general overview of the league. Delete per WP:R#D2. -- Tavix (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment. These seem to have become R's as a result of a merge decision at a deletion discussion here (March 2015). Two real uses, in articles Tony Bono and Richard Benigno. Si Trew (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for double checking the links. They have been fixed now. Also, the decision was redirect, not merge. -- Tavix (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - not needed. GiantSnowman 12:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Mickeyland[edit]

Delete, why Orlando and not Anaheim? My search also found a clothing company by this name. -- Tavix (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete City does not equal amusement park. Also, Disneyworld is technically in, umm, some non-Orlando city in Florida (Buena Vista?) That said, Disneyland might be a reasonable target. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Ireland.sorry, was taking the mick Si Trew (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The clothing shop in Toronto seems to be out of business. Is this an alternate name for Disneyland? It's not coming up in my search results as though it is. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete; even if it means Disneyland it could easily mean any of Disneyland (disambiguation). —Kusma (t·c) 15:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Disneyland and maybe (probably not) throw in a hatnote to Mickey (mostly because I think it would be amusing to have "Mickeyland" redirects here at the top of that article). --NYKevin 18:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.[edit]

Is there any value to redirects that differ only by a period or comma? Note there are other redirects with extended versions of the name too. Legacypac (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment they all fail WP:NCCORP anyway, but I'm constantly told that does not apply to redirects, even though presumably one intent of that policy is to prevent needless clutter with the legal form of the name. I dare you to look at the R's for Little, Brown and Company. Si Trew (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, frankly I see no problem here. Plausible redirects, as Rowman & Littlefield is often referred to with this extended name (including all the minor variations). I see no benefit in deleting these legitimate redirects, and for the record my comment is probably consuming more bytes than these redirects do. Cavarrone 13:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. These are all plausible. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Tap-riz[edit]

strange misspelling. Legacypac (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment it's a proposed Pahlavi language etymology for the city's name [8], though it's not mentioned on the target now (not sure if it was in the past) and I don't know whether more recent sources have deemed this theory plausible or implausible. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Refine to Tabriz#Etymology. This etymology was mentioned & reliably-sourced (e.g. to Britannica) on the target back when the redirect was created in 2007. It was removed in 2011 by an anonymous editor who did not give any reasons for the removal and who also deleted other content from the article without explanation. Someone later reverted one of that anon's edits, but not the anon's previous edits. I'm assuming that was an error, and I've restored the etymology section. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Refine per 210.6. Thanks for restoring it; also I didnt't know about Special:Diff, so I learned something. (there's also {{diff}} but I don't see what practical advantage that has over just pasting the URL.) Si Trew (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thamus[edit]

We don't seem to have an article on this person, but maybe should. The redirect just points to a mention of him. He is not Knowledge. Delete to encourage article creation Legacypac (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That is where the character seems to come from (unclear if he was a real person or not) Legacypac (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

America's top hat[edit]

Delete, joke redirect that doesn't get much use. -- Tavix (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete no purpose. Canada is better then a top hat for the US. Legacypac (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, though I found it humorous.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete not discussed on target, nor should it be per Wp:WEIGHT. It also doesn't seem possible to add encyclopedic content about this nickname anywhere else either (e.g. Canada–United States relations), since the the tiny number of reliable sources which mention the nickname [9][10] don't do any analysis of it, meaning the only things you could really say would be either Wp:OR or Wp:TRIVIA. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete amusing joke but unlikely synonym --Lenticel (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I used it myself just yesterday, but indeed there is no content supporting it at the target, nor at 51st state#Canada where America's Hat redirects. Not useful, then. Ivanvector 🎩 (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: 🎩 - Face-grin.svg —Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, per the opinions stated above. It's time to bring out the WP:SNOW plow. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

November 19[edit]

Break-brake distinction[edit]

ll redirect to phonological change. They should be deleted. Not mentioned in the article. Look like a bunch of made up names. 2602:306:3653:8920:C98:897E:434B:84FC (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete I assume they are talking about linguistic mergers but these are not important. Legacypac (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. RightGot (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete the ones which do not appear in any reliable sources, with the caveat that the ones are shown to appear in reliable sources (maybe Hull-hall merger, for example [11]) should be split from this nomination to discuss whether we could add sourced content about them somewhere else. (They certainly don't belong on the current target, which is supposed to be an overview of phonological change in all languages and not a list of changes occurring in individual dialects). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Roisterously[edit]

Misleading. Roister means enjoy oneself or celebrate in a noisy or boisterous way. Riot means 1. a wild or turbulent disturbance created by a large number of people. 2. Law A violent disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled... Roist is not really a word. I thought boisterous but no such article. Delete to encourage article creation, with maybe the less complex ones pointed at party. Another from Neelix Legacypac (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • retarget ALL to Party; though I'd be happy to see roisterously deleted, because the only things I can find are (proper) dictionary defintions; I'm not sure we should have "roisterer(s)" when we don't have partygoer (whether spaced, hyphenated or pluralised). What we shouldn't do is take them to different targets, that's just confusing.
Amazingly we don't have roisterousness. As usual I've rcatted them, without prejudice, as R from verb etc. Si Trew (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all Wiktionary defines the term as "To engage in noisy, drunken, or riotous behavior" or "To walk with a swaying motion". While these could refer to parties or riots I don't think either is unambiguous. Possibly Roister could be a soft redirect to the Wiktionary page. Hut 8.5 11:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • delete all The current linkage is obviously wrong and per WP:NOTDICT I don't see what else we could do with the word. Mangoe (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague since the term may vaguely pertain to other events aside from riots --Lenticel (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

To prefer[edit]

Very vague. The target has these meanings, but you can carry over a plate, carry over a motion etc. Same for the other terms which do not apply only or even especially to this church office. Legacypac (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. The target does not have these meanings, since it's a noun (rightly) and not a verb (wrongly); there's no way that "a prelate" is "a set above". All kinds of WP:TITLE problems here which apparently don't apply to redirects, but in the meantime I'll mark them as {{R from verb}}. Si Trew (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I think these have just been scraped from the etymology in the lede, which often gives incongrous redirects since several things can share the same etymology. F'rexample, we could retarget to prefer to preference; but why do so, when patently we have survived without that until now? Si Trew (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all these make no sense. "To prefer" would be preference; all the "over" ones could be referring to promotion or placement, etc; carrying also has several other uses. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Dialytika tonos[edit]

This is a transcription of the Greek word for the diaeresis (διαλυτικά, dialytika) and the Greek word for the accent (τόνος, tonos). I cannot see the point of having these two words together in a page's title but, if they are to be kept, it would make a little more sense if they redirected to Greek diacritics. The Traditionalist (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Unicode uses this name for this combination of diacritics; e.g. U+0385 ΅ greek dialytika tonos. ΅ redirects to Greek diacritics, so retarget there. Gorobay (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Gorobay. We also have Greek orthography, and indeed the first sentence of Greek diacritics actually starts with a link to that, somewhat bizarrely: but it looks like there have been merger discussions before. Si Trew (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm Boring[edit]

Redirect doesn't make any sense. FallingGravity (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D3 (only exists to disparage its target) - didn't link to the guideline page because it crashed my computer. Not a BLP so not G10. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target; and maybe per WP:REDLINK. Apparently it's a song by The Lovebugs, but I don't know if even the band is notable, let alone the song. It's also the title of a number of poems on various websites. Yawwn... Si Trew (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment actually we have Lovebugs (band) but I'm not sure it's the same band; certainly a song of this title isn't mentioned there. Si Trew (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing. AS for SiTrew's Lovebug angle, it seems that they did have a song with this name under their album "Tart" --Lenticel (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Antoneta Stefanova[edit]

"Antoneta" is a typo, her first name is Antoaneta, as her FIDE page (http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=2902257) and all the chess websites and magazines report. Sophia91 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep and tag as {{R from typo}}. It's a misspelling, but a plausible one. Sideways713 (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as {{R from misspelling}} or {{R from typo}}, which currently redirects to it. Si Trew (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as WP:RFD#K3, likely search term. This spelling seems to be used by quite a few chess websites and news agencies, e.g. here:
The second is perhaps more relevant (to RfD) in that it is a Bulgarian publication making this transliteration. Tag as {{R from transliteration}}. Si Trew (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It's a misspelling, not a valid alternative transliteration. You'll find your Bulgarian source correctly spells it "Antoaneta" twice in that article; the one appearance of "Antoneta" is just a typo. It does demonstrate it's a plausible typo and a likely search term, though. Sideways713 (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Also the French article correctly spells "Antoaneta", the typo is only in the title. I follow almost everyday the leading chess news websites, which are ChessBase, Chessdom, Chess.com, chess24, and none of them ever spelled "Antoneta". In Wikipedia there were only two articles that wrongly spelled "Antoneta" and I fixed the typo in both articles, so now there are no wiki articles with "Antoneta Stefanova", there is no reason to keep this misspelled name. In addition, all the online chess games databases spell her name as "Antoaneta Stefanova". Sophia91 (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Male Escort Awards[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Delete. Clearly mistargeted. The target page describes the relevant award as first given out in 2006, but the only reference to the "Male Escort Award" refers to it being awarded in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. Two different non-notable awards with similar generic names given out by two different organizations. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Why do you want to retarget the redirect to the (nonnotable) award that we have established it's not? The ostensible target is an award created in 2006. The only pages that refers to the "Male Escort Award", Aaron Lawrence, refers to awards given out between 1999 and 2002. Why make a redirect point to a demonstrably incorrect target? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as this seems like more trouble than it's worth. If the awards become notable, they can be created as an article. -- Tavix (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 18:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (reply to Hullaballoo): I don't see how it's demonstrably incorrect, it's just a variation on a name for something which we have content about, and at the moment we only have one thing that could match. It's not much content, but someone coming to Wikipedia searching for male escort awards won't find anything else because it's not there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Orthopedic[edit]

WP:XY, a solution seems needed. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't think so, orthopedics refers specifically to the field of surgery. These are somewhat incorrect but I don't know what else they could refer to. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. "Orthopedic" can refer to nonsurgical treatments such as Orthopedic shoes, and I've seen it used to refer to prosthetic limbs. It's not only a term for surgery. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Also Orthopedic nursing. But Musculoskeletal disorder is the range of things anything orthopedic treats, so a reasonable target. Not a very good article though, and doesn't link to any "Ortho..."s. So maybe disam it. Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I've added three plural forms; I suspect they should all point to the same place. --BDD (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Print making in Japan[edit]

Too vague. Lots of things get printed in Japan without wood blocks Legacypac (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all per nominator. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Relist note - the pages listed above were deleted by Beeblebrox with the comment "garbage redirects created by Neelix". Those deletions were overturned at WP:AN. See below. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Nyttend, you restored these, with the comment "Do you know what printmaking is? This is not simple printing". That's true, but printmaking is certainly more than woodblock printing. Could you clarify your intent here, perhaps reopening this discussion and voting if desired? --BDD (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
In Japan, until after about 1870, printmaking was just woodblock printing, and it is only Japanese woodblock prints that are famous in the West - ukiyo-e, The Great Wave off Kanagawa etc. Johnbod (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep with a possible "{{Redirect with possibilities}} if it can be shown that there is material for an article on alternative techniques (in Japan). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC).
  • Comment The editor that challanged this said I don't know the difference between printing and printmaking which is incorrect. There are all kinds of printmaking and none of them are particularly specific to Japan. If there is something special in Japan it can have an article, but none of these terms would be the title. I also encourage people to look at all the redirects pointed at the target - there are lots - these being the most vague. Legacypac (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I was just going by what you said. It is certainly untrue that "none of them are particularly specific to Japan" - this one is. Johnbod (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all - There is no need to wait to be "shown" that there are alternative techniques in use in Japan. Printmaking is very big business there, and the ancient woodblock methods are not exactly the only game in town. Google it, or at least check the modern professionals' pages at Category:Japanese printmakers. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, without looking at them all, I see only a couple of those using other techniques in Category:Japanese printmakers. We have many articles on individual Japanese prints and series, but all woodblock as far as I can see. Art of Japan currently has nothing on any other techniques (I'm not saying that's appropriate, but it is the current position). 1850 (for example) is not "ancient". Johnbod (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Nearly every artist in that category also works/worked in oils, watercolors, etc. Among the modern professionals, some have no connection to woodblock at all. Museums may celebrate this ancient antique form most often, but no matter how well known it is, contemporary art trends matter too. It seems parochial, or at least weirdly quaint, to redirect inquiries on Japanese printmaking to this single traditional style, SteveStrummer (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
But we have a vast amount on that, and nothing outside bios on other techniques in Japan. So there is really nowhere else to send them, but (see below) they are rather commonly used. How does deleting them help? The only Japanese printmaker in other techniques at all well known in the West is Tsuguharu Foujita who spent decades in France. "Nearly every artist in that category also works/worked in oils, watercolors, etc." is not true - most are "antique" (as you put it) woodblock guys, with 129 in the relevant subcats, several repeated in the main category. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Inquiries made into basic printmaking can quickly and easily yield information on the Japanese scene. Deleting these canned redirects would help by preventing a false equation between traditional woodcut styles and the wider, more nuanced business of modern printmaking. SteveStrummer (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing at printmaking on other Japanese work. Frankly, as the hits on modern printmakers' bios show, the vast majority of our readers are interested in the historic, famous, woodblock tradition. Redirects are there to help the reader, not promote our own agendas. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Agendas? Really? That's where you think your opposition comes from... on "Printmaking in Japan"?? SteveStrummer (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. At Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_20#Japanese_wood-block_printings, the next day's listing, I've listed some others to the same target (those ending in "printings"). Si Trew (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all Woodblock prints are the big, famous Japanese technique in printmaking, exclusively the one used by Hokusai and other famous masters, though of course in the last 150 years other techniques have come in from the West. As we have no general article on Japanese printmaking, this is the best destination. At the same time, the average person is unlikely to know to start their search term with "Woodblock printing", though this is technically correct. The article title has to be that specific, as there are indeed other techniques in modern use, as yet uncovered by WP, except in a few bios. The number of redirects is largely accounted for by providing for the very common variation between "printmaking", "print-making" and "print making" etc. The first 3, variants of "Printmaking in Japan", got 31+31+34 hits in the last 30 days, certainly enough to justify keeping them. "Japanese print" got 54. I haven't checked the rest. Johnbod (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all a Westerner who is not familiar with the term "woodblock printing" and is looking for the target article is likely to use one of these phrases or something similar. Certainly searching Google for Japanese printmaking turns up references almost exclusively about woodblock printing. Hut 8.5 11:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all per User:Johnbod, who is obviously up on the subtle distinction here between a wood-block print and a woodblock print. We don't have spurious Rs to incorrect ones with these Japanese ones, even though it may seem so at first sight. The " maker" and "making" ones are redundant, but harmless. Marking as {{R with possiblities}} would be futile, since there really aren't that many possibilites for a printmaker that are not covered in the target already. Si Trew (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all - there are multiple types of print making in Japan, not just woodblock. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per SteveStrummer: Deleting these canned redirects would help by preventing a false equation between traditional woodcut styles and the wider, more nuanced business of modern printmaking. The arguments made for keeping these redirects are highly presumptuous.  — Scott • talk 21:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

DWAS-TV[edit]

No mention of "DWAS" on target page. DWAS-TV (GMA) seems to be only usage for "DWAS". PamD 17:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget there unless better info found. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC).
  • Move DWAS-TV (GMA) over this. I think there may have been a mistake or typo because Studio 23 and DWAC-TV were affiliated, according to both their articles; repeat that's DWAC not DWAS.
DWAS-TV (GMA) started life on 4 December 2011 as being moved from DWAS-TV, it was then moved to DWAS-TV (Studio 23 Olongapo) on 4 December 2011 by User:Izzami and then moved to DWAS-TV (Studio 23) on 28 December 2011 by same user, who also moved that day to its current target, DWAS-TV (GMA), leaving all these redirects in its wake.
I realise this is a move request. We could just retarget it to DWAS-TV (GMA), but then really we'd need a requested move to reverse the redirect (as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}), and that's just WP:BURO. Also, I don't want to open a RM until we have consensus here that it is indeed just a confusion between DWAC-TV and DWAS-TV. (I'm certainly confused.) Si Trew (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Singlelevelers[edit]

This was declined for speedy so here it is. Searches find absolutely nothing for "Singlelevelers" (10 meaningless results for me) or Single Levelers (under 500 meaningless results). In fact, the delete nomination was the closest match for me the first time I searched without quotes. Purely invented term that does not match the target or anything else. I think we better spend a week on this to make sure we completely exhaust the topic to everyone's total satisfaction. Legacypac (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

band name has 3 Ls, and this is a fake word about as useful as tfdtkdckckf Legacypac (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a plausible search term. The retarget idea is clever, but also implausible. -- Tavix (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment single-levelling also leads to levelling and is described there -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
That is correct, but that is a process not an invented noun. Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sir Hart Davis[edit]

Delete. The title "Sir" is never used with just a surname. See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_18#Sir Rupert Charles. Si Trew (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - a plausible error. You are correct that "The title "Sir" is never used with just a surname", but many, especially non-Brits, think otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - plausible error, per Johnbod. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. People will use his name. We don't do redirects for Mr Smith Legacypac (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Slow Blind Driveway[edit]

No relevance on target page. Nothing on John Gorka mentions this as a pseudonym. Name has a history as a former longstanding hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep the name is one Gorka coined for himself [12] and billed as that [13]. There's no harm in keeping the redirect. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I even put a ref in the redirect… All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC).

Hunks[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) 05:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I doubt many people are thinking of this film when they think of Hunks. A WP:SURPRISE result. Legacypac (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Done and Withdraw Legacypac (talk) 04:34, 19 November 2015 (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.

Functions of human resource management[edit]

Not a likely redirect. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - I've seen this before, and if I recall correctly right about this time of year too. New users creating accounts duplicating existing HR topics, with titles like "functions of x" or "applications for x". I'd link to the discussion about it if I could remember where it was, but I think DGG was also involved. Anyway, human resource management is a corporate function so the title structure is redundant. Unlikely to be searched. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I have to agree in general that "Functions of X" or "Applications of X" are unlikely redirects for "X" -- it would be more natural to just type "X". ubiquity (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep OTOH this is harmless and prevents recreation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC).
  • Keep, I don't see any problems with this. The article describes functions of human resource management. -- Tavix (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Red aspect[edit]

As best as I can see he invented this term from some of the meanings of the mountain's name. The term seems more closely related to signal lights, but I suggest delete as confusing and let someone recreate if useful. Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems to have applications in traffic lights too. Legacypac (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment we don't have Yellow aspect nor Green aspect nor White aspect. Si Trew (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
We could, though, that usage unambiguously refers to railway signalling. And as far as I understand it (not very well) railway signals are never referred to as "red light" "green light" etc, the signal is referred to as displaying a particular aspect, which is often combinations of different coloured lights, so hatnoting from red light isn't quite proper. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but we do often put these kind of things in a "see also" section; those outside the railway industry ) may not use that term (from my statisitical sample of 1, I should say "red signal" is more common, but Red signal is, er, red and Red Signal is a stub article about a 1941(?!) Bollywood film. A "green aspect" apparently is sometimes used to mean consideration for the natural environment, but not enough to deserve anything on Wikipedia (or even Wiktionary) about it. I presume the reason for "aspect" is that it's not necessarily a light source (could be a railway semaphore signal). Si Trew (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes I believe that's correct, and I see your point about having this in a see-also section. Railway signalling is considerably more complicated than just stop and go, that's my concern, but I guess we're not here to educate users on how to drive a train. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Railway signalling does that more than Railway signal, so perhaps perversely I change my mind:

My Rock is God[edit]

These are meanings of alternative versions of the angel's name, but there are plenty more applications for these phrases, including Bible verses and songs. Not a normal way to access this information and not what I would expect to find at the search term. Legacypac (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Consider creating dab pages. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC).
  • Delete - I can't see these being useful dab pages as there are no articles with variations of those titles. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or disambiguate WP:BIAS IslamoJudeoChristian bias. There are other topics out there -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague. It does no good to suggest a disambiguation just hoping other topics are out there. Show me another Wikipedia article called "My Rock is God". -- Tavix (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
A search gives me Finlandia Hymn as close, but that's the proof of a delete pudding. Si Trew (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Evening of God[edit]

Incorrect, various languages, created to build edit and page creation count. Legacypac (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Incorrect - please explain how each one is incorrect.
  • Various languages - I think we can see that.
  • Created ... - please lay off the personal attacks.
  • Please inform the creators of these redirects.
  • Keep any that are old, any that are mentioned in the target — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Farmbrough (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I do inform, at least once per batch anyway, which gives a link to the discussion. Legacypac (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Evening of God (not mentioned at target), keep the others as valid alternative names mentioned in the article. Someone who knows better should check that the characters used here match the article, I can't at the moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know Hebrew alphabet but I checked just by copy-pasting into my Find bar on Firefox. Râmêêl is present. Of the other alphabets, the first one "דעמאנל" is not in there that I can find, second Hebrew one "רעמאנל" is (Aramaic), third "רעמיאל" is (Hebrew), fourth "‘Ραμιήλ" (Greek) is. These can probably stay as {{R from other language}} as they are in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE of the target; As usual without prejudice I'll marked as such. The first (missing) one differs from the second (present) one in the first (rightmost) character, "ד" (Dalet) vs. "ר" (Resh). Dalet#Significance says it is used to represent the Names of God in Judaism. I'm just reporting what I found from Wikipeda in case others have trouble with rendering etc; I don't know the rights and wrongs of this. It's certainly it's not easy doing bidirectional text editing! Si Trew (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all - this is seriously a stretch to think we need Hebrew names as redirects —МандичкаYO 😜 09:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
If they're mentioned in the target they might be useful, and these are defined at the top of the lede. But none seems to be present on Hebrew Wikipedia, nor the target have an Interwiki link thence. Si Trew (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or disambiguate "of God" WP:BIAS this isn't the JudeoChristian Wikipedia, there are other relgiions out there -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep the Hebrew and Greek redirects per WP:RFOREIGN. -- Tavix (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep the foreign-language redirects (including Râmêêl per WP:RFOREIGN, with the possible exception of דעמאנל which is not at the target. Delete the others as WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:XY. Si Trew (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Fierce lion[edit]

Another list of messed up meanings of a name. Legacypac (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all - "fierce lion" is mentioned at the target, but I agree it's unlikely someone would search this anticipating finding information about one name that has this meaning. I'm sure there are many, many other names that mean this in many other languages. As for the "lion-like" variations, they're guesses at a similar meaning and not mentioned at the target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom —МандичкаYO 😜 06:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or Retarget Lion-like/etc to Lion , since this current target clearly isn't correct. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Delete Fierce lion WP:NOTDIC; and there are other topics on fierce lions out there -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete "Fierce lion" as vague while Retarget the rest to Leonine, a synonym to "lion-like" --Lenticel (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete/Retarget per Lenticel, whom I shall follow like an ovine. Si Trew (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Birth of God[edit]

Blasphemy. There is a big difference between "the birth of the gods" and The birth of God (the one God who was and is and is to come). Legacypac (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Retarget per 70.51. I've put a {{redirect}} hatnote on Evolutionary origin of religions, to which Origin of religion redirects. I ain't joining that fight. Si Trew (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Bir' as-Sabi[edit]

phonetic pronunciation only of the Arabic version of the name. Inappropriate redirect to a town that has a well recognized name in English. Legacypac (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep not harmful. I wouldn't encourage creation of this, but it's more overhead to delete than keep, and about a thousand times more overhead to nominate for deletion than to keep. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC).
  • Keep per WP:RFOREIGN - some foreign language redirects are useful, including foreign language phonetic redirects. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is not the correct foreign transliteration - Arabic would be ‎Bir' as-Sabe‎ or Bir' as-Sab OR possibly Bir as-Sabi‍ '​. This exact combo appears to be very uncommon and possibly an invention by the creator. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
There's really no mystery behind most of Neelix's redirects. At the time this one was created, this exact transliteration appeared in the lede. So at least one other person used this transliteration at some point. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
There are some common patterns (bad derivations from etymologies, for example, and verbing parts of speech that won't stand the treatment). Not all fall into that pattern; some are useful, but the user may occasionally have got a little carried away with adverbialisationalness.. Si Trew (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Sir Rupert Charles[edit]

There is no evidence this man went by his middle name and last name, or Sir First and Middle names or the other tossed salad combos here. Delete as nonsense Neelix redirects — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 19 November 2015 00:50 (UTC)

Light of God[edit]

Incorrect contrived Hebrew meanings to names. Not useful search terms as too vague. Someone reading the article might like to know the meaning of the name, but not useful in the reverse. Like another group nominated earlier. Legacypac (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Chiineses[edit]

Too many typos to be plausible. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 00:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RTYPO, clearly implausible. Stats back this up, only 12 hits in the last 60 days. -- Tavix (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep 12 hits in 60 days shows that it's not that implausible after all. Neither new nor harmful, so it's a keep. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC).
  • Delete - 12 hits in 60 days is below utility level. Bots, webcrawlers, etc. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Ivanvector@ SO I believed until I started finding pages with 0 hits. But perhaps they were anomalies. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC).
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D8 " novel or very obscure synonym". The hit count of 12⁄60 includes an unremarkable recent spike; it's only 15⁄90 also including that spike, and 7⁄60 excluding it (60 days to 31 October). No internal links outside this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as silliness. The 12 hits are meaningless as they likely come from the ANI thread, the ongoing review of N.-created redirects, and/or this discussion. Expending a week's time in discussing redirects such as these is neither necessary nor desirable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    • The majority of them are from before the current little local difficulty. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC).
A paper-thin majority of 7 to 5, according to my counting: and that's being generous with a couple of "spikes"(to two a day!) at the end of October. Si Trew (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I tried to Speedy this but was reverted by another non-admin, who complained about my speedy at ANi in an attempt to restrict my ability to use CSD, so Delete. Legacypac (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, that's a pity. It seemed to me that the balance between deleting the obvious without fuss, and bringing others to RfD for forensic examination, had settled about where it should be. Si Trew (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Note that not all instances of page views are actual human beings doing actual searches. From time to time, Wikipedia pages get pinged by web crawlers. bd2412 T 13:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

November 18[edit]

Zwolf[edit]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC, Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. "Zwölf" is German for "twelve." -- Tavix (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC, WP:RFOREIGN. "Twelve" is not especially German, and we shouldn't have Wiktionary redirects from foreign language words. I don't really like Wiktionary redirects at all, but from a foreign language is just schlecht. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete non-English word, therefore not a suitable Wiktionary softredirect -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - redirects to wiktionary?! will the Neelix wonders never cease? —МандичкаYO 😜 10:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: This redirect wasn't created by Neelix... -- Tavix (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Oops, it was so silly I assumed. Thanks, struck. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix, Ivanvector, and 70.51.44.60. WP:RFOREIGN.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete we did have a Neelix redirect to dozen from another language though. Legacypac (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Bishop Albert[edit]

This are, as you can check, many Father or Bishop George ____ in history. Google thinks I was looking for Father George Coyne and put him on the right. Like Lord Edward we don't need a DAB page either. Bishop first and middle name is even weirder. Legacypac (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete there are several Bishops Albert and many Fathers George -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Verenigde State[edit]

Previous RfDs for this redirect:

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN because the United States has no affinity with Afrikaans. There was a previous discussion that was kept because people thought this was German, but compare the German de:Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika with the Afrikaans: af:Verenigde State van Amerika. -- Tavix (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN regardless of whether or not it's German. There are Germans in the United States, but the USA is not an especially German topic. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC) (also not especially Afrikaans; same rationale)
Comment. I'm not trying to shit-stir here but draw a line: what if it were Pennsylvania Dutch? Si Trew (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I thought about that, I don't think you're trying to stir anything. I don't think that the language of one group of people who happened to settle in a country makes a particularly strong case under WP:RFOREIGN, otherwise we could reasonably create an RFOREIGN redirect to USA from almost any extant language. I think it should be limited to languages of people who have had a notable and significant influence in United States history. I think that Germans did not although Pennsylvania Dutch probably did; Afrikaans speakers really didn't. However I'm not entirely convinced on this point. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The White Dog Cafe[edit]

It's not clear that the article will be deleted at AfD, but the business does not call itself "The White Dog Cafe" so we should not be adding "The" in front anymore then we should create redirects for The McDonalds or The Burger King (which is a character, not the chain that owns him). Legacypac (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep, perfectly plausible search term. -- Tavix (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep unless - "the" is fine here, many of the sources provided refer to it as "the White Dog Cafe" or "the White Dog". It's superfluous and clearly not part of the proper name, but it makes a valid and plausible search. Unless the target gets deleted, then obviously WP:G8. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as a plausible synonym although "The White Dog" is a more appropriate redirect. There's a reason that Adjective Animal Alehouse is a trope --Lenticel (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment we have White Dog Café to same target, but not The White Dog Café. As far as I can see, it shouldn't have the acute accent, so I've marked that one as {{R from incorrect name}}. (It's used that way in one reference.) I don't think that one should be {{R from title with diacritics}} since that implies it is correct. I realise that R is not (formally) part of this discussion, but bring it to your attention. Si Trew (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
There are actually three The White Dog Cafe. See http://www.whitedog.com/ Legacypac (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously necessary. People and journalists commonly add a "the" when discussing the restaurant, and the accent is common on the word cafe. Softlavender (talk) 10:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - THE makes no difference in search! —МандичкаYO 😜 14:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
True, but there's no need to leave readers with search results if we know the topic they're looking for. --BDD (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

John Porter (horses)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete, nonsense disambiguation; implies "John Porter" was the name of horses. -- Tavix (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - well, it already has a valid G7 tag on it (thanks Rubbish computer) otherwise I was going to say it's probably harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know about that. It could be John Porter Stakes. -- Tavix (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. Well then it's ambiguous disambiguation, "horses" could refer to either target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2015 (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.

Blank card[edit]

I think in this context, a "blank card" would be a Joker (playing card), but it could also refer to other things. -- Tavix (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - I don't see any evidence of a joker being called a "blank card" at any time. Rather than being blank, the joker is often the most elaborately-decorated card in the deck, maybe except for the ace of spades. I didn't see that this is one of the Tarot cards either, nor anything else that I could find. I see online lots of sites selling blank cards for various games, but that's not really a notable usage. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I think you're right actually. I saw "blank card" in the article without actually reading it, and blank card in that context refers to something else. A little back story: I had always thought that Jokers had originated as an extra card that was thrown in to be used as a replacement in case you lost one. Hence "blank card" because it could be anything. I remember coming across a deck once where someone had sharpied over a Joker because they lost one of their cards and were too cheap to buy a new one. Turns out, that's not how they originated... -- Tavix (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Blackishblue[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

More made up words Legacypac (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2015 (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.

HP[edit]

Does HP now always mean HP Inc. now that the company has been split? (e.g. is it the WP:PTOPIC with respect to usage?) Shouldn't it point to Hewlett-Packard instead as that was how it always has been since the beginning of Wikipedia? (e.g. is it the WP:PTOPIC with respect to long-term significance?) <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Defer - there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus yet that HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise should be separate articles just because of a corporate split. Probably this should be left alone until that point is settled. Not endorsing the current target, just saying let's wait. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to HP (disambiguation) now that there are two companies called HP. Also, horsepower. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to HP (disambiguation). For some readers, HP is the name of a condiment. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Move HP (disambiguation) over redirect (it's the same as a retarget to the dab, but satisfies WP:MALPLACED). Even though my search is dominated by the corporation, it's ambiguous (now) whether it is supposed to be Hewlett-Packard, HP Inc., or Hewlett Packard Enterprise. -- Tavix (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Move' DAB page over per Tavix. Unfortunately that's a move request, and although I think we should be able to deal with moves over redirects here at RfD, that is not consensus (is it? I'll be glad to be wrong.) Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Replace with disambiguation page -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - HP is Hewlett Packard, one of the biggest companies in the world; HP sauce is apparently UK only has the important "sauce" in the name —МандичкаYO 😜 10:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
    • There's horsepower, hit points, health points, also, besides HP sauce and Hewlett-Packard; I would say horsepower is even more prominent than all other uses. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • "horsepower" hardly prevalent? I think not, it's much more prevalent than anything else. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Which Hewlett Packard? There's three: the pre-split company, and the two companies they split into (look at my !vote for links). -- Tavix (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Move DAB page per 70.51. shoy (reactions) 14:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to HP (disambiguation). People will search for "HP" even if they meant to look for "HPE."—Best Dog Ever (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Defer & procedural close or Move as temporary fix all retargets above fail WP:MALPLACED so RM is the right venue, this is the wrong venue, hence procedural close. There's only one candidate for the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC which is the status quo. Defer decision on that as current primary topic is OK for now, and allows an RM. I'm restoring the status quo as it's been changed without consensus. Widefox; talk 19:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I propose a WP:DABCONCEPT at the primary topic. Widefox; talk 19:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Why? We already have mature articles on all of these things. DABCONCEPT is for dabs where a primary topic needs to be written about.

Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Huh? HP redirects to a stub HP Inc.. To clarify - the scope of the DABCONCEPT would be the computer company's names - both former and current. Second thoughts just a dab is better and sub-listing the WP:PTM should be OK. Widefox; talk 08:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Move dab over redirect per Tavix - there's valid concern here that the technology company (companies?) is (are?) not the primary topic for "HP". In that case, HP (disambiguation) should be moved over HP since there does not seem to be a significantly primary topic here, and especially less so since the Hewlett-Packard split (both the article and the actual company). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Except that is best handled as a RM, the current target is a problem though, so don't mind a move. Widefox; talk 19:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Probably true, but we've had these discussions here before. If consensus here supports moving, I wouldn't object to listing a requested move at wherever it's supposed to be, as a confirmation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Move the disambiguation page to HP. older ≠ wiser 21:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Over producedly[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Implausibledly constructionedly redirectedly Legacypac (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2015 (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.

Lootergate[edit]

Implausible search term pointing to an article which does not even contain the term. Scjessey (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment It's a real thing and related to Clintons "Lootergate - Bill and especially Hillary started to ship White House furniture to their personal home in Chappaqua, N.Y.. The Clintons claimed they were donated, but at only some were proven to be donated and meant to stay in the White House after contacting the manufacturers. The Clintons returned some of the furniture after pressure was put on them to do so". [16] I expect it could be reliably sourced with some digging based on that result. Legacypac (talk) 17:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • A search of Google News yields very few results indeed. Certainly there is no mainstream media coverage other than mocking the term, it would appear. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Here's a couple of the many results I found:
*Washington Post - "Clintons Began Taking White House Property a Year Ago"
*America Rising - "White House Cutlery Thief: Bill Clinton Jokes About Stealing WH Property"
*ABC News - "Clintons Return White House Furniture" --- Professor JR (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
OK that it be deleted from the Hillary Clinton as it currently exists, as the corresponding 'Lootergate' text to which the redirect referred users was blanked by another editor several weeks ago. If text is restored, however, as suggested above by Legacypac, then redirect link should be retained.--- Professor JR (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete - random terms with 'gate appended aren't particularly notable. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP and WP:REDLINK. If this is a notable scandal (it might be: [17]) then someone should write an article (or any content at all) about it. If it's not and/or until we have content about it, just redirecting to one of the alleged perpetrators of the scandal is a BLP violation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: There was corresponding content previously, but it was blanked by another editor several weeks ago. --- Professor JR (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm good with Delete Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Refuse jurisdiction (speedy close). Whether or not to include the content in Hillary Clinton's article is an unsettled content dispute between two editors, and I see no discussion about it on the talk page. Don't bring content disputes to RfD - settle it first, then determine whether or not there should be a redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not aware of any content dispute. As you said before, this is basically a violation of WP:BLP. Even the creator of this redirect is okay with it being deleted. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm interpreting some comments above and reverts in the page history as indication of an unsettled dispute over whether or not to include content about this controversy in the article. Am I wrong about that? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Professor JR agrees with the deletion of the redirect, but doesn't agree with my rationale. I am not and have never been involved in the content you are referring to, and I'm not sure why that would have any relevance here. It is my understanding from Professor JR that the content you are referring to has not been in the article for "several weeks", which implies stability, does it not? Anyway, since everyone agrees the redirect is no longer necessary, isn't all that rather moot? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
It's relevant because if we're going to restore that content, then the redirect is fine. We routinely keep redirects from non-neutral but common names because they help readers searching for those names find the information they're looking for. If the content is not going to be restored, then the redirect is nonsense because we don't describe what it is. So in my opinion it depends on whether or not that content is going to be restored in Hillary Clinton's article, and it looks to me like that discussion is still happening. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "still happening". From what I can tell, the text in question was added on October 30 by Professor JR, who then created the "lootergate" redirect. It was then removed on November 1 (the following day), which was over two weeks ago, and according to the talk page archives "lootergate" has never been discussed at any time by any editor. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Well fair enough. As the article is currently this redirect is nonsense, so we should delete it. If someone wants to recreate it and re-add the content to the article, then that will be a different issue. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per my previous rationale. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Diane[edit]

Partial-title match, not a common way of referring to the subject. --BDD (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Googling gives pages of matches to Clinton for this string, because it is part of her name and she is famous, but I found a non-notable actress [18] by this name too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 17:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. We've had this since 2007, it's never pointed to anyone else, and there don't seem to be any other notable uses even if it is a partial match. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - nobody in a million years would use this as a search term —МандичкаYO 😜 10:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - implausible search term. We already have [[Hillary Diane Rodham], which should be sufficient. Neutralitytalk 06:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Frencher[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Lots of things are Frencher than other things, especially french people Legacypac (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - likely that the creator thought that taking the English colloqiual verb "to french" (as in French kissing) and tried to make a French verb infinitive out of it, which is just wrong. Unless they did mean "someone who frenches", and in that case it's just wrong. WRONG. Delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:09, 18 November 2015 (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.

Emballer[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't get any English results. Translates from French to English as "Pack" Legacypac (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2015 (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.

Galocher[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a french verb meaning kissing in general. It does not seem to mean "french kissing" but rather "kissing" in french. Not a translation service Legacypac (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2015 (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.

Tongue wrestlers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

the basic term is in use (mostly on Porn sites) but these are silly extended terms. Legacypac (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2015 (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.

Pash (kiss)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

These are just wrong. Pash means a brief infatuation. noun informal dated plural noun: pashes "Kath's got a pash on him" Legacypac (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2015 (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.

Triple headers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Triple headers are not double headers Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - indeed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:04, 18 November 2015 (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.

Bed dancers[edit]

These terms specially mean dancing on a bed, which is NOT lap dancing (a contact dance). The bed is just an alternative to a hard stage. Retarget to ?? Legacypac (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak keep bed dancer - a bed dance is a variant of a lap dance mentioned in the article's lede, and one who performs [bed]lap dances is a [bed]lap dancer. Delete the others - implausible modifications. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the article is wrong. I see bed dancing as closer to pole dancing. Legacypac (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I searched bed dancer and can't verify such a term exists for lap dancing or such an activity as a form of lap dancing. Bed Dance is a film. Urban Dictionary suggests this is just moving around on your bed to music. It could easily be slang for intercourse too. I removed the term bed dance(r)from the target article lead as unsourced. Legacypac (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - bed dancer is just not a term. Even if a lap dance were performed on a bed, it would still be called a lap dance! —МандичкаYO 😜 10:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Monica Lewinsky's ex-husband's wife[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G10. JohnCD (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Apart from anything else, it's inaccurate – Bill was never married to Monica. Smurrayinchester 16:42, 18 November 2015 (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.

Blackishorange[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. as garbage created by User:Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC) ==

Purely invented compound words Legacypac (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all - you can't make a compound colour with black this way. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2015 (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 YWCA Women of Distinction Awards[edit]

Should not have "The" in title. Legacypac (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete the ones that have "Christian" in the name - the agency distances itself from that former affiliation and the POV is not warranted. Keep the others as valid searches, and in particular redirects with "The" in them are perfectly valid. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment "Women of Distinction" without the The is a registered trademark of YWCA Canada. Legacypac (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The National Epic of Finland[edit]

Goes against the rule about "The" in title, especially since this term is not the name of the work of lit Legacypac (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - what rule is there against "the" in a page title? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:THE is a naming convention. It applies to article titles, not redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
surely we don't want to encourage millions of new redirects where we just add The in front of every noun? Legacypac (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
It's commonly argued here that we must delete bad redirects to discourage the creation of more bad redirects, but there is no guideline supporting that assertion. There's never been any evidence that having some questionably useful redirects inspires other editors to create bad redirects, and on the contrary some users browse in different ways. This particular redirect points unambiguously to the correct target, and redirects are cheap. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
It's commonly argued by me, for one, sometimes "winning", sometimes not. We have an rcat, {{R from incorrect name}}, as we do for {{R from misspelling}} and so on. This can be used to indicate that the title doesn't meet WP:TITLE. I'm aware that that guideline/policy is only for articles, but I have argued that since a redirect can be turned into an article then with some amount of common sense we should follow article naming conventions. The obvious exception with a redirect is the manner in which it diverges from WP:TITLE, which can be made explicit by the tag (or tags) saying it doesn't: which is one reason we have R from misspelling, R from other language, R from other punctuation, R from alternative name (R to common name), and so on. (Another reason, I guess, is that they can then be "fixed" in articles with less chance of another editor asserting WP:NOTBROKEN"– the doc at some rcats such as {{R from incorrect namem}} encourage this, others such as {{R from alternative name}} don't, quite rightly in both cases.
In tagging them thus, we've made an explicit statement that we know it doesn't conform to article title naming conventions but assert there is good reason for it. If this were used more, then over time, this might lead to fewer of them ending up here. It would not be a lot of trouble, when removing the RfD notice and adding the {{old rfd}}, for the closing editor to rcat it in such a way (would it?)
Perhaps I should start a discussion on the talk page to this effect, as I have virtually said the same thing in reply to one of BDD's below; and my point is not specific to this redirect. Si Trew (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The US Virgin Islands[edit]

"The" is not part of the location name and is against policy. Legacypac (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep all, having redirects that are plausible search terms is not against any policy. -- Tavix (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I could see the "of the US" forms being called unlikely search terms, perhaps, but the first four are cromulent. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Tavix. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all These all exist without the superfluous "the." "The Virgin Islands of the United States" is especially ridiculous and sounds like "The Northern Ireland of the United Kingdom" —МандичкаYO 😜 06:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all per Tavix. No reason to delete. Neutralitytalk 05:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

White liners[edit]

Lots of things have white lines. Far to vague to be meaningful. Legacypac (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep white-lining and white lining as plausible modifications for a search term mentioned in the lede of the target. Delete the others. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all similar to Lane-splitters and other redirects, there's a hatnote for other uses (which are all two words, not hyphenated) at the top of the article. These should link somewhere, as Lane splitting isn't on the first page of search results despite it being the likely (and in some cases only) matching page. Peter James (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget white-line and similar should not redirect here, as is not about white lines which is a disambiguation page because of the many choices. They should all point to white line - 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The Sci-Fi Dine-In[edit]

These use "The" against policy. Just a few of the maybe 40 redirects he created to his article. Legacypac (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep most. WP:THE proscribes definite articles in article titles, not redirects. Keep unless it can be demonstrated that they're harmful, misleading, or unlikely search terms. I'm unsure about the first item—see my comment in the following section. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
While it's true that WP:THE and others are restricted to article titles, I don't see why WP:COMMONSENSE can't extend them to apply to redirects that are not "corrective" ({{R from misspelling}}s, {{R from incorrect punctuation}}. Even with e.g. {{R from other name}}s and {{R from other language}}s etc, surely we would expect the title to meet WP:TITLE except in the one particular for which it has been made a redirect (e.g. it's not English, it's not the common name). Si Trew (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all - the is useless as a search term as it's ignored by Google. This is pure redirect spam. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all per WP:RPURPOSE. These are various alternative names and forms that help readers find what they're looking for. -- Tavix (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

SciFi Dine In[edit]

All partial title matches with various uses of dash that the search engine ignores. Do not help the reader. Legacypac (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure about the ones that are just "Sci-Fi Dine-In", but I wouldn't call the "Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater" forms PTMs. The restaurant could easily be referred to by the latter term alone. --BDD (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all - again more redirect spam, hyphens are not factored in searching —МандичкаYO 😜 06:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
A number of editors have said this this week. Does that mean that a search for "two by four" is considered the same search as "two-by-four"? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I searched just Sci-Fi Dine-In and found what looks like an official use of just that term [19]Legacypac (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all per WP:RPURPOSE. These are various alternative names and forms that help readers find what they're looking for. -- Tavix (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Greyishblue[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Invented compound words Legacypac (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2015 (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.

Desperativeness[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

These are unlikely search terms that don't serve the reader well. Shorter versions are all redirects already. Legacypac (talk) 15:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Deletitude (action) - more implausible modifications. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2015 (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.

Singlespeeders[edit]

*Single-speed → Single-speed bicycle  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]  (Withdraw this one)

If this was bicycle wikipedia these Neelix redirects might make sense but there are far too many applications for these terms to direct them to a bicycle article only. Legacypac (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep single-speed, delete the others. There are many things that are referred to as single-speed variants of a thing (such as single-speed AC motors) but only one thing is widely identified only by the name "single speed", and that is a fixed-gear bicycle. Search "single speed" on Google and you'll get pages and pages exclusively about bicycles. But delete all of the superfluously modified redirects - nobody is a singlespeeder, nobody goes singlespeeding on the weekends, nobody in the history of life, the universe and everything has ever singlespeeded, and so on. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I can accept keeping single speed as a common term for this kind of bike. As a stand alone noun that is what it means. Legacypac (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all these are not about single speed motors -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Print making in Japan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 19#Print making in Japan

Grey economists[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I retargeted the better ones to Informal sector but these seem like some kind of special economist or something. Legacypac (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - dammit Jim! I'm a doctor, not an economist! Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • More likely some of these would describe an economist who is getting old. Legacypac (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2015 (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.

Dark marketeered[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The term Dark marketing is being used for various internet marketing strategies - on Facebook for example. It has little to do with the target and should be deleted to encourage article creation and reduce the chance that we confuse the reader. The first one is just implausible and silly. Legacypac (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2015 (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.

Nearest neighbour clusterings[edit]

To me, these search terms appear to refer to computer programming and other statistical concepts. Not related to target as far as I can see. Legacypac (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Single-linker[edit]

Too.vague. Lots of applications for these terms beyond statistics Legacypac (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete my first thought was of singly-linked-lists -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The ten of spades[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe we need a redirect putting The in front of every noun based article title or redirect (there are redirects without the The in each case here.)Legacypac (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2015 (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.

Blattisocius aegypticus[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Procedural close (keep). These have all no been converted into stub articles by User:Wilhelmina Will. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Please delete, redirecting species of animals to a list in the article of a higher level taxon (genus) is not necessary, because the article can be found anyway by the genus name alone. The link suggests there is an article on the species, instead its a loop to the list itself. That kind of redirect could be used for millions of species names without article, but it is not used commonly in wikipedia, not even consistently in the article Blattisocius, because it is not leading to any further information. Regiomontanus (talk) 04:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. Taken CSD as WP:G8, redirect loop. Derisory stats (<1/day before this discussion), no links outside this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep {{R from subtopic}} -- I see no reason not to direct species to their genus articles if we aren't going to write articles on the species themselves. Just unlink the species from the genus article, which will remove the loop -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the point is that we might, one day, write articles on the species themselves, therefore WP:REDLINK applies. Si Trew (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
If we keep them it would cost us a lot of effort to unlink dozens of species in thousands of genus articles and change them into redirects with no additional content. Up to now these articles have been treated the other way round (WP:REDLINK) by the biological wp projects and their members. --Regiomontanus (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2015 (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.

Kolompar family[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. These are already under discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 11#Domotor-Kolompar organization. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

These are Hungarian names. It is inappropriate to accuse all members of the family of being part of a crime family. There is policy against this. Legacypac (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

They might be of Hungarian origin but they're not Hungarian names: Kolompár and Dömötör are. It looks like the (significant) diacrtical marks got lost in translation. Si Trew (talk) 06:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I think. While of course it's plausible that there are other people in the world with these names, I don't think WP:BLP covers people who are not notable, just the people that we write about. Presumably there are other people in the world with the surname Dahmer, but having that redirect go where it does doesn't imply that they're all serial killers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2015 (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.

Separate home[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. garbage redirects created by Neelix Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

He set up 97 redirects to this target, but this group is especially problematic. For example, a couple could live in separate residences, which are not always single family homes. Some of these suggest segregated housing more then the target. Real estate is my specialty but I've never heard these terms used like this. Not helpful search terms. [User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete makes no sense. Separate homes could mean a divorced couple sharing custody, or separate work and family residences, or summer and winter homes -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Seasonal homes would be second homes, wouldn't they? I think this is case even if there is more than one second home:
... and others (gsearch for "has second homes in"). Si Trew (talk) 06:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per 70 & nominator. The primary meaning of all of these phrases is not the current target, and we don't really have articles for the actual primary meanings:
    1. The GBooks hits for "separate housing" are mostly instructing government workers on whether rooms in dormitories or boarding-houses should be coded as "separate housing units". Obviously dormitories are not single-family detached dwellings.
    2. The GBooks hits for "separate homes" and "separate residences" are mostly about couples living apart, but we don't have a good target for that: living apart is not necessarily due to legal separation but often simply for work, educational, or immigration reasons (see e.g. astronaut family or gireogi appa).
    3. Readers searching for "separate housings" are wildly unlikely to be seeking anything related to residential arrangements; as far as the eye can see, all of the Google Books hits are using it to mean "separate cases for different mechanical or electrical components", and I don't see any remotely good target for that.
210.6.254.106 (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Not useful, excessive redirection. crh23 (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2015 (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 Enemy Within (play)[edit]

Delete to encourage article creation. It shows in a template about the author, but redirects to the author, which if you follow the link at the author page you go back in a circle. Many of the author's plays are redlinked. Legacypac (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:G8 redirect loop, will speedy. If this were used outside the template, it might be a different case... but it isn't. Si Trew (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Circular redirects are not G8-eligible. For topics that will likely never have an article, they're ill-advised, but otherwise, they can save future effort. --BDD (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Enemy Within: The McClellan Committee's Crusade Against Jimmy Hoffa and Corrupt Labor Unions[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, a stub on the book has been created. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Kennedy wrote a book - but this includes the whole subtitle, which I understand is not how we deal with it? Maybe there needs to be an article about the book so is it appropriate to delete the redirect to encourage creation?. I have linked Kennedy from the dab page The Enemy Within so the reader can find some info anyway. [User:Legacypac|Legacypac]] (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:CONCISE. I'm surprised we haven't an article on this. Si Trew (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep An article would either be at this title or The Enemy Within (Kennedy book). See WP:NCBOOKS, especially WP:SUBTITLE. In a "complete" encyclopedia, this redirect would either be an article or a legitimate alternative title (tagged with {{R from long name}}). I restored a few similar Neelix redirects that had been tossed out with the bathwater. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Close I've created an article for the book, which is clearly a significant work (even republished in 1994). I've retargeted the redirect at the new article The Enemy Within (Kennedy book). Legacypac (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2015 (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.

Three-Handed[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

There are a few different card games that are three handed. Any card game with three players is three handed. There are also other uses for the term as shown in search. This is not specific enough to direc only to this game. Legacypac (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete ambiguous -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or DAB it as WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:XY. We have redirects Three-handed Theotokos → Trojeručica, Three-Handed Xiangqi → Game of the Three Kingdoms and some "three-hander" or "three-handed" stage plays. There might be just enough traction for a DAB (three entries plus search for prefix), but since a plain Special:Search returned these without ado, what's the point? Si Trew (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per 70.51. Don't disambiguate - there aren't multiple things called "three-handed", there are just multiple things which can be described with the modifier "three-handed [thing]". WP:PTM. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2015 (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.

DIH (railway station)[edit]

A silly redirect created for a former disambiguation page DIH which has since been turned into a redirect as the abbreviation is certainly not commonly used for the station. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep, harmless. Si Trew (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep if you added a hatnote and this term is therefore correct, then there's no reason why a redirect shouldn't exist. Indeed, it'd pop up in the searchbox, letting a person get to it directly. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the MTR certainly uses DIH for Diamond Hill Station [20] -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • NOTE I have restored the disambiguation page, it was missing the ISO language code, and the dihedral group prefix, making a proper 4 entry page -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Five. Si Trew (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, I get it. Keep the disambiguation page, but delete this particular redirect page since no other pages link to it except for this RfD (just as there is no such page as NOP (railway station), LCK (railway station), HAH (railway station), etc. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The German article is de:Drahtseilbahn Interlaken–Heimwehfluh. --BDD (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

November 17[edit]

Uruguay frog[edit]

Even if the target article were a list of just frogs, these are misleading and unlikely search terms since they're singular. "Uruguay frog" and "Malaysia frog" imply specific species; the "Frog of" and "Frog in" forms sound like broken English, but perhaps suggest a national symbol. --BDD (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Please note There are additional redirects created by Neelix of the forms "Foo frog", "Fooian frog", "Frog of Foo", "Frog in Foo", "Foo amphibian", "Fooian amphibian", "Amphibian of Foo", and "Amphibian in Foo", which can be found on this list. Assuming consensus to delete here, I will delete the additional redirects listed there as well. --BDD (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all, including all the Foo nonsense. I have not dived into his frog redirects yet but there are around 20 redirect names per frog in each of many cases. Legacypac (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC).

Wastie Deblois[edit]

Delete per either WP:XY or WP:R#D2. There are two people that fit this [middle name], [surname] pattern: George Wastie Deblois and Stephen Wastie Deblois. I don't see any evidence that any of them were known by their middle names and it'd be silly to disambiguate this per WP:PTM, so I think deletion is the only solution here. -- Tavix (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment, just to eliminate the thought before someone thinks it: I'm certain this isn't a compound surname. Stephen's parents weren't named [X "Wastie Deblois"] and every biography I found on the two referred to them solely as "Deblois", not "Wastie Deblois." -- Tavix (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete and could be combined with my nom of Wastie below. Legacypac (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Pieingly[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted WP:A11 by Versageek ; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Essentially made-up words, barely attested outside of Wikipedia mirrors. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete made-up words or created by mistake. Peter James (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as invented by the page creator. Legacypac (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2015 (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.
  • Note - I can't see the history but someone's been pretending to be a Neelix sockpuppet and creating nonsense redirects over the last couple days, often using other characters from ST:VOY as usernames. If the user who created these matches, should be blocked on sight. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, and disturbing. As for these two, they really shouldn't've been eligible for A-anything deletion, as they weren't articles, but I suppose it was the obvious outcome. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Ivanvector, these were Neelix creations from 2009. Could you refer me to any of those fake accounts? I'd like to know what to look for. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Pathfinder (Command & Conquer)[edit]

Not mentioned at the target article. Unclear what this is referring to. BDD (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Juggernaut (Adept)[edit]

Not mentioned at the target article. Probably too detailed to merit coverage. BDD (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete There was one sentence - "Juggernaut - Uses itself as a missile to attack opponent." - which was removed in August. Even if restored to the article, I'm not sure if the disambiguation is useful as the game isn't just called "Adept" and isn't listed on the Adept (disambiguation) page. Peter James (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • delete as confusing at best per abovementioned findings --Lenticel (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

One-Handed[edit]

This is only a partial-title match for the target article. Even if searched, it's likely to WP:ASTONISH. BDD (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete It's also a partial title match for One-Handed Solitaire and One-handed manual alphabet, and a term associated with speedcubing, but probably not strongly enough for a redirect. Peter James (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Not quite a partial match, but it's possible this could refer to Amputation#Arm amputations. I'm sensing a pretty straight-forward "delete as vague" scenario developing. -- Tavix (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. We have a disambiguation page at Single-Handed. Si Trew (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as too vague and a silly search term. Unless someone wants to redirect to masterbation but I'm not that BOLD. Legacypac (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • delete this makes no sense, There are lots of one-handed things -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague. I think most of the targets will be partial title matches anyways --Lenticel (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Dee dee dee[edit]

Although Mencia makes a sound like this in some of his comedy routines, I don't think it's notable enough or a meaningful search term. It's not mentioned in any form at his article. Retargeting to King Dedede could be an option, but I'm leaning delete. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:USEENGLISH. Si Trew (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The only target that could make sense to me is DDD. I'm not sure if I like it though because I don't see anything there that would be spelled that way. {{R from misspelling}} perhaps? I'm fine with deletion too. -- Tavix (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget the first two to DDD (disambiguation) -- 05:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.44.60 (talk)
  • Retaregt all three per 70. Do not retarget to Morse code, that would be "Dit dit dit". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC).

Isis Pharmaceuticals and others[edit]

The subject isn't listed at the target page. The list is limited to only companies with existing articles, so any redirect from a company page to the list is inappropriate. ChemNerd (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Also including the following redirects for the same reason: ChemNerd (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

(I expanded the listing of these others from just an unformatted list of links. Si Trew (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC))

Si Trew (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete. We should not be sending people to a page that does not give them info on what they search. As an aside I believe Isis Pharma changed or is changing its name due to unsavoury misappropriation of the name Isis. Legacypac (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed:
...and lots of other RS, presumably ultimately the same story from a press release. Some background here:
This would probably be worth a mensch were it an article, although perhaps even then WP:TOOSOON. I might turn it into a stub. Si Trew (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
that is all new coverage I was unaware of. I read about the problems they were having in 2013 or 2014 when ISIS/ISIL took on that name and became famous for crazy stuff. Legacypac (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete - the target pages do not contain information on the subjects, so the redirects are not appropriate. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Ideally its should have content on the company. But in the interim redirect is most appropriate as it is a legitimate name and its better on the list page.Lihaas (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Womens Support Network[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete, G8. --BDD (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

There are hundreds or thousands of organizations with these (correctly spelled) words in their name. I found Black, Bi, Native WSN so these are not good redirects Legacypac (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all or send to a general page (apart from Peer support I see no obvious one). People are unlikely to be looking for a group serving 1M people in Canada. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2015 (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.

Ticket booth[edit]

This means a number of similar things, including box office but there is no box office at the zoo or the subway. All box offices are ticket booths but not all ticket booths are box offices. Maybe box office become the redirect and ticket booth the target with some expansion to cover other ticket sales places? Legacypac (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose reversal the article at the destination is about box office, and the physcial ticket booth is treated as a subtopic. It cannot be reversed. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Oppose deletion The ticket booth meaning of box office is covered in the destination. But we can always stubbify up a separate article, since the target is mostly about different things -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was translating some architecture article on a railway station some time ago – it might have been Casa-Port – and was amazed we don't have ticket hall. I realise a hall and a booth are not the same thing, but we are surprisingly lacking in articles about places that sell tickets, presumably because they're really not very notable in their own right. 'But some ticket halls are notable architecture in their own right, I think, to the extent that they remain (with some other use) after the thing it sold tickets for has gone. I'm not sure the same thing could be said of a ticket booth. Si Trew (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

In which the existence of God and the real distinction of mind and body, are demonstrated[edit]

The target book is subtitled " In which the existence of God and the immortality of the soul are demonstrated" which is not what this really long pointless redirect says. Legacypac (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Even librarians don't index books by subtitle. Si Trew (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
<content warning: librarian/cataloging jargon> In most cases, we don't have to, though we often do. It can especially be important for modern books with a catchy main title and a more descriptive subtitle (example). Typically it would go in a MARC field 246, which with proper coding would have it indexed as an alternative title.
That said, books were very different back then. Since they were often purchased unbound (and later bound, if desired, at the owner's expense), the title page served as a sort of advertisement. Modern books usually rely on dust jackets for this function. So a phrase like this was really telling a reader what to expect. It didn't really function as a title, though subtitles as we know them did exist at this time (e.g., Twelfth Night, or What You Will).
tldr: Right vote, wrong rationale. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I see my rare attempt at brevity backfired. They don't primarily index.... I've been wanting a subtitle= attribute in {{cite book}} for a long time. Si Trew (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Tender mother[edit]

Pia mater is medieval Latin meaning "tender mother." but no one would think to search for an article about eyes by the latin meaning of the phase. Nothing links to it except the list of Neelix redirects. Can't see how this redirect will help anyone and it will pop up when people search mother or tender both of which have nothing to do with the target here. Legacypac (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Naively I expected it would go to Mary (mother of Jesus), although I can't find a Bible text (not a crib) that uses it. Si Trew (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of Latin phrases (P)#pia mater. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but this links to the prior target, and contains more information regarding the translation which seems more likely of a reason to search for this term. "pious mother" should be created and redirect to the same place if this one is retargeted.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

F-hyphen-hyphen-hyphen[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 Anthony Bradbury. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete: completely implausible search term. -- Tavix (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

We do have F***, F**k (but not F**K), F*ck, F*CK. F*ck → Fuck but F*CK → Fuck (film), which I have marked as {{R from stylization}}.
I see Legacypac has taken it to CSD as WP:A11 but I can't see that succeeding since it's not an article. Si Trew (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
You're right, but since this is the obvious outcome, I don't think it's worth disputing. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2015 (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 highest-grossing lollywood films[edit]

This redirect is implausible per the reason in the deletion log. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The Pakistani film industry is also known as Lollywood and this redirect is necessary. Anjana LarkaTalk ✉ 05:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
To draw a parallel, we have List of highest-grossing Bollywood films ( → List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films#Highest_grossing_Hindi_films) but not List of highest-grossing bollywood films. We have neither List of highest-grossing Hollywood films nor List of highest-grossing hollywood films.
Too soon for stats to make any sense, no incoming links outside deletion discussions. Si Trew (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The listing at SCV is for the speedily deleted page that was there before the redirect. Peter James (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Cinema of Pakistan and Lollywood are separate articles, and the sidebar links in the Lollywood article suggest it isn't about the whole of the Pakistani film industry. Some Pakistani films are categorised as Lollywood films but others including one at the top of the list are not, and unless it can be defined and specified in the article which are Lollywood films this is misleading and should be deleted. Peter James (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of highest-grossing Lollywood films and create article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC).

Modern Painter[edit]

yes it is a singular to a plural but the target is a book about modern painters and the redirect could be many things including many people's job. Legacypac (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Doctor Tom (wrestler)[edit]

I eliminated a DAB at Dr Tom and targeted Dr Tom and Doctor Tom at the wrestler who used that as his stage name. These were on the DAB to justify it. Neelix creation. Legacypac (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

N-8 School[edit]

The article doesn't describe what an "N-8 school" is, so someone wanting to know what one is will end up disappointed. I wasn't able to find an answer anywhere... -- Tavix (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete even Google comes up with nothing useful in the first many hits -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague at best. Per anon, there might not be enough material to make a standalone article --Lenticel (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Amurka[edit]

Delete, as I see no evidence of a connection between "Amurka" and the United States. Stats are minimal. -- Tavix (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Republic of Egypt[edit]

Convert this redirect page to disambiguation page? There is Republic of Egypt (1953–58) and Arab Republic of Egypt, official name of Egypt. George Ho (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as that is the official name now. Anyone looking for history can find it in the article, right in the first sections. Legacypac (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment there is a related move request at talk:Republic of Egypt (1953–58) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. In lieu of another hatnote, I'd add United Arab Republic to the DAB at Egypt (disambiguation), which if technically incorrect is WP:COMMONSENSE. Si Trew (talk) 11:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Move: "Republic of Egypt" is not "the official name now", the current official name is the "Arab Republic of Egypt", whereas the article in question had its official name as "Republic of Egypt". This is where the page should redirect to. Legacypac, I'm sorry, your reasoning is completely illogical. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment there's no move option here, your opinion doesn't even provide a move selection. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
      • The official move request to "Republic of Egypt (1953–58)" can be seen here. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 04:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Overwrite with Republic of Egypt (1953–58) per discussion mentioned above. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC).

Gentleman-like[edit]

Just bad english and highly implausible search terms Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • "Gentleman-like" to Gentleman seems harmless. Kill the rest. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete the last three with the weird spaces -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep the first, delete the rest. Graham (talk) 08:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete the last three per 70.51, "Gentleman-like" and "Gentlemanliest" ("gentlemanly" and "most gentlemanly", please) as WP:NOTDIC and WP:NOTGUIDE, WP is not Modern English Usage, and WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. (Neither is Gentlemanly for that matter.) Si Trew (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep only gentleman-like, probably harmless. Gentlemanliest implies some kind of ranking order, and the other three are nonsense modifications. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Wastie[edit]

No evidence this man went by his middle name exclusively Legacypac (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not going to check properly, but I imagine "Wastie Deblois" is a surname, while "Wastie" is a separate surname in its own right, so a redirect is misleading. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
it is a rare surname [21] but used as a second/middle name here. We would not direct Fitzgerald at JFK's article, which is what this is doing. Legacypac (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Master, of God[edit]

The name Gabriel means "God is my strength" but these redirects are too general to be worthwhile. Other names in the Bible also mean God is my Strength and versions of this phrase are used all over the Bible. If someone is looking for info on the angel they might like to know the meaning of his name, but not the other way around. I can't see anything in the target about Master of God - and that implies the angel is over God which is heresy. Legacypac (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • The first two aren't even pertinent. "Master of God" would be something like "Adonel", and it would be blasphemous in Judaism anyway. Wikipedia is not Jeopardy!. Besides which, as Legacypac notes, that's not exactly what "Gabriel" means anyway. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all. The first 2 are blasphemous in Xtianity & doubtless Islam too, on their plain reading. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or disambiguate WP:BIAS Abrahamic religious bias; many mythlogical characters are characterized with the strength of gods; and fictional characters with becoming the masters of gods. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely synonyms at best --Lenticel (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Delete all as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. I could see "strength of God" going to a number of places, such as that paradox about whether He can make something heavier than He can lift. Si Trew (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Muff (hair)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted by Beeblebrox and Drmies respectively. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If you know enough about female anatomy to type these search terms complete with brackets you would not use it. No inbound wikilinks. Adds nothing to the topic and the term Muff is not used at the target. If this is useful then a whole raft of informal terms for female genitals should be redirected like this. Not listed at Muff either. Legacypac (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • These were speedied by two admins soon after listing. Legacypac (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2015 (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.

Boasting (disambiguation)[edit]

There's only one boasting entry, and no particular reason to redirect to the rather meager Boast (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. True, I didn't think about the value of the original redirect after I moved it to Boast (disambiguation). I don't disagree. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:CHEAP and we shouldn't build a separate page for "boasting", so any more uses should be combined into "boast" -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as unnecessary. There aren't multiple things known as "boasting." -- Tavix (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

November 16[edit]

Mike Lowell Spinners[edit]

Redirect doesn't make sense, nothing mentioned on topic and Mike Lowell the baseball player never played with the club Marlinsfan1988 (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • An article 'Mike Lowell Spinners' for a day on the Minor League Baseball site explains. This was created as a cut and paste page move but when reverted it looks like it was never added to the article. Peter James (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية[edit]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. -- Tavix (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. Topic with no particular affinity for this language -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Bobby Gentle[edit]

Delete, no evidence that he's been called "Bobby Gentle." -- Tavix (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:BLP and the discussion below involving this target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete while not offensive, I think is an unlikely synonym --Lenticel (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Cfsn[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to List of members of the National Salvation Front Council. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 05:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete, as I see no evidence this goes by "Cfsn." -- Tavix (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Apparently I've made a typo in my opinion, sorry about that. (my search was on CSFN, and my response I typed in CSTN, both errors on my part.) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Dawson Creek has information on a local TV station callsign CFSN -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • CFSN doesn't lead anywhere (but would be a better title for this redirect). CSTN and CSFN redirect to other topics, and I've created CTSN as a disambiguation page, but we don't need disambiguation or hatnotes linking to each possible transposition or incorrectly entered initial (there are others, such as CDSN), unless there are cases where errors often occur even in reliable sources, or are likely (an example would be Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network, mentioned in one article, which appears to be CTSN, not CSTN). Peter James (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2015 (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.

Five Star Football League[edit]

Oknazevad tried prodding this, but since WP:PROD doesn't apply to redirects, I'm taking it here. The rationale is: "non-notable amateur league, previously deleted" -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • When Oknazevad says "previously deleted", they mean that it was previously in the article but they deleted it. This has never been an article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
If you're looking for a background on the redirect, you'll find it HERE. -- Tavix (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
No, what I meant was there was an article that had been previously speedy deleted. See User talk:77thDemonKnight, where the only remnant is the notification for the original creator. Note the one team was also speedied at the same time, and that the editor's user name is an obvious reference to the team. The section I removed from the list article (which was added by the same user and obviously was an attempt to keep something on Wikipedia considering that it had been speedied) was inappropriate in tone, content and formatting for the rest of the page. It also had no third-party references. All of the user's edits were about this same amateur league, and it was pretty much an obvious WP:SPA, acting to promote something showing no notability.
All things considered, it's a pointless redirect. The content was merged into an inappropriate article because it had been deemed non-notable and speedied from its own article, then the redirect, which is a very unlikely search term leads to an inappropriate article. It's totally unneeded. oknazevad (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
PS, the article for the team was recreated as well, but was deleted at AFD earlier this year. oknazevad (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

San Diego incident[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete G12. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 23:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The redirect is VERY broad, and the article it redirects to has no section or wordage about this "incident." // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 20:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, it's copyvio because it's not attributed (BY component) so the license is violated. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2015 (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.

Rick Sanitarium[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy delete G10. -- GB fan 20:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Implausible misspelling. "Santorum" and "sanitarium" are not pronounced similarly. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2015 (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.

Booby Genital[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy delete G10. -- GB fan 20:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Implausible, offensive. No way this is a legitimate redirect to a US presidential candidate. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2015 (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.

Sthalekeria[edit]

I’d prefer deletion since this is not a common misspelling. The page is in fact a case for speedy deletion. It matches SDC WP:R3 almost perfectly, with the exception that it was not created recently but in 2008. For further rationale see Talk:Sthalekeria. Gretarsson (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Recentness is inherent to R3, though that's not clear from the "Implausible typos" title alone. Saying something is R3 eligible despite not being recent is like saying a topic isn't notable despite meeting WP:GNG. However, since this redirect contains multiple typos, it indeed seems implausible. --BDD (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Even though I declined the speedy deletion of this redirect, I do not see any reason to keep it. -- GB fan 20:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - in most cases I think we should just keep any existing misspelling redirect for a topic like this because it would be hard to remember the spelling anyway. But stats show this is not a common search term. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete with Ivanvector. Si Trew (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hit Me Baby One More Time[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to ...Baby One More Time (song). (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 05:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Currently redirects to Baby One More Time. Unlike the dab page, "Hit Me Baby One More Time" only can refer to the song ...Baby One More Time (song) or Hit Me Baby One More Time (TV series). As the song is the primary topic for this phrase (it is its original title +the tv series was named after it), I propose redirecting it to the song article. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 03:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: Indeed, I would have preferred to have quoted a policy/guideline, and was thinking more WP:COMMONSENSE than anything. The DAB has four entries so is not hard to pick which one was intended; any other way, if one thinks of the consequences, is more convoluted: either leave them all at the existing DAB, in which case hatnotes are redundant, or split into two DABs each with two entries, cross-referring to each other. But I'm not totally against retargetting it to the song with a hatnote on the series: even I know the song (and would have guessed that was its title) but never heard of the TV series, and it seems only to have been broadcast for one short (by US standards) season in the UK and US, whereas the song is known worldwide (I guess).
In case it helps, of your two Gsearches, for me the first one (sans Britney Spears) returns "about 948,000" and the second "about 888,000", though we well know those figures are not good guides, it certainly isn't amazingly clear-cut. On the other hand '"Hit me baby one more time" TV series' returns for me "about 704,000". Si Trew (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
When I said it's hardly difficult (i.e. it's easy) to pick out the intended meaning from a DAB with four entries, I meant the reader's intention, not the editor's. I neither said nor meant "we can't" pick the meaning out. Si Trew (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Move disambig page over redirect (1st choice) or keep. The general Anglophone reader (like me) will always remember the song and the album as "hit me baby one more time" because that's the bit that's stuck in our heads... I could hear Britney's voice as I read the RfD nomination. The whole bunch of concepts - song, album, tour, TV show - is "hit me baby one more time" to me whatever the official names are. Deryck C. 22:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom and hatnote to the TV show. The song is definitely the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. -- Tavix (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Deryck and Si Trew. These are variations on the same title, and an incorrect name for all of them but the TV show. It's maybe less incorrect a name for the song than for the album, but that's not very convincing to me. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the song, which is the primary topic. It's often known (incorrectly) by this title as well as containing this notable line. Peter James (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the song per Tavix. This is a perfect case for the use of a hatnote to refer to other uses, and also of notable use of redirecting from a commonly-known lyric to a lesser-known proper song title. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the song per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2015 (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.

General Purpose Interface[edit]

Not sure. This is linked in the DAB at GPI#Miscellenea, but the fulsome description is of something entirely different to the target. Maybe WP:RFD#D2 confusing, and to encourage creation of the article as per the DAB; or perhaps just change the DAB? Si Trew (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Not sure either - I see from the history that I initially created this title as a redirect to General-purpose input/output following this WP:REFUND request: [22]. I don't have any knowledge about the subject though. --B (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, and the wording in that article's lede (until it became a redirect on 12 April 2011 with this change) was essentially unchanged from that at the DAB, which was added much earlier, on 22 October 2007 with this change. Si Trew (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep GPIB and HPIB used to be synonyms for IEE-488 parallel port. I think this is a good redirect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC).
That's irrelevant. GPIB, HPIB, General Purpose Instrumentation Bus (incorrect) and others do indeed redirect there with no problem (but oddly not General Purpose Interface Bus or similar). I came across this because I went through categorising the dozen or so redirects to this article. But this one is linked only when using it a completely different meaning, as something to do with telly timing signals. (At the DAB at GPI and at the article Playout.) So at point of use it is not synonymous with the target. And WP:ILIKEIT is not a keep reason. Si Trew (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rich. It's the proper name for that particular standard, just like Universal Serial Bus is the proper name for one we use now. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
No it's not. The full name of the standard is "IEEE Standard 488.1-1987, IEEE Standard Digital Interface for Programmable Instrumentation" (here). It's not even a common name for that standard. This is a different standard, one used for timing broadcasting equipment. That's the point. But if we keep it, we better remove the entry at the DAB. (In the Playout article I changed it to redlink General Purpose Interface (broadcasting), but I didn't do so at the DAB, yet.) Si Trew (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Is the lede of the article incorrect that the topic is referred to as General Purpose Interface Bus? If so, this seems legitimate unless it's deemed a partial-title match. Universal Serial doesn't exist, but the terminology could be different; certainly that phrase would have some ambiguity. --BDD (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. In reply to @BDD:: The common name (in that form) is "General Purpose Interface Bus". Si Trew (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Abrian[edit]

Not mentinoed on redirect target Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate with this and Jacob Abrian (article deleted at AFD, but possibly notable and there's an article to link to); Google search results include mentions of Abrian artefacts in books about archaeology, which may refer to El Abra. Peter James (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't see why, if we make it a DAB, we'd need to move anything. Why should we want to "keep the history clean"? Si Trew (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
    • It's both more convenient for editors of the dab page not to have unrelated junk hanging around in the history, and for editors of the AD&D page who are trying to find the history of what was merged into that page without having to dig through a bunch of unrelated dab revisions. Also, having a separate redirect for the AD&D monster is more convenient for any editor who wants to link to the appropriate section of the AD&D monsters page rather than manually linking to a section anchor which might disappear or change without notice. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Ta-ta[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Tata.(non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 05:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Appears to be made up by Neelix, perhaps how the name sounds in some accent. I was expecting titties at the redirect. Legacypac (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

We say ta ta for goodbye in Canada sometimes too Legacypac (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Tata as {{R from modification}}, perhaps adding Tatars to that dab if merited. --BDD (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per 210.6. With respect to Tata, there are no hyphenated instances on that dab page, so it's a partial match. I suggest the reverse of BDD's proposal (keep, hatnote to dab page). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ta-Ta → Almacenes Tía. Ta Ta is red. Si Trew (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to tata and add any other uses to that, for goodbye, breasts, Tatars, etc -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to tata as a plausible modification per BDD --Lenticel (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2015 (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.

Nude upper torsos[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 deleted variously by Drmies and Vanjagenije; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The last one apparently targeted a previous incarnation of the target. It is nonsense. The rest have no incoming links and are not likely search terms for anyone looking for breasts. Legacypac (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • These are all completely pointless redirects and should be removed. --Slashme (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Update the target was deleted and redirected to toplessness. Legacypac (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Green tickY Request updated accordingly. For reference, these formerly targeted Barechestedness. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2015 (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.

Bare chestedness[edit]

not spelled like this, implausable Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course, these are probably just slips. There are other uses in blogs, of course, but those aren't RS. Si Trew (talk) 07:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep to get users where they meant to go: barechstedness, however it's (miss)spelled ~~
  • If kept, should redirect to toplessness, as per the quickly developing consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barechestedness. --Slashme (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
    • No, keep but as a redirect to correct spelling liberalities, the meaning is obvious barechestedness (general or specifically male), not (female) topless Fastifex (talk)
    • Looking at various talk pages, "toplessness" and "barechestedness" were deliberately kept separate because of their different connotations. Were they to be combined, the redirects would go with them, but that doesn't need to happen right now. Si Trew (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Update Barechestedness was closed as a redirect to Toplessness so this is now a misspelled redirect to a redirect. If someone wants to put a line or two in the toplessness article about men, be my guest. Legacypac (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Green tickY Request updated. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Iloc[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 Disambig. A number of multiple possible meanings are all plausible. Slashme (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Iloc is her maiden name, but it is also a ton of other stuff, including abbreviations. Not what I would expect to find if I typed this and not what Google thinks it is. Legacypac (talk) 06:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak disambiguate added draft. Omitting usual rant on {{R from surname}}s to obscure figures. It's almost all Wp:DABMENTIONs aside from the Indian Law and Order Commission, and normally I might agree that search results are more useful than a dab page in such cases, but in this case the search results are stuffed up with page after page of sports results for Christina Iloc and citation links to the U.S. Bureau of Corrections Inmate Locator (which has an "iloc" in its URL). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate with 210.6. Si Trew (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy disambiguate: The disambiguation page is much more useful in this case: these four letters can refer to any of the things that 210.6.254.106 added. I would have been bold and done it now if it weren't for the fact that I'm completely new to RFD. --Slashme (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Slashme: oh, you can WP:JUSTDOIT. If something is no longer a redirect it will just be closed as a matter of procedure (and anyone can do that, it doesn't need an admin – but it's usually a little frowned upon to do it if you were involved in the discussion.) Si Trew (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2015 (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.

Franciaorszag[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 deleted by Drmies; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. France doesn't have any special affinity with the Hungarian language. -- Tavix (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Even in Hungarian, franciaorszag is just wrong: diacritics in Hungarian make distinct letters, "o", "ó", "ö" and "ő": they are not just eye candy. Si Trew (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible misspelling per SiTrew --Lenticel (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
"Franciaország" is a perfectly correct spelling. Still WP:RFOREIGN, though. Si Trew (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2015 (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.

Laborunionist[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all. JohnCD (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

(Related discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 13#Labourunionistic)

Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Same reasoning as at the other discussion, but different target (others are Trade union), which makes it even more confusing. An Ulster Unionist need not be a member of a trade union, though the target was an association of members (of different trade unions).

It's bizarre, that e.g. labourunionism and labourunionist were created by the same user (Neelix) at the same time (04:02 UTC on 26 December 2009), but to different targets. Never mind WP:TITLEVAR for a British/Irish subject... Si Trew (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - a hopelessly vague term (if it is a correct term at all) pointing to a specific instance of the topic is useless to most readers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Not entirely vague: the lede says members were known as "Labour Unionists". But note the cap: the U here means (Ulster) Unionism, not trade unionism. Labour Unionist does indeed redirect there (as does Labour Unionists) but Labour Unionism, Labor Unionist, Labor Unionists and Labor Unionism are red. Si Trew (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
That's still hopelessly vague in my books - how many other unions or labour movements could this refer to? Thousands? Tens or hundreds of thousands? Consider: all thumbs are fingers, but that doesn't imply all fingers are thumbs. (All members of the Ulster Unionist Labour Association are Labourunionists, but ....) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
You mean, then, not that it's hopelessly vague but that it's hopelesly specific, affirming the consequent. Si Trew (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
No, the redirect is hopelessly vague. Its target is hopelessly specific. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Added plural forms. Si Trew (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2015 (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.

Hanno Möttola[edit]

Is is useful to have all these variations? Seems excessive and will make searching harder, while introducing bad info into the world. Legacypac (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong keep Möttölä, valid {{R from surname}}. Regular keep for the rest. I don't see them doing any harm, especially if you can't remember exactly how many umlauts there are, but know there's at least one. -- Tavix (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Aside on redirects with diacrtitics. As I've pointed out"elsewhere, the search seems to be "diacritic-insensitive". I know that didn't used to be the case, but for searching there's no need for, or advantage in having, these redirects. If editors really need to use variant forms (e.g. as they is used in sources), they can WP:PIPE it. That's what we do for many other variant forms, e.g. plurals, which are now deprecated for creation. I realise that was not always the case, but the search engine has got a bit better over the years. I'd like to get consensus to have this made explicit in MoS (unless it is already and I just can't find it); RfD is not really the right forum. However there doesn't seem to be a right forum. Si Trew (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all as maintenance headache that encourages incorrect use in articles except keep Möttölä as {{R from title without diacritics}}.
As it stands, none of these has any links beyond this discussion; none has stats above noise level (<1 a day). Si Trew (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Mottola is an article about an Italian town, it's not a redirect and not included in this discussion... -- Tavix (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
You're right, I did actually check this too... amended mine above, I meant the full name without diacritics. Si Trew (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The full name without diacritics hasn't been nominated either. :P -- Tavix (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
grrr... I meant the one with the diacritics... I pared down from three to one, and twice got it wrong one. Surely this is right now? :) Si Trew (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I only nom'd the ones by Neelix is why. Legacypac (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Light News[edit]

Unlikely redirect to a non-notable publication. This could mean a bunch of things Legacypac (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Provisional keep due to lack of evidence yet presented to show what other current existing encyclopedic subject this phrase could refer. Otherwise, this is an unambiguous redirect as a shortened name. Steel1943 (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

*Keep. Delete the target if it's not notable, but until then, this is fine. Si Trew (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Similarly I tried searching for such things as Fluorescent Tubes Weekly, LED Digest and Matchbox Çollectors Journal. LEDs Magazine (here) did exist once, but was deleted in June 2015 as non-notable. LEUKOS, the Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (here), is red. Collectors of cigarette lighters are found wanting for a journal of record.
An R to soft media would be, I think, essentially WP:OR. Good news is, unsurprisingly, a DAB, on which publication The Good News is an entry, but the good news is not particularly light. City light is an R to tbe DAB at {{-r|City lights (disambiguation)}, but City Lights is an article. We have Humor magazine but not Humour magazine nor Humorous weekly even though that term seems quite common). Si Trew (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
My checking found the paper was renamed CLN (from City Light News) some years ago, so this redirect is a real stretch. Legacypac (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Shirtlessly[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 deleted by Drmies; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

this is a derived term that means nothing. Shirtless is correct. Legacypac (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Tentative Delete per WP:G8, after the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barechestedness, which looks like it will be closed as delete.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. [Formal] British English insists on adverbs ("drive safely", "play nicely") where US English allows adjectives ("drive safe", "play nice"). So it is as correct to say "he played shirtlessly" as it is to say "he played tunelessly"; yet although someone might "play shirtless" they don't "play tuneless" (do they?) But,I can find no RS in which it is actually used, so WP:MADEUP, WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 08:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Ahem. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
That sounds even better when performed a cappella. Si Trew (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @BDD: And I did this to ensure that the redirect does not incorrectly get speedy deleted per G8. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Si. Although playing shirtless is a thing(cf. shirts versus skins) we probably shouldn't keep adverb forms anyway, they're just not useful. If we had a proper full article on shirtlessness then maybe we could retarget there. Toplessness isn't it - for one thing, it is also possible for a man to remove his shirt. I've seen it done for true fact. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2015 (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.

Oxymellin[edit]

The only definition I could find was, "honey mixed with water and vinegar to be used as a vermifuge", hence It could equally target anthelmintic (WP:XY). It is mentioned at neither. I couldn't find proper sourcing to add information about it to either article. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as WP:REDLINK. It's used (in Latin) in quite a few recipe books for medicines. this one (Cato's De Re Rustica) gives quite a good definition and examples of use. Si Trew (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I've got a good definition/recipe from Cato, which I've transcribed as best I can and pasted at the redirect, and a good use case here: here where it is prescribed for ophthalmia. It seems more used as a medicine than a vermifuge; it is used as an ingredient for several other things, and one of those may have been a vermifuge. Si Trew (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Look up oxymel in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
  • Move to Oxymel, leaving the R as {{R from other spelling}}. I've created a stub at the (new) target, which explains the root word as oxymel, from Cato's Latin definition in De Re Rustica. Cato's doesn't mention boiling it up with water; I guess that's assumed (and specifically says don't confuse it with hydromel). I have other references so I can add and expand this article; one or two use this exact form, but it's just a Latin derivation... we don't want 313 derivation redirects like we have for French conjugations! Si Trew (talk) 10:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Soddit, I'm taking WP:JUSTDOIT. Procedural close, please. Si Trew (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Strongly delete it. (One day I might make up my mind.)Actually, from what I can see, all the references to "Oxymellin" are from references that have it in the optical character recognition of text. In all the ones I have checked, this is a bad recognition, e.g. here, it's "Oxymellia Simplicia"; here, it's "oyxmel.ſin & pl." ("singular and plural"; that's a long s.) I don't think the "oxymellin" form exists; I'd assumed it was a name invented for quack medicine, but it seems not. Si Trew (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I'm with Si's latest opinion. JohnCD (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hebew Meanings[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 deleted by Drmies; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

These are all translations of Hebrew names that are so general they are of no use as a redirect. for example there are all kinds of things that are without worth, including that redirect. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - even God would find these redirects vague. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague. --Lenticel (talk) 01:27, 17 November 2015 (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.

HONEY[edit]

Implausible capitalization. WP:RCAPS. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. This isn't an acronym, brand, or anything else where caps may be plausible. -- Tavix (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix and because I don't see any acronyms at Honey (disambiguation) either. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 06:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong neutral per WP:CHEAP - useless and pointless since the search engine will just decapitalize any all-caps entry unless a redirect points it to a different target, but past discussions have determined that just being in all caps is not a deletion rationale unless there are other problems with the title. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Three months later, it looks like we've flipped positions on these. -- Tavix (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep-keep. Cheap-cheap. Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep this was a redirect to a song, but was replaced by standard capitalisation, and is plausible enough, although there's no obvious connection to any article so keep pointed at its current target not at the disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong keep WP:CHEAP as a capslock error -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Bee vomit[edit]

An implausible synonym that is also technically inaccurate. Adding {{R from incorrect name}} at the least.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as invented. Legacypac (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't go quite as far as to call it invented [24] [25], but it is a technically incorrect pejorative slang, lacking in the reliable sourcing department.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Invented by a few people :) Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - apparently plausible, say the 107 users who have searched for this in the last two months. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment how do you know 107 users have searched for it? the page has received 107 hits. That might be 107 hits from 1 user"s bookmark (no search involved). (Actually, the stats graph is remarkably flat for a random distribution of searches.) It would be nice if we tracked where readers "came from" (e.g. WP search, WP other article/redirect, external link) and the user-agent, like every other bl-y site in the world. However I doubt such a proposal would gain traction.Si Trew (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't expecting to be challenged on that, but you kind of answered the question for me. We (lowly users) can't distinguish between users or inbound link sources or whatever other metrics are available for sites which sign up for such things, all we have is pageviews. And that could have been just me bouncing off the page a couple times a day for 3 straight months, maybe I made it my home page or something. All I can say for sure is that the page is used more than I would expect for one that is not considered useful by at least somebody. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It may be plausible but it's misleading - people searching for this are redirected to the honey article, which doesn't specify whether it's correct or not - and unless it's a soft redirect they won't see the {{R from incorrect name}}. A redirect to Regurgitation (digestion) would provide that information, at least in the current version. Peter James (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

November 14[edit]

Computer language[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 Turn into a DAB. (non-admin close) Legacypac (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Computer languages are not exclusively programming languages. HTML for example is a computer language but not a programming language, just like PostScript and CSS. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 21:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate, computer language could also be a markup language (mentioned in, but distinguished from, current target) or query language (not mentioned in current target). Peter James (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate, per Peter James. A computer language could refer to any machine readable language, be it for programming (like C, Java, C++, etc.), markup (like Wikitext and Markdown), control of another program (like a Makefile), or data storage (like JSON). BlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate, not just programming and markup languages, but the computer code (machine code) itself is a "language", and not a programming language either (in the sense of C or Basic). -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
    • DisambiguateComment. Looks like User:210.6.254.106 has already started a draft DAB below the redirect. (Thanks!) I've added a couple of entries. Si Trew (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC) updated Si Trew (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Dabify per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2015 (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.

Super duper pooper scoopers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) —Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Redirect based on the saying of an 8th grade social studies teacher. Not suitable as a redirect in an encyclopedia. FallingGravity (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Snow Close I sent it for speedy delete. Legacypac (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2015 (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.

Sextraders[edit]

"Sex trader" is a term for women sometimes used for women working in the sex industry, so this redirect is random and makes no sense. These were all created as redirects to pimp by a user who I think was a bit confused; at the current target they're still as nonsensical. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I combined listing. Si Trew (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment we have a sex trade article at sex industry, so these should not point to prostitution. (Of course, that article isn't about bartering with sex... which is another meaning; and we have a more specific sex trafficking for trading of sex workers) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - they are going to call me a deletionist. but oh well. Maybe they are thinking sextrader is like slave trader? Never heard any of these terms used though sex trade is a common term and a valid redirect to sex industry. Legacypac (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget sex trader to sex industry (where sex trade targets), delete the others. Procuring is the wrong context here, one doesn't barter with a prostitute. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I retargeted sex trader and removed it from the list here so the closing admin can just delete the rest. Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Gabriel Dante Rossetti[edit]

10 alternative names is too many.

Legacypac (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep some the ones that end with "Rossetti", that isn't his father, WP:CHEAP -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Lord Eddy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Really? Lord Edward is a Dab page, and I seriously doubt anyone ever called these distinguished gentlemen Lord Eddie Legacypac (talk) 06:33, 14 November 2015 (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.

Know'st[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep all. Consensus is that at least some of the redirects listed are useful. To prevent a trainwreck, I am closing this with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 13:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

dictionary words that don't mean quite what they are targeted at - standard Neelix. Legacypac (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep all. Related words, same target as Know (created as a redirect by an administrator in 2003) and Knowledgeable (created by another editor in 2007). Peter James (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep at least Knowledgeably, Knows, and Known as plausible related terms. Neutral on the rest (more obscure). Neutralitytalk 06:03, 21 November 2015 (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.

Brown Sequard[edit]

Delete using detailed rational at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_23#Alfred_Candidus_Ferdinand_Windischgratz Legacypac (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary now. The search engine seems insensitive to treat letters with diacritical marks except where two titles are distinguished by them (e.g. try searching for "malgré" and "malgre", same results) and hyphens as spaces (e.g. try searching for "boot-scrape" and "boot scrape"), but "bootscrape" gives different results). I looked a few days ago when I was translating a French article, but I couldn't find anything in WP:MOS to say do, or do not, create these alternatives: I no longer do. Si Trew (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. Nominator has effectively withdrawn this redirect to open a requested move discussion. (non-admin closure)  Paine  19:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverse the redirect. Until I changed it a little earlier, this targeted Word-sense disambiguation.

It was used in about a dozen articles, not always correctly. I've fixed those either to point directly at word-sense disambiguation (for linguistics articles), to point at disambiguation (metadata) (for seach engine kinda articles) or simply to unlink it.

If word-sense disambiguation were WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it would be at disambiguation itself. Patently it is not, so put the DAB there. Si Trew (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Background comments. I came to this by way of (disambiguation) which it seems is always used wrongly, in hatnotes etc, by users unfamiliar with it. Similarly, disambiguation seems sometimes to be used in an innocent attempt to link to a disambiguation page. It doesn't help that it ends up at the technical article word-sense disambiguation (even though that did have a hatnote to WP:Disambiguation, I've removed that now since the disambiguation doesn't go there).
I've also boldly retargeted disambiguate, but nothing linked there. "(disambiguation)" was discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 September 1#(disambiguation), the result was delete, but I guess either it was never actually deleted, or was restored. Si Trew (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The "Disambiguation" page was moved by User:Dekimasu on 15 May 2007 with the ec "per Wikipedia:Malplaced disambiguation pages". There have been requested moves before (at Talk:Disambiguation_(disambiguation). This is a requested move, then, I guess, but since everything points to this discussion it might as well stay here for reference. Si Trew (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation (disambiguation) didn't even link to Word-sense disambiguation until I changed it; it went via the disambiguation redirect (against WP:DABPIPE, although this is not a pipe that covers redirects too). Si Trew (talk) 06:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Several comments. First there have been several discussions in the past. It had initially been deleted in 2005 when there were no existing articles and it only pointed to the Policy page and wiktionary. A Talk:Disambiguation (disambiguation)#Requested move requested move for a then two-entry disambiguation page with result of take it to AFD. The outcome was speedy keep after some other entries were added. After the AFD, another requested move resulted in no consensus. Disambiguation was left as a redirect to word-sense disambiguation as the primary topic. Second, your edit here was incorrect. MOS:DABPRIMARY clearly states that such use of a redirect is allowed When the ambiguous term has a primary topic but that article has a different title (so that the term is the title of a redirect), the primary topic line normally uses the redirect to link to that article. Third, as to the merits of this particular request, I'll need to consider whether the situation has changed since the last discussion. older ≠ wiser 10:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The problem we partly had, or have, is that people then put "disambiguation" into an article and because it comes up blue they think all is well. Because word-sense disambiguation is quite a technical article, I do not think it is a primary topic for "disambiguation". It is the primary topic for word-sense disambiguation, that's all (for if not, we might need word-sense disambiguation (disambiguation)). To change the phrase "word sense disambiguation" to "word-sense disambiguation" is not "wrong"; that's WP:LINKCLARITY, (and I considered but rejected going via the R at word sense disambiguation). As I say, really this is a move request but thank you for replying here. Si Trew (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Determining whether word-sense disambiguation is the primary topic for disambiguation should be discussed on one of the relevant talk pages, not in a relatively low profile redirect for discussion page. You didn't only change the phrase "word sense disambiguation" to "word-sense disambiguation", you unilaterally decided you didn't agree with the previous consensus and changed the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 12:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
"By "unilaterally decided" you mean, I was WP:BOLD? Guilty as charged. I already said I think this should go to RM and I'm happy for this discussion to be closed as wrong forum, but I think it best that someone uninvolved does that, and then I'll open the RM. Si Trew (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2015 (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.

René Nicolas[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was DELETE by @Drmies:except the one that is her first and last name (procedural close) Legacypac (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

so many variations of this person's name with no credible reason. I did not nominate the 4 most reasonable. Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2015 (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.

Island apparitions[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 deleted by Drmies; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

More Neelix redirects that make no sense. These all suggest real land, but I can't quickly think of a use for these redirects. Not to the current target anyway. The target deals with islands that appeared on maps or reports in the past. Some redirects suggest to me Marian apparitions or something a delusional or thirsty person might see. Others suggest what actual islands look like, "That island looks green", or perhaps how islands are formed from a volcanic eruption in the ocean. Legacypac (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete an "island apparition"/similar would be a ghost that exists on an island, and not an island that is a ghost. For the "land" ones, WP:BIAS, islands are not the only form of land. Further apparitions of islands can be Fata Morgana (mirage), or a volcanic island rising above the waves, or tidal islets that disappear at hightide, appearing at lowtide. "Appearance"/etc versions are just stupid and I can't see those being ever usable -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
We do have tidal island. volcanic island → high island. Si Trew (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Look up apparition in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing (WP:XY), I think it could be either, actually. An apparition is just something that is apparent (visible), not necessarily imaginary or ethereal. It could be a lighthouse.
I considered making a very weak case for a retarget to Plate tectonics or Volcanic arc (and we have High island and Low island for how islands are formed), but none seems close enough in meaning; WP:XY – "appearance" means something a bit wider than "creation". I could boldly make a DAB for those at Island creation, but even then I'm not sure any these should R to it. Foster's rule (← Island rule) discusses the evolution (and thus appearance) of insular species, and has a "see also" section for Island giantism and Island dwarfism, which could also go at such a DAB. Si Trew (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment. (edit conflict) With 70.51's and Legacypac's consent I have combined these into one listing. (I've put anchors for the deleted section headings.) I hope in doing so I haven't accidentally changed the meanings of their comments (the timestamps are a little off, but these were "batched" listings/responses by both). Si Trew (talk) 10:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2015 (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.

Sobbingly[edit]

unusual construction Legacypac (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep reason for nomination is unclear; word is used in articles. Peter James (talk) 21:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete; "sobbingly" is essentially an adjective, "crying" is a verb; since "sob" is not technically the same word as "cry", this redirect could be seen as inappropriate. Alternately, weak retarget to Wiktionary:sobbingly. (I oppose "keep".) Steel1943 (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It's no more inappropriate than the existing Sobbing redirect. Peter James (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree there since "sobbing" is a verb/noun, just like crying. Steel1943 (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Adjectives can redirect to nouns, or to the same targets as the related nouns, even if the meaning is not identical (for example, Slanderous redirects to Defamation); I assume it's the same for adverbs. Peter James (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment views are less then 1 per day (bot noise) except for attention drawn to is as a Neelix redirect. It's not helping anyone. Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Soft redirect per Peter and Steel. There's enough use of the word (surprisingly enough) that a Wiktionary redirect might be a good compromise. -- Tavix (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't know what you guys are looking at, there are only 4 inbound links to this, from the usual deletion listing pages. No instances in articles at all. It points to the wrong target currently, per Steel1943. I dislike the idea of creating Wiktionary redirects for every word on that site. If our writing here is unclear to the point that we need to define the words in use, the solution is to write better prose, not bluelink every silly construction off-site. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable (disambiguation)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Acceptance (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 02:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

(Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_13#Appropriateness. We might want to combine these discussions.)

Probably Retarget to Acceptance (disambiguation), but I can foresee that might depend on consensus for the "Appropriateness" redirects. It is bizarre to retarget an {{R to dab}} to something other than a DAB page. Si Trew (talk) 03:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • REtarget per nom -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, the only relevant page is acceptance; acceptable should be redirected there. Peter James (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete It's not a real DAB, it's just a redirect that makes zero sense. Acceptable already exists as a redirect to Acceptance (disambiguation). I removed the one inappropriate inbound link and nom'd for G6 speedy. Legacypac (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Si Trew and IP70+ – I have contested the speedy here, because this is still an ongoing RfD with no certain disposition yet. Nor should any incoming link to the page be removed while this redirect is under discussion. Be prosperous! Paine  11:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Acceptance (disambiguation) as long as acceptable redirects there. Not too sure about that one, actually, but Special:PrefixIndex/Acceptable doesn't hint at any better target either. (note: I declined the speedy deletion). —Kusma (t·c) 20:18, 20 November 2015 (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.

November 13[edit]

Singleoperate[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 deleted by Drmies, I assume per WP:SNOW; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Lots of equipment is single operator, these are descriptors. I'd be very surprised following these redirects to find myself reading about hobby radio operators. Legacypac (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong delete per nom. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom; confusing. There's not even enough context in the article to establish what the connection is thought to be. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2015 (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.

Dog skins[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all. JohnCD (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Skin does not equal coat. Skin is below the coat. Compared to other kinds of leather or sheepskin in one place. Oh and some people eat it. Dogskin Lake is a feature in Canada. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Also possible article either for the lake or for the leather made from a dog's skin. The closest article that I got was Dog skin disorders which is a partial match --Lenticel (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, but Rawhide (material) is vaguely possible, as a material used to create dog chews and toys. Si Trew (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2015 (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.

Single coated[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all - WP:SURPRISE; double coats are not unique to dogs. Just Chilling (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

None of these terms are unique to dogs, and none of them even make me think of dogs - s WP:SURPRISE. Paint and similar coatings jump to mind first. They also apply to numerous other animals like llamas whih have a double coat. Delete? Legacypac (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as vague. These "single" and "double" coats seems to refer to other things ranging from dogs to pharmaceutical products and painting techniques --Lenticel (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong delete WP:BIAS, this is not the Dog Wikipedia, other animals have coats, and coats are not restricted to animals either, since a double coat of paint is something done for durability, etc -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOUN, WP:RD#D2 confusing. Si Trew (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2015 (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.

Douzaine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 21#Douzaine

André van Hasselt[edit]

I can't see any evidence people are misspelling this guy's name or using rearrangements of it for some strange reason. The dutch version noted in the article is not nominated for deletion. Delete as clutter Legacypac (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep some the ones that start with Henri or Andre or 'Henri Andre' and end with Hasselt or 'van Hasselt' as WP:CHEAP variants -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
So, keep all except André Henri Constant then? Si Trew (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggest Relist for additional input as we are coming up with more and more of these name variation redirects in the Neelix list Legacypac (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all except André van Hasselt as implausible permutations unless anyone has evidence that he was called another variant. -- Tavix (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Roundtowered[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all - WP:SURPRISE; not only churches are round towered. Just Chilling (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Lots of things are round towered including some castles, and a medical building I know. Too imprecise. Legacypac (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong delete round castellation would be much more likely -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2015 (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.

Gyprocks[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 21#Gyprocks

Rigips[edit]

No English results come up in search, but this is part of the name of a German company in the business of making drywall. If someone is seeking out the company name they are not looking to learn generally about drywall. Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - all my search results are Croatian, but image results look more like some kind of modular building product, not drywall. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
That is what I found too before I nom'd. I had to force it to only look at English results which is where I found the German company. Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it's used as a genericized trademark in Hungarian, too; and it is used generically (I think) in the title of a YouTube video in Romanian here. As a title this is acceptable by WP:RFOREIGN: "Original or official names of people, places, institutions, publications or products".
Weak retarget to Saint-Gobain, its manufacturer ½ndash; but it's not mentioned there. Si Trew (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is actually the commonly used German word for "drywall", just like velcro is the English word for Hook and loop fastener. I never knew it was a company name. —Kusma (t·c) 08:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Best I could quickly figure out Rigips is the main supplier of gypsum cement board in Germany, just as Gyproc is the original/main brand of drywall in Canada, so likely the trademark has become the generic term. This is en Wikipedia though, and english speakers would not know the brand name Rigips. If it went red someone might profile what is likely a notable company. Legacypac (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK unless/until this brand becomes mentioned somewhere. -- Tavix (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Egregiosities[edit]

My tenancy to do badly on math tests is not evil. None of these have anything to do with evil. Legacypac (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget baddest to superlative, where worst targets. Delete the rest. Bad is a disambiguation page and doesn't list anything that "badly" could refer to. As for the egregious ones, evil is the wrong target and we don't seem to have a better one. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@Bearcat: what is Category:Temporary maintenance holdings? I can't figure out why egregious is there with no content instead of being a redlink. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I had to add that category because of a system bug that sometimes hits soft redirects to Wiktionary or Wikisource. Normally, the system treats a soft redirect as what it is — however, for reasons that have never really been explained to me, if somebody tries to convert a soft redirect into an article, and then it gets converted back into a soft redirect again because dicdef or whatever, then the system no longer recognizes it as a soft redirect. Instead, it now permanently considers the page to be an uncategorized article, and lists it on all the tools we use to detect and tag uncategorized articles — and there's no other way to ever make it drop from those lists again, except by finding a way to "categorize" it. If you read the usage note on Category:Temporary maintenance holdings, it explains what the category is for — this bug is the principal reason why it ended up being necessary, and most but not all of the articles in it were put there for this reason. The categorization project can't have pages like this cluttering up our project tools, so just letting it stay as a permanent feature of the uncategorized pages list wasn't an option. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh I get it, thanks for explaining. I was confused why the category was on a page with no content, but I somehow managed to miss the giant wiktionary redirect box at the top of the page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget "badly" to bad (disambiguation); which was missing "error" a term that can be referred to as "badly" (that was badly done / that was erroneously done) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
"erroneous" (itself a DAB) is not the same as "error". (You can't have ërrorly"). I've changed it at bad. Si Trew (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sleepies[edit]

*Sleepies → Rheum  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: (@subpage) ]

No claim in the article that any of these phrases are related. Eye potato sure sounds like potato eye. Delete as invented by the editor to inflate his page creation counts Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all - none of these colloquial names are listed at the target. Sleepies are naps, and potato eyes are a blemish on a potato. Lots of things can encrust on the eye, sleep sugar is hopelessly vague (could refer to NyQuil), eyes in cheese refers to Swiss cheese and others, and on and on. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment My instinct was to keep "sleepies", but now I've done a bit of Googling I'm no longer sure. In any case, here's a survey on what people call it; apart from "sleepies" and "eye crusties", none of these are even listed as options. Sideways713 (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep eye crusties, which isn't really used to refer to anything but rheum. Weak keep sleepies; it's more ambiguous, but is the most used of these redirects and has still happily pointed this way since 2008. Delete the others. Sideways713 (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all but the ones Sideways713 wants to keep. -- Tavix (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Ὑπόθεσις[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈discuss 05:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not a translation service Legacypac (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • From the article: The English word hypothesis comes from the ancient Greek ὑπόθεσις word hupothesis, meaning "to put under" or "to suppose". (referenced in article) Anyone here familiar with ancient Greek? Is Ὑ a capital ὑ? Would our software know to capitalize it? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The definition is correct, but do we provide redirects from Greek words to their English equivalents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)
  • Weak keep since it's mentioned in the article. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 10:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per responses to my questions above (thanks) and per KarasuGamma. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete general topic and not an especially Greek one. Yes, the word has a Greek origin, but WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RFOREIGN, it's a Greek word with Greek etymology. Also, it is described in the article. -- Tavix (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep since it is discussed in the article itself --Lenticel (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2015 (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.

To put under[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

From killed (the vet put the old dog under) to putting someone under a teacher, too vague Legacypac (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2015 (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.

Fussing[edit]

Not to make a fuss, but Fussing is a very different thing then complaining, though someone might do both. Delete all as inappropriate. Legacypac (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hack-rag[edit]

Delete. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. I thought I was the only one left in the world who calls a downmarket newspaper a "hack-rag" 8 (rag being slang for newspaper, hack short for hack writer). But I can't find online RS for this. This is a Neelix redirect; I'm disinclined to list the variants. Si Trew (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Toronto Sun Delete all per WP:MADEUP. Anyway a hack writer is not the same as the paper that publishes them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete all variants as they don't match the targetLegacypac (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

All other online refs i can find are essentially in discussion fora or blogs. Undoubtedly in use, but not RS for WP. OK as citations for Wiktionary, probably. Si Trew (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, now, see, you managed to use The Guide as a source, and now I want to keep this. But there's still really no matching content at the target and I can't find a better one. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Twobody[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all. JohnCD (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete. (and see #Onebody, below: I am hesitant to combine them.) Neelix redirects, WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target, no internal links beyond this discussion, stats below noise level (<1 a day). Were it to be a word it would not be a WP:NOUN, anyway. Si Trew (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: I was adding variants and got an (edit conflict). Do you want to recast your !vote? (I imagine not.) Si Trew (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: No, it's alright, but thanks anyway. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, looking closer, stats for that are 75 over 90 days which is quite low, but pretty evenly spread (bot activity tends to be in bursts every two or three days or so, with nowt else in between.) Thanks for looking into it. Si Trew (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, search results are better. I don't think there are enough potential targets for this to be disambiguated; anyway they would all be partial title matches. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I looked at this when noming one body. Was going to put these up as well but they are a touch better. Legacypac (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2015 (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.

Fast men[edit]

There is an album and song Fast Man Raider Man, but frankly this could refer to a runner or other things. Too imprecise to target anywhere. Legacypac (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Brian Leiser per hatnote on current target. sst✈discuss 09:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    • That hatnote is wong. The target says Leiser is known as "Fast"; the hatnote implies he is known as "Fastman" whereas the target only gives that as an etymology. Si Trew (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all - defined at the target. Unless there are competing usages, which I can't find. There is a song "Fast Man" on Fast Man Raider Man which might be worth a hatnote, and it's possible that a fast man disambiguation page is warranted if there are other possible matches. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
All? How could "Fast men" possibly refer to this no doubt singular (in both senses) man? Si Trew (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I was confused with thinking that they retargeted to Brian Leiser. D'uh. Si Trew (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
As for the DAB suggestion, I'm warm to that, but having a quick search around I'd say the existing DAB at speed record is only a click or two away from anything else that seemed plausible. We could add (general) entries to it, for example, aviation and space speed records are not well covered at that DAB. (I couldn't find anything along the lines of Aviation speed record.) That being said, these are "fast" men, not necessarily "the fastest".
Or how about List of hunger strikes? Si Trew (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Fyodor Terentjev[edit]

It is inconceivable that there need to be 47 redirect variations on the name of a Russian cross country skier from the 50s. Surely this just leads to his name being misspelled all over the internet. Delete all, including the Russian one. Full list [26] Legacypac (talk) 08:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Not just all over the Internet, but all over Wikipedia too, if we're not careful.
The only redirect actually in use is Fedor Terentjev (in three articles: Cross-country skiing at the 1956 Winter Olympics – Men's 30 kilometres, Cross-country skiing at the 1956 Winter Olympics – Men's 50 kilometres and Cross-country skiing at the 1956 Winter Olympics – Men's 4 × 10 kilometre relay). (I am pretty sure that the other Olympic years in which he's linked directly e.g. Cross-country skiing at the 1936 Winter Olympics – Men's 4 × 10 km relay are just via the {{Footer Olympic Champions XC Relay Men}} template.)
So I think, for now, we should Keep Fedor Terentjev because this is the article discussing what his bio said he competed in, so perhaps that is how it was spelled by the Olympic committee. But Delete by default all not mentioned in this discussion as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. I'll check stats for any outliers, and also try to find out if it's just a spelling mistake or an official transliteration for the '56 Olympics. Si Trew (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Feodor Terentiev as a published misspelling [27] (I assume that's named after him since it's also in Karelia where he's from). Weak keep all the other Terentievs as somewhat-plausible mistaken transcriptions (ть always gets mangled; the official romanisation systems have it as t' which looks absurd and so individuals with it in their names always use ad hoc spellings). Delete all the eye-dialect "Tsyar" spellings, the German-style transcriptions with "w", the Cyrillic-with-accents which is never used in the real world, etc. per Si Trew. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Never mind, the first half of my comment, no "Terentiev"s were ever created in the first place. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Fedor Terentjev (which is not a Neelix redirect, and is indeed the spelling that appears in the 1956 Olympic report) and Fedor Terentyev (which is a Neelix redirect) as harmless cheap redirects that may aid searching. (The latter isn't getting any page views to speak of, but it's a plausible transliteration; keeping it may have minimal upside, but no downside.) Delete all the redirects with an S or a W. Sideways713 (talk) 13:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Comment. "Fedor Terentjev" is used here (not WP mirrors):
Si Trew (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Fedor Terentjev per Si Trew, Fedor Terentyev per Sideways713, and Fyodor Terentjev as plausible misspelling (y and j are phonetically similar in many languages, that's what I thought of first). Delete the others. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. None of the others has any links outside of this discussion. All have stats historically (i.e. excluding the last few days) below noise level (<1 a day). Si Trew (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Labourunionistic[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all. JohnCD (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

These are simply not a phrase or word, not a thing at all. Delete as invented nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Also:
Delete these two with same reasoning. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 16#Laborunionist: Labourunionist is a Neelix redirect but has a different target. Si Trew (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Deleteismnesses these as well. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:02, 20 November 2015 (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.

Onebody[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all. JohnCD (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

These immediately make me think of a Christian doctrine (the Church is one body), or fitness (you only have one body), not an obscure math problem. Delete as not specific enough to be useful. Legacypac (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

See also #Twobody, above. I am hesitant to combine these. Si Trew (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator, search results are better. I don't think there are enough potential targets for this to be disambiguated; anyway they would all be partial title matches. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2015 (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.

Singleplayer games[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all. JohnCD (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The are LOTS of games that are not video games but involve one player. Single game could refer to any kind of game anywhere. Let's have a single game of chess or cricket or football today. All misleading redirects that could refer to thousands of things. Legacypac (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong delete WP:BIAS videogames are not the only type of game in the world; indeed the Solitaire Windows games is based on a real world card game, and pinball machines are not videogames. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all - extremely vague. I was a single gamer until I got married, and I was a single player until my wife bought a ukulele. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per above. Sideways713 (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2015 (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.

Full commingling[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all. JohnCD (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

This term has both recycling and securities trading (and maybe other) applications. Delete or dab? Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all - "full" is not defined, it's just a random adjective tacked on to this dictionary definition. "Fully" is defined at the current target but it's still a partial definition. If we're going to keep any of these they should point to commingling. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague and per Ivanvector's findings. --Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2015 (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.

Appropriateness[edit]

These terms are quite different from each other. It might be appropriate to delete this but not an issue of morality. I speedied a bunch of other bad redirects to this target. Legacypac (talk) 06:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Si Trew, just do it. Legacypac (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I was unsure that appropriate and proper had the same etymology (not that that matters greatly, WP:NOTDIC) but they do: both ult. from from Latin proprius, meaning "one's own, private", although they come via different routes. I'm disinclined to be bold when something is being discussed, and since they've been around for at least a couple of years with no quibble, they can wait another "week or so" (RfD header). Si Trew (talk) 02:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Acceptable, and related[edit]
Sorry for that long rationale, and to discuss various redirects in one go, but they are so intertwined I thought it necessary to explain the origin of some of the mess. I haven't even looked at unacceptable yet. I was inclined to open a separate discussion, but they're too entwined. Si Trew (talk) 03:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I've listed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 14#Acceptable (disambiguation). I'd have no problem were we to combine these, but I felt it might be best treated separately, as it is bizarre to turn a "(disambiguation)" page into a redirect. Si Trew (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Proper[edit]

We also have some problems with Propriety, Improper, Impropriety, Inappropriate, Improperly, all of which redirect to Morality. (Inappropriateness. Properly, Properness, Improperness are red; they were deleted on 13 November by User:Sphilbrick as WP:R3: I doubt, actually, that they were recently created.) I see little point in listing them separately, as I think their retargeting will be a natural result of whatever consensus we get with the others. Si Trew (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Copied from my talk page response As you are probably aware, many of the 80,000 or so redirects created by Neelix have been viewed as inappropriate, and a number of editors are undertaking to clean out some of the more egregious items. It is hardly surprising, when viewing such a large number of entries many of which should not of been created, the identification of those to be removed might overreach on occasion. For example, improprieties was on the list requested to be deleted, and I felt this word was common enough, and likely enough to be used as a search term that it ought not to be removed. I feel differently about the four listed here. Three are obscure if not archaic. I don't think it is likely that someone interested in the article morality is going to search for by typing in "properly". However, redirects are cheap, and I don't think it's worth spending much time discussing it. If you think that word or any of the four are truly plausible search terms, I would have no problem if you re-created them. I'll emphasize that's a personal view, and I can respect the reactions of some editors who might feel otherwise.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect everything to Wiktionary. And perhaps trout Neelix for creating them. Oh, and can someone (by which I mean @Si Trew) give a full list of exactly what we are discussing here? The nomination seems a bit... dispersed. --NYKevin 18:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
@NYKevin: I'm not going to do that: it's a bit of a tar-pit about which ones are "distinct" and which ones are conjoined; also the day had turned so I didn't want to lump them in on a previous day's nomination, especially if (for the added noms) it could seem at a glance that I'd put words in others' mouths. I realise it's not ideal as we have it, but I don't think combining them now would make it better. But if there is consensus to do that, I've no objection. Si Trew (talk) 07:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

White lips[edit]

Someone searching this term is NOT looking for tree frogs. It is a symptom of a variety of medical conditions, so since we don't want to suggest it is one medical condition to the exclusion of others, delete all three. Legacypac (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete or redirect to Pallor -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Pallor as a plausible search term. I think "pale lips" might be a better redirect though --Lenticel (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment. We have white-lipped frog (primary), white-lipped frog (disambiguation) and the three entries on it, White-lipped tree frog (primary), White-lipped tree frog (disambiguation) and the two entries on it, white-lipped tamarin, white-lipped snake, white-lipped python, White-lipped tree viper → Trimeresurus albolabris, White-lipped peccary, White-lipped snail, white-lipped mud turtle, White-lipped Bandicoot → Clara's echymipera, White-lipped deer → Thorold's deer and the Ukinga girdled lizard has white lips. (The white rhinoceros doesn't have white lips, but section "Naming" devotes a good chunk to the idea that "white" came from Dutch from its broad (wijd) lips/mouth.)
But amazingly enough we have managed all these years without white-lipped or white lipped. Make of that what you will. Both Common tree frog and White-lipped tree frog have been moved once each in the past, but only to change capitalization. white-lipped frog was moved i 2013 from its Linnean name. Si Trew (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The first may be suitable to redirect to Pallor, the others should be deleted. Peter James (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I retargeted #1 and stripped the rfd template there. Others should be deleted still Legacypac (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Poo pooed[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 23#Poo pooed

Seto Kaiba's Cards[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Misleading redirect, the target page does not mention the character's cards at all. Redirect should be deleted because no other articles has a list of cards the character uses and it is not likely a plausible search term, especially since we already have Seto Kaiba redirecting to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! characters, which seems sufficient enough 173.3.78.156 (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 04:45, 13 November 2015 (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.

Finito[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 convert to DAB, with thanks to Si Trew for doing the work. JohnCD (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure. This section to which this redirects does mention Ramón "Finito" Rivera once - this is the only mention in the article. We have, to my eye, other likely candidates including Ricardo López (boxer) (to which Ricardo "Finito" Lopez redirects), but not Ricardo "Finito" López with the diacritical mark).

We could convert it to a DAB or hatnote the two, but it might be better just delete it, and let the search engine do it. Stats average less than one a day, with the odd peak to 6 or 8, created just under 2 years ago and no change since. Nothing outside this discussion links to it. Si Trew (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate, there also being a see also for Non finito; though we seem to be missing an article for the concept of completion/end/finish which also is referred to with this word in English -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I've created a draft DAB at the redirect page. I don't think we need a concept article. Si Trew (talk) 08:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Dabify the new dab page looks concise --Lenticel (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2015 (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.

Nonobjectivistically[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep six as specified, delete the rest. JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The term "Non-objective", while also related to abstract art, has as a primary dictionary meaning "(of a person or their judgment) influenced by personal feeling or opinions in considering and representing facts." Therefore it is not an appropriate redirect so DELETE, along with all corruptions of it listed. I've not nominated another list mirroring this one Non-objective art etc so people looking for art will still be presented with redirects. Legacypac (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I found this, which might be RS:
and could be useful as a citation for The dictionary definition of nonobjectivist at Wiktionary; probably not here at WP though. Si Trew (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment. The simple versions CAN refer to art but not primarily — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.23.195 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 13 November 2015(UTC

  • Comment. For the general sense, what's the difference, between being non-objective and being subjective (a DAB)? I realise English doesn't have to obey the law of excluded middle, but I think these words happen to. Si Trew (talk)
  • Comment:
non-objectivism, is used legit in Samuel Lewis Shane
nonobjective is used legit in AP Studio Art, Ibram Lassaw and Al Held.
I've already said keep to these two in my !vote above. All others are not linked internally beyond this discussion. Si Trew (talk)
  • Delete the ones not mentioned by Si per WP:R#D5. -- Tavix (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2015 (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.

Inflammational[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈discuss 02:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete: not defined at Wiktionary and flagged as grammar error by Google: either not a real word, or an extremely obscure term. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - While it's not a commonly used term by any means, I'm getting enough of a response when looking this up in terms of books and journal articles (see here and here for scientific examples in print), I feel like the redirect is helpful and should be kept. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP - probabal not a realy word, but I guess not harmistic. Unlikeful that a user looknessing this seeks a more differenty topic. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Let's nuke all the fake words here as they actually hurt the world because of all the websites that scrape from Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment That's an excellent point, I go further and suggest that perhaps we ought to have more than one type of redirect. Case one — this is a real word and while we don't have an article about that specific term is another term that you may well be interested in. Case two — this isn't a real word but a plausible misspelling of a real word so we will direct you to what we believe is the appropriate article. If this were done, then re-users of Wikipedia wouldn't be contributing to turning fake words into real words.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
We use rcats for that, to some effect ({{R from related term}} and {{R from typo}}) but we can't count on mirrors respecting our categories. Content farms gonna content farm. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
All words are (or were) "fake" words. This was already in use and has a clear definition. Peter James (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2015 (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.

November 12[edit]

Æsthetes[edit]

These are from a list of 72 redirects created in a row, but I've singled them out for having an AE combo letter at the beginning which makes them highly unlikely to be useful. Part of target 23 [28] Legacypac (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all - this topic isn't especially relevant to Old English or any of the modern languages that use the Æ ligature, and even if it was then this construction is likely to be nonsense, in the same way as if it was spelled with a W, the number 2, or an emoji. (👾stheticism, anyone?) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep harmless. Note that the spelling with the ligature is perfectly ordinary modern English. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC).
  • Ah, so it is. I guess in that case, keep Æsthetic Movement and Æstheticism as valid alternate names. Delete the rest as impropering modific👾ions. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all except for the two that Ivan singled out... per him. -- Tavix (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Gazpur[edit]

Discussion for Gazpur[edit]

This is a city in India with 121,000 people (a super small city for India). It is also a district with over 3 million people. I am confident they do not have 92 different ways to spell the city name. [29] Just mass delete except for the previous spellings of Ghazeepore, Gauspur, and Ghazipour as shown in the city article. I'll modified the 3 good ones to point to the much larger Ghazipur district and will watch them. The rest are just imagined misspellings. Legacypac (talk) 19:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment The three good ones are NOT in the list above. These are all Neelix creations made by mixing and matching portions of valid former names with each other, and/or his own imagination. While no one has commented I assert these should be deleted as G6 Housekeeping Neelix redirect cleanup Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Glacial growings[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all. JohnCD (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The most implausible typos/bad English in a batch of 125 redirects by Neelix. Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2015 (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.

Asking your crush out[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

A very little used redirect and a very unusual search term. I know redirects are cheap, but they're not cheap enough for my taste. Drmies (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete if you need that search term to find dating, you are too young for dating. Legacypac (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete one does not inherently lead to the other. But generally per Drmies. --kelapstick(on the run)
  • Delete not synonymous, probably a violation of WP:HOWTO --Lenticel (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete asking does not only lead to dating, it can result in rejection -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Limerence, maybe. I can see a possibility that someone might use this search to find information about the general phenomenon, rather than actual instructions. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:YOU. Asking one's crush out is red. Si Trew (talk) 03:31, 15 November 2015 (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.

Built up ice[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all. JohnCD (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

not specific enough to redirect anywhere. All kinds of refrigeration equipment can build up ice, road ice, windshields, etc. Legacypac (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all - too vague to be useful. I first thought of atmospheric icing but even that is a broad topic. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Glacier ice is not the only kind of ice. Ice is not the only that can build up or be built up, and we wouldn't sensibly have a DAB or redirect for build-up of Lego, build-up of limescale and a build-up of every other fungible thing (let alone a backlog), so we shouldn't create one for this. I first thought of atmospheric icing too, actually. Icing is a DAB, but not everything there involves the accumulation of ice. Si Trew (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague as in can pertain to a lot of things. --Lenticel (talk) 05:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • strong delete there are many topics for this, several more likely that glaciation, such as icing on airplanes, icedams on roofs, collapsing trees in icestorms, etc -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2015 (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.

Weed ate[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete both. JohnCD (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Unlikely typo for weed eater, two of the more obscure redirects in a large 125 redirect batch Legacypac (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Me neither. --BDD (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete both, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Si Trew (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete not about Wheaties, nor about marijuana -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2015 (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.

Jesús Galindo[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Not listed at the target article and the player is currently a free agent so there is no replacement article to target it to. Spanneraol (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2015 (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.

Retrogenesis[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Retrogenesis is a theory about Alzheimer's disease, but it's not mentioned in our article. Delete per WP:REDLINK. BDD (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2015 (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.

Don Juan and Molière[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense. neither the words "Don Juan" nor "Molière" appear in it.

I took it to WP:CSD as something of a test case for WP:G8: at that time it was an R to section that didn't exist. This as reverted by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz with this edit and the edit comment "that the target article was restructured to eliminate the section anchor does not justify summary deletion of the redirect" – and removing the section link entirely. So without the section link it now definitely makes no sense. Si Trew (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

At the time the redirect was created, the target section existed and involved the named work. Being an obsolete redirect is not currently a speedy deletion criterion. That's why I declined the speedy. Discussion here may result in deletion of the redirect, but could plausibly result in restoration of relevant text to the article. That potential outcome makes speedy deletion inappropriate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure, that's normal WP:BRD. I would have thought the wording in WP:G8, " redirects to invalid targets, such as non-existent targets,", includes redirects that target non-existent sections; but the rest of G8 talks about pages. It's equally arguable that any R to a redlink should not qualify for G8, since a discussion could plausibly result in restoration of the page (or retargeting). Si Trew (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2015 (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.

Governorate Council in al-Anbar, 2005[edit]

With the word "election" missing, this redirect is nonsense. PanchoS (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - readers searching for information on this governorate council will find it at the election article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete The target article only discusses the election, and not what the council did in 2005. I think the search term implies a reader is seeking information on that instance of the council. As far as I can tell, that's not discussed anywhere on Wikipedia, for 2005 or at all. There's no Al-Anbar governorate council page, and Al Anbar Governorate#Government is just a listing of a few officials. --BDD (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as not specific enough and not helpful to the reader. Legacypac (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

2016 Citi Open[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:TOOEARLY. 333-blue 11:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Restore article to this revision. It needs references, but this tournament is announced and scheduled. I don't think there's anything in policy that says "[w]e need to wait till it's about a month from happening" before creating the article, to quote user Fyunck(click) who redirected it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    Just because it's scheduled and announced doesn't mean it needs an article yet. Otherwise it's just mostly blanks. There isn't even a 2016 Australian Open article yet, but that should happen soon since it's in January. Next August is way too early. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This can be recreated at the appropriate time. -- Tavix (talk) 02:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment it's less than a year away, so not exactly too early for an article, and certainly not for a redirect. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. There's no mention at the target, so it's WP:ASTONISHing; and we can't write much enyclopaedic about it. We could just add a bit of info to the target, e.g. that it will take place from 16 to 24 July 2016 at Rock Creek Park Tennis Center, Washington, DC.[jumbo pingpong 1] Si Trew (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ ""Tickets"". www.citopentennis.com. Retrieved 13 November 2015. July 16 - 24, 2016 Rock Creek Park Tennis Center Washington, DC 
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.

Logansport, IN μSA[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Seems fairly implausible with the "μ" replacing the U in USA Linkle (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - we've had these before, μSA is a geostatistical term: micropolitan statistical area. I'm wondering if this should go to Logansport, Indiana though. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - according to [30] and comparing to our articles on Logansport, Indiana and Cass County, Indiana, the μSA is synonymous with the county, the city lies within it. So the current target is right. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: in the nominator's defense, this article doesn't explicitly say that it's a μSA, unlike some of the others that have been nominated. For those keeping score, here's the list of μSA RFD's:
  • Thanks for looking those up. I think it's fine that it's not mentioned there, someone entering this as a search term very likely already knows what a μSA is, and it couldn't possibly refer to anything else. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • In any case, I added it. -- Tavix (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Is there an easy way to put a note on the 500+ redirection pages with "μSA" in the title to help avoid repetition of nominations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydronium Hydroxide (talk • contribs) 13:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps a dedicated Rcat; compare to {{R from postal code}}. {{R from census code}}? --BDD (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2015 (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.

AS10310[edit]

Discussion for AS10310[edit]

Not sure what this refers to. In any case, it's not mentioned at the article. -- Tavix (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Even less interestingly, it's also a part number for a Kyocera black toner cartridge, a wind generator, and an elecrostatic removal wristband (i.e. antistatic wrist strap). Si Trew (talk) 07:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, it's the sort of information that could go in an infobox. {{Infobox network service provider}} has it, for example. But strictly speaking, info in such a box should be elsewhere in the article too (I think). Si Trew (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not at any of the other targets that I could see, but I may have missed some. Modified after additional targets added. Si Trew (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Joint Special OperationS Command - JSOC[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete: Implausible caps error combined with an unnatural way of disambiguating. -- Tavix (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Joint Special Operations Command is also JSOC, and the primary topic of that. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Don't delete per WP:RFD#K5 - it has 323 hits in the last 60 days. Likely an external link. If not for that I would certainly agree with deletion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    • That doesn't mean it refers to Jordan. The one in the United States would be even more likely to use such a formulation -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - never mind, the page was moved here for less than a minute in 2012: [31] [32] and the stats tool is probably showing me hits from the properly capitalized Joint Special Operations Command - JSOC since we discovered it's not case sensitive. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2015 (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.

Boczek[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. -- Tavix (talk) 05:57, 12 November 2015 (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.

Ouvrîmes[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all. JohnCD (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Vouloir[edit]
Avoir[edit]
Etre[edit]
Parler[edit]
Partir[edit]
Ouvrir[edit]
Venir[edit]
Pouvoir[edit]
Discussion for Ouvrîmes[edit]
  • (edit conflict) Tavix (I assume), thanks for box above. I was writing:
Delete this and the other 300-odd redirects to French conjugation at the Neelix list, except keep French conjugations, French verb conjugations and Basic French verb conjugation. I've scanned this to see if any of the words could sensibly be retargeted to another English article, but I don't think so.
Most (all?) of these are just conjugations of the verb and have a section link for the verbs' infinite form (e.g. for the verbs #Ouvrir and #Venir), but those sections don't exist, and the R's aren't tagged as {{R to section}}. WP:NOTDIC, especially not a translation dictionary. Also WP:RFD#D2 and even perhaps WP:G8 nonexistent target (if one thinks of the section link being an essential part of a redirect's target). Si Trew (talk) 04:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Tavix can you work your magic on this list? We might need to chunk it.
(ec) @Tavix: You beat me to it. I've chunked them now, so that we don't have to download/upload them all each time. I guess you removed the ones I suggested above (or I can't find them). Thanks. Si Trew (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct. In case anyone is curious, there are 311 nominated redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all and someone can recreate if they think something is useful, but the only possible use for any of these might be misspelling, so it's not like it's important to have any of these. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Reinstate, not recreate, to preserve attribution history. But, yes. Si Trew (talk) 05:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @SimonTrew:|Do we really need to save attribution history when for a redirect with a completely different target? Seriously, it's not like this is a revision and there is author credits to preserve - unless there's an article in the history, there is nothing to attribute when we delete it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Newyorkbrad gave a good explanation on that subject the other day: "A redirect from a word to a synonym doesn't have enough creative content to be copyrightable subject-matter, and therefore the attribution rules needn't be a concern." -- Tavix (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I must admit I would have thought the same, since essentially the entire content would change so what is there to attribute? I mentioned it because of the WP:RFD#Discussion for Sextupleglazed glasses, to which User:Ivanvector has replied saying much the same as you. but I think we're all agreed that blatting a redirect with no history is fine. (After all, I typically request that after page moves of new pages). Si Trew (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, best trust the lawyer over the accountant on this one. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all this is senseless, the target is not the meaning of any of these terms, not likely to be meant by anyone searching for these terms (they're more likely to look for a translation) and every verb can be conjugated an insane number of ways, and there are hundreds of verbs. WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a Bescherelle. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I was going to nom them all too but I'm not an expert in french. I can't see someone searching English Wikipedia for these french verbs. If they did, the refirects force them into potentially the wrong article. These redirects hurt the reader, with their main utility being running up the creator's page creation count. Legacypac (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Wikipedia shouldn't be a cross-reference from every word in every language to the article for its respective language or a subarticle of it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all - wanting, having, being, talking, speaking, leaving, separating, opening, coming, and allowing/permitting have no affinity for French, and redirecting these random foreign words to an article on that language's conjugation rules is nonsense. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:40, 12 November 2015 (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.

Q3163213[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 deleted by Liz. --BDD (talk) 18:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

This is Anne Weale's Wikidata identification number. Delete because I can't see how this is useful or helpful to our readers. -- Tavix (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment is this useful for interwiki linkage? So that Wikidata can keep track of a stable URI, for which Wikipedia can rename the article endlessly against without breaking links? (Though if we do use URIs, I think we should have a new namespace for them, like URI:Q3163213 -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not useful as far as I am aware. If the article is renamed then there will be an {{R from move}} for it, and really it's then up to Wikidata to sort it out. we have {{Q}} to provide a title from a WikiData link, e.g. {{Q|3163213}} produces "Anne Weale (Q3163213)", and the doc for that says it is "localized", so presumably it goes via WikiData to pull the current name for EN:WP (the doc is not very forthcoming). Si Trew (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
checking the template code, it uses {{label}}, so e.g. {{label|Q3163213}} produces just "Anne Weale", pulling the localized "label" out of Wikidata. This could differ from the EN:WP name of the article, I guess... Si Trew (talk) 07:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
and d:Q3163213 seems to be the Interwiki pseudo-namespace... the Wikidata template docs are really not very comprehensive. Si Trew (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, this is the only Wikidata redirect that I could find. If there's a use for it, I would think there'd be a lot more than one. -- Tavix (talk) 06:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Yep, Delete. There's no good, and some harm, in mirroring the Wikidata IDs. The whole point is they are persistent when the things they point to can change. Si Trew (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment. If enwiki article gets moved, the enwiki link at Wikidata entry will be corrected automatically after some time (few minutes). And English (and not English Wikipedia) label at WD doesn't have to be the same as enwiki sitelink. Basically, label at Wikidata is something like commonname (without disambiguation), so yes, there may be few hundrets (OK, not so much :D ) Wikidata entries with the same English label. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@Edgars2007: thanks, that's good to know. Si Trew (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2015 (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.

Blackishgray[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 23#Blackishgray

Find water[edit]

Discussion for Find water[edit]

There are many ways to find water other then Dowsing, including drilling, walking to a tap etc and they are more effective usually. Delete this redirect and the similarly vague ones listed here. [33] The more specific ones are likely OK. Legacypac (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose Fine as is. --Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 01:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete water find and variants, since dowsing is pseudoscience and doesn't actually find anything. Also, Retarget divined, which should target a religion- or magic-related article. Keep the rest. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all the versions of "water find*" and "find* water" because dowsing is only one method, and there are dozens of other methods, so this is WP:BIAS -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've split the tables. (I counted manually so sorry if I am out by one or two.) Perhaps we should split the discussions, though I broadly agree with the above. @70.51:, by the asterisk in "witch-water*" I guess you meant the way it is used in linguistics, to indicate an incorrect form? Si Trew (talk) 05:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I meant that the group of redirects similar to waterwitch should be considered for retargetting, "*" would be used loosely like that as found in regular expressions (except more generally than strictly what is found in regexps) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah, OK, thanks for clearing that up. Si Trew (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • For the "doodlebug" ones, delete all present participle ("-ing") forms and verbal noun forms ("-er", "-ers"): it's not a verb. Also weakly delete all forms with hyphens, I get very no ghits for it being used this way (a few with spaces as proper nouns of non-notable entities). It's possible that e.g. doodlebugging is a contraction of doodle bug racing, but I can find no for that. I found a category for the three together on another Wiki readersandrootworkers.org/wiki/Category:Dowsing,_Doodlebugging,_and_Water_Witching, but I don't think that's a WP mirror. Si Trew (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all the "water-witch" ones to "dowsing". There's no other sense at the DAB to which they could apply (all the entries at the DAB are singular nouns). Si Trew (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget "doodle*bugging" to doodlebug. Keep water witching. Delete all of the others as unused, unusable, redundancy constructions which are redundant, implausibant modificationals, or redundant constructions. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget water finding ones to what is now a dab page Finding water. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC).
I'm sorry for not noticing this before, but that's just not a legitimate disambiguation page. Dowsing is the only linked article that talks about "finding" water, and the only linked topic that could be referred to by such a phrase. --BDD (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finding water to comment. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Arlene (2017)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete (user request). — Earwig talk 01:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

A self-reference that doesn't seem useful, and would indeed be very confusing for any reader who stumbled upon it by following the pattern started by Tropical Storm Arlene (2005) and Tropical Storm Arlene (2011). — Earwig talk 00:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy Should be a speedy, so I tagged as such. Legacypac (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I didn't speedy it because WP:CSD#R2 specifically excludes redirects to the WP namespace, but since there's a G7 below I'll go ahead. — Earwig talk 01:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Okay, I don't mind.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 00:59, 12 November 2015 (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.

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 11

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion&oldid=692129385"