Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD)
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

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.

Note: If you just want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold.

Note: If you want to move a page but a redirect is preventing this, do not list it here. Place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.

Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as the only reason to delete a redirect. Redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted too, so it's not a necessary condition either. (See When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

Before listing a redirect for discussion, please familiarize yourself with the following:

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page 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. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is cheap since the deletion coding takes up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • The default result of any RfD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination.
  • 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 at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article. However, for more difficult cases, this page can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another page's talk page don't need to be listed here, as anyone can simply remove the redirect by blanking the page. G6 speedy deletion may be appropriate in such cases.
  • Try to consider whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader when discussing.

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

Shortcut:

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 "http://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 potential 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 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.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut:

Just like 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 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. ClimategateClimatic 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.
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 the template in the previous step:
    • 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.}} ~~~~
  • 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.
  • 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]]

Current list[edit]

April 1[edit]

March 31[edit]

List of burn centers in the Kanto Region[edit]

Page was clearly created as a joke (edit description reads "Made page for reddit."). "Burn center" is not a term used in Pokémon. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Do whatever with it - Of course it is useless as a redirect and created as a joke. I just didn't see it as harmful, and didn't delete it. I asked the creator about it on Reddit and he said "Oh, that was just a joke page I made for a comment.". I see no reason to keep nor to delete so just do whatever common practice dictates. However: thanks for Clarinetguy097 for notifying me of this RfD, such diligence is highly appreciated! ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  23:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as a joke entry. I think the creators already had their fun.--Lenticel (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – A year later my WP:G3 might finally stick.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 00:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

লেমন শার্ক[edit]

Another WP:RFOREIGN redirect from Bengali to a "common word or concept." The lemon shark's range doesn't include the Indian Ocean, so we don't have to worry about keeping it for "cultural" reasons. Tavix |  Talk  18:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth Mary[edit]

There are lots of women with these two forenames; the Queen is very unlikely to be the primary use since barely anyone knows Mary is one of her three Christian names. DrKiernan (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

  • There are indeed lots of people named "Elizabeth Mary", and many have redirects from their full name. However there are only two that I would consider worthy of a target from this title: Elizabeth Mary Palmer, the only person with these two forenames in their article title; and Elizabeth Mary of Portugal (itself a redirect to Infanta Isabel Maria of Portugal) but neither are particularly known without their surname/title afaict. I would suggest a redirect to Elizabeth (given name)#People with this given name but neither of the two Elizabeth Marys are listed there (it's a very incomplete list). I'm wondering if this is a case where the search engine is simply best (even though it sometimes requires a couple of clicks to get there)? Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I would agree with Possible, just to throw it out, the two sister Cunard ships Queen Elizabeth 2 and RMS Queen Mary but that seems equally unlikely. Si Trew (talk) 10:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd say that was not perhaps unlikely for "Elizabeth and Mary", but only with the conjunction. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Aye, the conjunction is the sticking point. Will look. Si Trew (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
We do have this book] (amazon.com) which includes the conjunction in its title. So I don't think it is an uncommon phrase. The thing is, what to do with it? (Actually, I think I have that book in my shelf somewhere... my missus is quite interested in the Tudors). Si Trew (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Let's make it clear, we do not (fortunately) have Elizabeth and Mary nor Elizabeth & Mary, so that's not at issue. Si Trew (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Neither do we have Elisabeth Mary, nor Eliza Maria, "etc etc ad nauseam" as Private Eye says. (cont'd. p94) Si Trew (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Unspeakably naughty acts[edit]

This is a serious encyclopedia. It is not ED nor is it Uncyclopedia. We don't create redirects in article space for humorous purposes. B (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: This is a serious encyclopedia that allows humorous articles, presumably because they are deemed beneficial to the encyclopedia. And as long as it does so, at least in principle it seemingly makes little sense to ban resources that can help with such articles, at least unless somebody can spell out more clearly what harm they are supposedly doing, and/or suggest a better alternative. That said, it's a 'resource' that hasn't been re-used so far, so I'm not too bothered one way or the other, provided that any deletion is then accompanied by wiki-linking 'Unspeakably naughty acts' directly to 'sexual intercourse' in the WP:Reichstag article where the link currently exists. So I've now changed my original Keep to a mere Comment. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete No book hits and three quarters of the web hits are in Wikipedia (not that there are many of those). The possibilities of unspeakable naughtiness go well beyond copulation; I could indeed argue that if the redirect has a target, then it's not really unspeakable and thus doesn't qualify. Mangoe (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Unafraid[edit]

This is a redirect to its opposite. May be better at Courage. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment we could tag it as {{R from antonym}} or retarget to fearless which lists both fear and courage -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Courage. It seems more synonymous with "fearless", but since that's a disambiguation page with nothing called "Unafraid", that doesn't seem like a good option. --BDD (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

But we also have Discourage, which I think H. W. Fowler describes dis– (maybe the O.E.D.) as "a prefix having privative force", that is to say, it takes away fear. So a dis-infectant takes away infection, whereas nobody tries to sell you an uninfectant. Si Trew (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference, surely, between being not scared and being no longer scared? Si Trew (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Rail grinding[edit]

I don't think that this is the right place for this phrase to target. I came to it looking for an article about the process, which is sort of covered at the current target and sort of covered at railgrinder (although it is focused on the machines and not the process). The generic article, grinding (abrasive cutting), does explain the process but without any reference to its application to railways. I don't think any of the three is an ideal target, but which is best? Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Grind (skateboarding) is the first thing that came to mind when I saw the phrase. Disambiguate? --BDD (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I've just seen a comment at Talk:Railgrinder noting that someone looking for the skateboarding term ended up at that article, so I've just added a hatnote pointing to the skateboarding to the page. I was about to say that wherever this ends up pointing it would need a hatnote too, but a dab page is certainly a possibility I wouldn't object to. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate between railgrinder and grind (skateboarding), with a see-also to grinding (abrasive cutting). I'm a bit concerned that High Speed Grinding is spam. Ivanvector (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't think High Speed Grinding is spam, there was a discussion about it I found (I forget where) that suggested it was written in good faith but I did debate tagging it as reading like an advert. Perhaps it would be better merged into Railgrinder? Thryduulf (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    • there's the generic Grind (sport) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Grind (disambiguation). All potential retargets should be at that page. If it's not already there, it should (probably) be added. Tavix |  Talk 
(Intermission) That would be W:TWODABS, though... but I think it should go to specifically grinding rails rather thgan (e.g.) grinding one's teeth. Perhaps WP:VAGUE? Si Trew (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages with only two entries are fine if located at a title that does not include "(disambiguation)" and neither of the targets is the primary topic for the given term. Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment rollerblading is the first thing that came to mind, do we have an article on grinding on roller blades? -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
    • We have Grinds (skating) which is probably what you are looking for, but it's not a topic I'm familiar with. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but the first thing to spring to my mind is grinding rails. Since this is obviously genuinely ambiguous, I think this is best to DAB it, isn't it? Si Trew (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes, I now think a dab page is clearly best. I didn't know about the skateboarding or rollerblading uses when I nominated this. Thryduulf (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • merge railgrinder and High Speed Grinding to rail grinding. For all the fishing around in other uses of "grinding" by itself, the process of, um, rail grinding is the obvious primary topic under "rail grinding". Mangoe (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment I only just noticed, we don't actually have railgrinding (one word) either. I was just going to start making a draft DAB (at Draft:Railgrinding), as usual not to preclude any outcome here but to kinda incorporate what has been discussed, and noticed that was missing too... 09:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I made a start at the DAB if we want it, not perfect but has pretty much the entries we've said here. That is not, of course, to prejudice any clonclusion here, but just to kinda sometimes it helps to clarify. I'd be delighted if others bunged in. Si Trew (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I've changed the description of High Speed Grinding. You had it marked as a company, but the article describes it as a concept. I've described it as a process (as "concept" wouldn't make much sense there) but I'm not entirely happy with it still. It shows though we do need an article on the process - perhaps merging Railgrinder and HSG together could become that article as suggested. Thryduulf (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I've totally forgotten where I stuck the draft DAB, It was very much a draft, so, sorry for my errors there. Are we still going for dabbing it? Si Trew (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Top Banana (candy)[edit]

Very unlikely for someone to type it. Not used anywhere. The Top Banana dab page already link to the main article. damiens.rf 16:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2, confusion. Candy Crush would seem an equally likely target. I was trying to think in the Encylcopaedia of Si Trew's Head where I have heard this exact term before, but haven't. Closest I got were Thurber and Perelman, writing for the Marx Bros. (And his line "How do you know there are four of them [stowaways]? Because their singing Sweet Adeline) will be in my heart till I die. Si Trew (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't see the problem. Is "top banana" a Candy Crush concept? It's not mentioned at that article. --BDD (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to section Jelly Belly#Official 51 flavors, which is the section targeted by the dab page. Odd, however, that the link in the target list links to Banana, but there's always money in the banana stand. Ivanvector (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment was it not S. J. Perelman who said "I am the great Big Cheese around here, but if you don't like that, you can call me the Gorgon Zola. Si Trew (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
That just seems to me like saying Heinz 57. It is just another bit of marketing speak. 22:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talkcontribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, I've been indifferent about this redirect, but I took another look at it and I really don't see it helping anything. If anything, it's confusing. My Google search turned up other types of candy known as "Top Banana" (It's a candy that looks like the banana Runts). However, it's not nearly as popular as the Jelly Belly flavor. Anyone searching for this specific flavor of Jelly Belly can be directed to it via the disambiguation Top Banana. Tavix |  Talk  18:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Ignatius Yakub II[edit]

This redirects to Ignatius Jacob III, while the name of the redirect is Ignatius Yakub II, who is another Patriarch of Antioch. There is no article for Ignatius Yakub (Jacob) II, probably thats why the redirect was created.

However, the current redirect is misleading and I thing it shouldn't be there. Hg andVenus 07:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

March 30[edit]

Latin American Union[edit]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2. Latin America is NOT the same thing as South America so a redirect of this kind to the Union of South American Nations is incorrect, unhelpful, and confusing. Tavix |  Talk  19:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2, confusing. We do have various lists of Latin American countries, but none seems close enough for a retarget; I don't think there's a Union of Latin American countries in the way that there is the European Union or the United States, or NAFTA or NATO or whatever, at least what I could find (but this may be blocking that search). I found Prostitution in Honduras at sixth, somewhat oddly. Si Trew (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I remember hearing about this being a thing, an economic union of specifically Latin American countries, but I don't see an article on it. The closest I've found are Panhispanism, Caribbean Community, Central American Integration System, Association of Caribbean States, and actually quite a few others, but none use the term "Latin American Union". There is (was) a Latin Union but that is (was) global, rather than based in the Americas. I don't think that disambiguation is right here because we can't really be sure that any of these are a conceptual match, and none are title matches. Delete, maybe per WP:REDLINK, more likely because it's just not a thing. Ivanvector (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Scratch that. Retarget to Latin American Union of News Agencies, the closest partial title match I can find. It also seems to be the name of a player's entity in Cyber Nations but that would be an inappropriate redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Golden rule[edit]

Delete confusing redirect with extreme prejudice, as it causes major headaches on its target page about using normal shortcut templates. There's now a bogus fourth section for an enumeration of the three redirects in an essay designed to consist of three sections reflecting its three buzzwords (give or take a harmless "see also".) The 2014 redirect target was used to avoid a 2009 cross-namespace redirect target, now causing persistent reverts on its new target. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem I see with retargeting (or deleting) is that this has been around for quite some time, and many conversations have used the shortcut to refer to this particular essay. Retargeting breaks those conversations, and for no good reason. Ivanvector (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point, and certainly something to think about. But if a mainspace article was mentioned in lots of discussions, that wouldn't stop us deleting or redirecting it. Why should this be any different? I haven't actually got a strong opinion on this either way. I'm just pointing it out. Reyk YO! 22:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The target was User:Ikip/Golden Rule from 2009 to 2014, the current target was introduced out of thin air less than a year ago. Amatulic explains below that the "thin air" actually made sense for AFC, but unlike WP:42 it is not related to the answer to life, the universe, and everything (intentionally without WP.) –Be..anyone (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't see why there would be confusion with the article Golden Rule and the Wikipedia-space redirect Wikipedia:Golden rule. Many fields and endeavors have their own "golden rule". There is no reason Wikipedia shouldn't. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. the first thing that came to my mind was the Golden Triangle (mathematics), but we don't have that in WP space (WP:Golden Triangle). I could see that being good slang for the three of WP:RS, WP:N and WP:V as a good analogy, but I'm disinclined to create it and not sure it would mean quite the same thing. Si Trew (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
That's pretty much what the targeted essay is saying. I think it could be done very well without the nonsensical Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference, and probably should be, but we can decide that elsewhere. Ivanvector (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy reference is nonsense, (And I heard it when it was first broadcast on Radio 4, I am old, written by Douglas Adams and produced by John Lloyd if I recall correctly, I had a nice box set before they did box sets but a cocaine addict I took in stole them to sell for his habit so I don't have it any more. On the box it said "Don't Panic' in large, friendly letters. He also sold off most of my books, for much less than they were worth, because he got a good deal with me from a second hand book seller for oone set of books which is because I know what I am talking about, The worst thing is on the street he said that he took me for a thousand pounds, rather an exaggeration, but it is alway me with the mop and bucket as we do here at WP. If you don't think I can't clean up a mess then you don't know me, I use my real name I come with clean hands,). We have to kinda somehow take that out and reroute it somehow but I don't know quite how yet. Si Trew (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I am old enough to have heard them, but sadly I have not, and anyway the Radio 4 broadcast would be awfully weak by the time it got to where I am. Though my mother does have an old shortwave radio which we used to use to pick up transatlantic broadcasts back in the day, that is before the tubes went on it. She still has the radio though, it's a beautiful old thing. As for changing the name of the essay, that's a move proposal, and one which I think has been proposed before. On my weird long commute home I will think about proposing it again. If you think about it, there really is no justification for an 8km straight-line commute to require a bus and two streetcars, plus sometimes one or two more of each depending on the particular route manager's intelligence, and really should not take an hour and a half on the average day, and as much as twice that if it snows. I mean, come on, snow?! We weren't able to foresee the possibility of snow in Canada? But I suppose you get what you pay CA$2.85 for these days. I probably should just ride my bike. Ivanvector (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I originally created this redirect for one reason: because several WP:AFC reviewer response templates make reference to the "golden rule" and link to Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything. These canned AFC responses have existed for years. I merely created the shortcut to the term already in wide use in AFC. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
    • 'Keep. Amatulic makes the point well: If this is useful it should stay. It is not a WP:CNR (which Wikipedians seem to have taken rather a dislike to in the last year or two), nothing wrong with it. If it were confusing etc I should argue otherwise, but User:Ivanvector pointed out above that they are kinda synonyms (my words not Ivan's). I disagree a little, but they are close enough that it is a useful search term. I think we have to be more stringent in WP space than user space, because we can expect editors to be a bit more aware of how it works than general readers, but this does no harm. Si Trew (talk) 23:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
"Golden Rule" in that it's a pretty important rule that we have, and gold is a pretty nice thing, shiny anyway. The Golden Rule of course is something different. I am not suggesting this should target to WP:CIVIL though, per my comments on retargeting above. Ivanvector (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Since editors have found it useful. A weird redirect but makes sense in context. --Lenticel (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The number of editors who found it useful in February 2015 was zero, if the "stats" link gets this right. But I'm not going to believe obscure stats unless somebody here confirms that it really means what it says. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Be..anyone: The stats link at the top of this section is malformed in that it constructs a search for the separate words "golden" and "rule". The correct link for February is here: http://stats.grok.se/en/201502/Wikipedia%3AGolden_rule ~Amatulić (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Much better, thanks. Actually quite a lot for a redirect that's relatively new (wrt its current target), and considerably longer than WP:42. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Percheron (rocket)[edit]

Delete, the Conestoga was a completely different rocket - Percheon was purchased by them once, but abandoned.. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak retarget to Percheron as {{R from typo}}. Si Trew (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's mentioned at the target, but no prejudice against writing a separate article on this rocket. See this book source. Ivanvector (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I should just like to point out this was listed in the title sec as Percheon, not Percheron. I may be an idiot but I am not a total idiot. If that is a typo on the listing (which I guess it is), I think all bets are void, and we have to start again. Si Trew (talk) 23:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
As long as the discussion links go to the right place then I think it's fine. Assuming templates were used then they should, but I'll check. Ivanvector (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
They didn't, but they do now. Ivanvector (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

People's republic of poland[edit]

Delete, WP:REDUNDANT. Wikipedia already has the page People's Republic of Poland which redirects to the page Polish People's Republic. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions, bad English. Poeticbent talk 13:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Nsw-bity[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) Si Trew (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Implausible search term. Could have been joke or vandalism. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • joke or vandalism"? Did you even search for the name in the page linked? I do not remember why I created the redirect, but it is the standard transcription of the name of one of the pharaoh's "throne names". There is, by now, a dedicated section in another article for this, so the redirect should now point to Ancient_Egyptian_royal_titulary#Throne_name_.28praenomen.29, but I frankly see no reason to delete it. It is an extremely plausible search term, because people tend to search for technical terms they do not understand, and if you read Egyptological literature, and you come across the term nsw-bity, you are likely to search for it. This is presumably exactly what happened to me, then I would have seen Wikipedia didn't know the term, then I would have spent 20 minutes on google books, then I would have inserted the information in an existing article and created the redirect so it could be found by future searches. "joke or vandalism" indeed. --dab (𒁳) 08:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, glad there's a good technical reason. It was used in exactly one place. Happy to withdraw the nom. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 30 March 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.

আমেরিকান সামোয়া[edit]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN: American Samoa does not have a notable Bengali population (that I could find). Tavix |  Talk  00:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. No strong affiliation with South Asia. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIC. This term isn't the native name of the area as well.--Lenticel (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

March 29[edit]

MLB Japan Opening Series 2012[edit]

WP:REDLINK. This event seems to be notable but it only takes up approximately one sentence at Major League Baseball. Tavix |  Talk  23:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

  • A regular-season MLB series probably doesn't need its own article, even if the series was held in Japan. Retarget to 2012 Major League Baseball season, where it's mentioned in the opening sentence. - Eureka Lott 03:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Genie (feral child[edit]

I'm nominating this redirect for deletion, as it serves no purpose and only clutters the database and creates unnecessary overhead whenever someone will sort and organize the incoming links into the target article for maintenance reasons in the future. While I am all pro redirects guiding a user to the correct or at least a related title, this particular redirect represents nothing but a very implausible typo (the closing bracket of the disambiguation term is missing), which is extremely unlikely to be typed into the search box by a human ever again. It has no relevant edit history and no relevant incoming links, therefore it can be deleted safely. Thanks. Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Fairly Strong Delete as harmful. I run a script occasionally to clean out errant redirects from {{R from ambiguous page}} and {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. (Basically, the difference between the two is a parenthetical qualifier). Redirects like this cause a problem for the script because of the missing parenthesis. It falls in that weird gray area between the two which makes it a pretty big pet peeve of mine. If we can get rid of these unhelpful and useless redirects, it will make my life a lot easier in the future. Tavix |  Talk  23:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, apparently it's a lot more useful than I thought. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it should be deleted. Striking my !vote. Tavix |  Talk  00:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • delete unlikely typo, typo is in the form of a malformed disambiguation, which is an artefact of wikipedia, not the world at large -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't support creating large numbers of redirects involving parenthetical disambiguation with the closing parenthesis stripped off, but in cases where redirects like this have been created, it is likely for a specific reason (typically heavy linking from off Wikipedia) and usually ought to be kept. The issue is that some of the minilanguages used in Internet commenting systems - especiallyMarkdown which is used on Reddit, Github, and elsewhere - use parentheses to format URLs as links, and can become very confused by URLs containing parentheses, often formatting them as a link with the final closing parenthesis stripped from the URL. This in turn will cause readers from offsite who follow the broken link to be misdirected to a confusing and unhelpful page that, among other things, suggests creating the article that they thought was already there. A redirect is a simple fix that does very little harm, and posing difficulties for those who do onsite maintenance must come in second to that. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
You're rationale is completely hypothetical. Do you have any evidence that this is occurring for this particular redirect? Tavix |  Talk  14:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It was created specifically because it was a redlink with high traffic [1]. What I posted above is the explanation for redlinks of this form receiving high traffic. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
In your original rationale, you offered suggestions for why redirects like this might be useful, but failed to specifically address this one. Do you have any evidence to suggest that Genie (feral child is linked elsewhere, perhaps from Reddit or Github? Tavix |  Talk  17:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't offer exact search results; Google seems to really want to include results that include the correctly formatted link no matter how strictly I try to search for only the malformatted one, and Reddit's own search function is great for finding submitted links but lousy for searching comments, which is where the bad links occur. What I can say is that the page creator regarded it as a high-traffic redlink (per the edit summary) and that the article itself is higly linked on Reddit [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.211.131.181 (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
That works for me. Striking my vote. Tavix |  Talk  00:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP #5 (someone finds it useful) - the stats are compelling, 500+ hits to the redirect in February. Someone ought to cluebat whoever's writing that lousy code on those Markdown pages, but we can't control that from here. Ivanvector (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Pretty much with Ivanvector. I'm a software engineer of more years than I care to think of and I would be sacked if I wrote code that forgot something as simple as matching parens: But it does no harm and gets hits. We don't kinda have a bug system here to record these. (Well, not an effective one.) We are the bug system here, in the sense we have to clear up others' mess. But removing it is more harmful thank keeping it, however "wrong" it is. Si Trew (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I support the idea that we have redirects for all naming variants as well as all reasonable variants of capitalization and spelling in use somewhere, including some(!) resulting from common (and therefore likely) misspellings (like pronounciation redirecting to pronunciation). However, the "Genie (feral child" redirect is of a different quality, as it is not likely to be used by humans at all. I don't think it would be wise trying to masquerade bugs or problems by adding highly artificial "misspelling variants" for titles ending on a closing bracket to our database, in particular, if it does not address a problem within Wikipedia itself, but elsewhere. Following this logic, if we would do it for "Genie (feral child", we would have to do this for ten-thousands of similar entries in Wikipedia as well, as there is nothing special about why such an error would occur only with "Genie (feral child", but not with other similar entries. Further, we would also have to add entries for constructions like "Genie feral child)", "Genie [feral child]" and so on - the list is endless. Such problems must be fixed at a logically different level than trashing our database with uncountable invalid entries. They must be fixed where they occur, not in Wikipedia. At most, we could add a general "rule" to our "smart" search engine to still find the proper article when someone omits the bracket.
From a software developer's perspective, I consider the set of incoming redirects into an article as a formal definition of the proper "interface" to a piece of content (the article). Including misspellings (beyond things like pronounciation) invalides the interface and creates unnecessary maintenance overhead forever. The unnecessary complexity may even allow difficult to detect actual bugs to creap in over time. While a single such entry doesn't harm, an attitude to never clean up such trash will first turn into an annoyance and later into a burden for editors at some point in the future. Therefore I still think this redirect should be deleted. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Excuse me, @65.94.43.89:, but do you take me for a general idiot or a specific one? The link you gave, which I checked, is a difference page and not a stats one: so I am not sure why you say it is. Necessarily we do not know how many people find a redlink: cos they don't get a hit. It was created by @Anthony Appleyard:, but I think mistakenly. Try again. Or, do your homework. You've led me to a "stats" page that actually is the page differences between what that good editor created and what you did afterwards. That does not help the discussion. Everyone is entitled to make a mistake, but that's just leading other editors up the garden path, and leaving them there. Having checked the history, the last edit was declined as Speedy Delete on 29 March, i.e., in my time late yesterday, and so it comes here. which is fine, but you have to argue your case and you will get a fair hearing. Throwing that kind of nonsense in does neither. I checked the history and you have had no contribution to it. People like Appleyard and User:Gorobay who does an enormous amount of work on Wikipedia, and a couple of others I don't know but I imagine contribute in other places, have done. It was put to me fairly simply when I was eighteen and said "Thereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent", quoting Wittgenstein: The reply, quite rightly, was "Or if you don't know, shut up". Si Trew (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I do believe the stats tool can produce stats for redlinks, if you have one in mind that is commonly searched. I can't think of one to test with, but it should be possible. Also, the {{Rfd2}} template is making bad links to the stats tool. It should not be replacing spaces in article titles with "+" to pass to the tool, that makes the tool look for a page that doesn't exist. If you click on the stats link and get a stats page with no hits where you're sure that there should be some, try looking for plus signs in the page name box. Ivanvector (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, please write out your rants in a single edit if at all possible, and use the preview button. Edit conflicts suck, especially on pages that get long and contain multiple threads like these ones. Ivanvector (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Sorry for the ec. I Dunno, what do you do with the spaces? As for the small edits, I think that is just a difference of opinion, I wrote an essay many years ago with someone else, unfortunately I don't think active, called WP:OWNFEET that says, in the lede, "every edit has to stand on its own feet". I.e. you can't write sixteen edits in one go and bung them all in because other editors cannot then pick out what is wrong or right about them. I know others disagree, and in fact an opposing opinion is linked in the bottom of that article.
I am not ranting, I am arguing strongly. No evidence for this was provided, and in fact the link was a complete fool's errand. So I asked the contributor to provide more evidence. What would you do? Perhaps a bit strong, maybe, but come on, it's an IP contributor who has requested SPEEDY, been declined, come here with no evidence.
By the way, I did some ce on your lovely stub at, I forget what it was now, but anything you don't like, I shan't at all be offended by you changing it or taking it out. I think it's looking good as a stub.
I do not actually rant. Ever seen me swear? Perhaps I was a little strong, but I got a thank you today, on my talk page, which seems lately to have been used as a general debating chamber rather than a talk page, from a new user here with moving something from AfD to RfD. I do not expect people to expect to know all the "rules" and "procedures" and so on; perhaps I was a little stern, but an IP editor whose only contribution is to list something at CSD -- c'mon -- that's pushing it. Si Trew (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I think what people take offense to is "do your homework". Well, do your homework. I check my bookshelves and stuff before I come here with things. I know I had to throw about a thousand out, but I have a few left, and I check what the etymology or spelling of something is before I come here. Ambrose Bierce defines in The Devil's Dictionary that Education is that which "Reveals to the wise, and disguises from the foolish, their lack of understanding". And I can quote that without even looking it up. I have a very good memory, and I translate and edit articles. Maybe it is time for a WP:WIKIBREAK because I do get fed up with this sometimes, I volunteer a lot of time here and get very little thanks for it. Well I am not sure if I am wise or foolish but I certainly know I don't know everything. Just trying to make this encyclopaedia better. Handover to you probably, nearly time for bed. Si Trew (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to check and sort out that Rfd2 template and report back but this will take me a bit of time. Si Trew (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
"Google seems to really want to include results that include the correctly formatted link no matter how strictly I try to search for only the malformatted one": In my experience Google seems to search for words and numbers only and seems to ignore punctuation and suchlike. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Quickscope[edit]

Delete both redirects, since "Quickscopeing" is not a glitch and is a common practice in many FPS video games. Rayukk (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I added that one as well. 92.203.149.81 (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can't put my finger on it, but something makes me thing this is a film system to run the 35mm through the projector a bit quicker, essentially to get the film done quicker so you can get get home to your wife quicker (as if that is ever desirable) but more that you could run it more often, like in the Movietone days. I can't put my finger on it, but like Cinemascope etc was it just a brand name for a name of projector? I am sure I have seen it somewhere but can't put my finger on it: it it was, would have been in the 1930s, I imagine. With a good old film projector your running speed is essentially controlled by the Latham loop, which takes up all the tension on the film reel as a pinchwheel, it is all digital now so not necessary, but you run it through a Quickscope and it allows you to run the film a bit faster, so you can get more audiences in. Maybe that is just me. Si Trew (talk) 21:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable FPS term. At best this is a meme. Google search did not yield any useful links about it. --Lenticel (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

March 28[edit]

Sir Jimmy Savile[edit]

Delete - Jimmy Savile's knighthood expired when he died. [3] Also, no one will search for this term, because the media and the public no longer refer to him as "Sir Jimmy Savile". Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 21:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. Yes, his knighthood expired when he died. The fact that something is incorrect does not make it an unlikely search term. We have, for example, Sir Walter Raleigh, and he died quite a few years ago too. To give someone their honorific after they have died I am not sure is even incorrect, since that is the honorific he had during his lifetime, but certainly, is a likely search term. Si Trew (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
That being said, none of these has had any hits lately unless good old groks.se is playing up, but they are not new, and are harmless. Si Trew (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, but these requested redirects were declined because of Savile's nature. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
But WP:NOTCENSORED. We have an article on Jack the Ripper, for example — shall we delete that because he was somewhat unsavoury, or Fred West? In the world of fiction, people are constantly coming a cropper in Agatha Christie novels. Whether you or others feel the man was repugnant does not change the facts that he was awarded a knighthood, and people will be looking for this. (I presume your nick refers to the Stanley Holloway monologue, by the way, "Sam, Sam, "Pick Up Tha' Musket", which according to that article he wrote and performed from 1928 – I should have put it slightly later, if asked on a quiz). I have, somewhere, the collected works of his lyrics and songs, if you wish me to patronise you. Marriott Edgar wrote many of the monologues, including, I think, ""The Lion And Albert". The poet Horace said "A liar should have a good memory". I am not a liar, my three tenets in life are do not hit, do not lie, do not cheat: But I have a good memory. I do not even have to look this up to know this: I only look it up to add the refs for the ISBNs and so on (I don't sit there memory reading ISBNs). Si Trew (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep he appears that way in sources (since published sources don't change after they are printed on paper), so whatever the change in current status, it is still a former status, thus a viable search term -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - personally, I would've said "Savile's knighthood expired when he did" but at any rate, these redirects are harmless, and 65.94 has a good point about paper sources. We're WP:NOTPAPER, but these are all viable search terms based on historic usage. I agree with LukeSurl about not creating the litany of new redirects with all the possible permutations of his former title(s), but for the redirects that have already been made, they're not doing any harm. Ivanvector (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's technically correct to say his K expired when he did: at least, his medal didn't. Correct or not, it is a likely search term. I am not sure what the family did with his medal. I presume either buried with him or returned to Her Majesty, but necessarily it was quite a controversial and, subsequently, very private matter (and he had handed out quite a few himself on Jim'll Fix It, but I think they were just cheap I dunno I would guess annealed steel or something). But I am not sure a K expires when the person it was awarded to expires. For if not, every other medal should be returned to the Crown, that was awarded in the war for our honourable soldiers and so on, which patently they are not, yes in theory, the K expires with the person, but people do tend to keep and sell medals (the nearest I got to that was Coinage_Offences_Act_1936, but I am sure there is some name for it, like deltiology is for picture postcards and numismatism is for cards). Si Trew (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead the vote[edit]

This seems to be a student-run voting initiative at the University of Pennsylvania. There is no reference to it at that target, however, and therefore should be deleted as unhelpful and confusing (especially when it's ambiguous). Tavix |  Talk  20:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete. I was wondering about Leading question or Leader of the House of Commons (who, officially but not actually, does lead Members of Parliament to the lobby to vote), both seem somewhat unlikely. The person who counts the vote, such as Returning Officer or Teller (elections), also seem unlikely. Similarly if a vote or bill were printed in leaded type that would seem unlikely. Can't think of a good target for this one. Si Trew (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete extreme ambiguity, not found at target; [4] [5] -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

List of all people living and dead[edit]

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 19#List of every person in the world. Tavix |  Talk  20:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

জলপ্রপাত[edit]

WP:RFOREIGN: "Common words or concepts" are inappropriate foreign-language redirects Tavix |  Talk  19:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. There is no particular affinity for any language for this general concept -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete since waterfalls aren't uniquely found in one particular culture. --Lenticel (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Animalia 101[edit]

Delete as confusing. This used to be an article about an educational organization about animals, but it wasn't notable. Instead of it being deleted, it was redirected to "Animal." I don't think that redirection is helping anyone and, since it isn't mentioned there (or anywhere else), it should be safe to delete it. Tavix |  Talk  19:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. I realise "101" is almost a stock phrase in the U.S. to mean a basic course of education, but not elsewhere (WP:ENGVAR), and is either not understood elsewhere or used as just jargon without understanding that higher education courses often end (I think) with "101". Might as well redirect it to Room 101 if we are playing that game. Si Trew (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Richard Cornhill[edit]

Delete as nonsense. I wasn't able to find any connection between a "Richard Cornhill" and the Colbert Report. This was redirected to a section called "Wikipedia references" back in March 2009. Even that version of the Colbert Report didn't make any reference to this guy. See here. Tavix |  Talk  19:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. It's just possible, but a long stretch, to take it to High Sheriff of Surrey, which lists Reginald de Cornhill and Richard de Maisey (1204), but I think that is stretching it rather. Si Trew (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It was nonsense joke. It was joke on his episode about him starting a show with Alan Colmes and there a lot riffs on it and ended up on Richard Cornhill and said something about check Wikipedia. Cladeal832 (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirects of nonsense jokes, especially those that aren't mentioned at the target, shouldn't be kept. It's not helpful to keep this redirect, especially since the joke was told six years ago. If we had a redirect for every joke that Stephen Colbert has ever told, that number would be in the thousands. On the other hand, if this was mentioned at The Colbert Report, we'd have a reason for keeping it (although I don't think that should happen). Tavix |  Talk  19:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Bush Presidential Lieberry[edit]

Delete as a non-neutral redirect. Through my research, it looks like the GWB Presidential Center was referred to as a "LIE-berry" by a couple people who disagree with Bush. I couldn't find any notable instances of this usage, however, so it would fall under WP:RNEUTRAL's exception: "redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful...may be nominated for deletion." Also note that Lieberry is red. Tavix |  Talk  19:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per User:Tavix. While redirects do not have to be neutral, I agree that WP:RNEUTRAL is in play here, since I can't find it used outside of Wikipedia itself. Urban Dictionary has "Lie-berry" and I found this] fairly quickly through a Gsearch for "Lieberry", among others, but I still don't think that is WP:RS. The fact that people pronounce things differently, especially since we have Bushism, is perhaps something to be celebrated (I have dropped aitches and a glottal stop on my T's for example in a cockney accent), but this is simply mocking a Southern drawl. Si Trew (talk) 21:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete for this phrase having no particular notability, and not being particularly NPOV. Reminds me of a t-shirt I saw with "SHAVE ARE LIBERRIES!" on it but now I can't find a source for that either. Ivanvector (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

United Mujahideen Front of Pattani[edit]

Please delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #2 (confusion) and WP:REDLINK. Bersatu is (or was?) an umbrella group of different Thai Malay separatist groups (PULO, BNPP, a part of BRN), including secular nationalists and (relatively) moderate exponents. It was established in 1989 and has lost influence since the early 2000s, may even be factually dissolved. Barisan Bersatu Mujahidin Patani (BBMP; "United Mujahideen Front of Pattani") on the other hand was founded in 1985 as a radical breakaway of BNPP, adopted a radically Islamist ideology and never joined Bersatu (the umbrella organisation). There are no links between them (except both being separatist and active in the same region). Bersatu is just the Malay word for "united". It is part of the names of many unrelated organisations. There should be a red link until someone writes an article about the United Mujahideen Front of Pattani (BBMP). --RJFF (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. You have kinda talked yourself out of your own argument. Since this is useful, perhaps, to an English-speaking audience who are not familiar with Malay, it is the place it should go. It would be useful to add your information at the article, though. We do have, for example, Labour Party (disambiguation), and we don't say that "Labour" just means "work". Si Trew (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: I may not have expressed myself clearly. We are talking about two distinct, unrelated organisations: One is called Bersatu ("Unity") and the other is called Barisan Bersatu Mujahidin Patani ("United Mujahideen Front of Pattani"). They are not linked or related in any way. Redirecting from the name of the one to the other is totally confused and misleading. --RJFF (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm with you. Confused me, I assumed it was the same organisation. Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing.
  • Delete, it seems like the redirects are so confusing that we've confused Simon. If they're not related in any way, they should be deleted. WP:RFD#D2. Tavix |  Talk  18:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Yep, and of course I am not representative of the general WP audience, but I did actually check them, so if they confused me perhaps they are likely to confuse others. Si Trew (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Ogwb.org[edit]

I'm not sure if this is a helpful redirect. I don't think anyone would realistically search this website and expect to be directed to a general biography of Dubya. This website isn't mentioned at the targeted article and it appears to be down. Tavix |  Talk  15:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • That makes a little bit more sense. I still don't know where the "o" came from though. However, I feel like a retarget would have some of the same problems, IMO (not mentioned, site isn't used, etc.). Tavix |  Talk  18:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The domain is still being used for some of the Bush Center's email accounts. You can see a few here: http://www.bushcenter.org/center/contact-us . I bet that the O stands for Office. From the Gawker article linked by Simon below, it looks like Mr. Bush's email address was (is?) indeed gwb@ogwb.org . - Eureka Lott 22:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks like the mystery has been solved. OGWB definitely stands for "Office of George W. Bush." Back to the topic of redirects, is this really needed though? SimonTrew's findings make the domain seem sketchy to me and I also note that the actual domain (and it's variants) are red: bushcenter.org, Bushcenter.org, and BushCenter.org. Tavix |  Talk  22:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I like a good mystery. What gets a bit fishier is doing a WHOIS search for this domain reveals it expires on 27 April, i.e. in about a month.... the IP location is in Virginia... but that's just essentially the ISP which is Amazon.com. The IP address has actually been fairly stable (ten changes over five years) so that means either they have leased it to ten different people, I guess, or that whoever leases it (Amazon is too big to deal with individual DHCP lessors, so I guess they sublet a bank of them to a smaller, more local, ISP) keeps a permanent IP address either because their ISP doesn't bother to cycle them or that they have a leased address... The website registered at the WHOIS is "Shake The Sky Casino", and the link their is to ogwb.org, which doesn't load (no web server, I guess), so what is going on here? Probably Delete, but can't quite say why.... Si Trew (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I realise we are interleaving here, but surely George W. Bush's secretary or whatever would not put up an "Office of George W. Bush" site that was asking you to vote against George W. Bush? That doesn't make sense. I don't think it's been set up by any of his political opponents, not suggesting that, but something here does not ring true. Dunno what to do with it. Si Trew (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Organization? Si Trew (talk)
Organization of George W. Bush? Seems awkward to me... Tavix |  Talk  21:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Opposition? Si Trew (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Nah that makes even less sense, unless he kinda opposed himself... which is possible I suppose if you gave him a mirror.... Si Trew (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually I think I am right, looks like a campaigning group against him (and not WP:N or WP:RS) e.g. here, and presumably a made-up address. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I just did a tracert and to my surprise there is an SMTP server for it, after jumping through Dallas it goes to an anonymous IP but it does get a response from the server at 216.1.228.25:
4 3 ms 3 ms 3 ms xe-7-2-0.cr01.budapest.digicable.hu [94.21.3.130] (Mine out to Budapest)
5 4 ms 3 ms 3 ms cr01.budapesta.rdsnet.ro [213.154.125.65] (Bouncing mine via Romania)
6 21 ms 20 ms 21 ms xr01.frankfurt.rdsnet.ro [213.154.125.49] (and Again)
7 73 ms 21 ms 21 ms ge-3-0.ir1.frankfurt-he.de.xo.net [80.81.192.182] (now we're off to Germany)
8 37 ms 47 ms 37 ms 207.88.15.77.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.15.77] (And across the Atlantic)
9 124 ms 128 ms 126 ms vb1042.rar3.nyc-ny.us.xo.net [207.88.13.202] (Over to New York now)
10 167 ms 162 ms 163 ms te-3-0-0.rar3.washington-dc.us.xo.net [207.88.12.74] (Down to Washinton)
11 163 ms 163 ms 163 ms te-3-0-0.rar3.atlanta-ga.us.xo.net [207.88.12.9] (...Atlanta)
12 158 ms 162 ms 167 ms 207.88.12.88.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.12.88] (Dunno)
13 176 ms 168 ms 167 ms 207.88.12.179.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.12.179] (Dunno)
14 157 ms 159 ms 159 ms 207.88.12.92.ptr.us.xo.net [207.88.12.92] (Dunno)
15 160 ms 163 ms 163 ms ae0d0.mcr1.dallas-tx.us.xo.net [216.156.0.82] (There we are in Dallas)
16 175 ms 172 ms 175 ms 64.245.100.114 (And to nobody's surprise an anonymous IP)
17 152 ms 153 ms 153 ms smtp.ogwb.org [216.1.228.25] (That lands up at their mail server)
Si Trew (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and if you try to send them an email via their website (I am not that stupid) it asks for them to accept that they access all of your details off your machine. Hmmm..... I could set up a false account but can't really be bothered. Obviously a kinda scam site of some kind. Si Trew (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense. The website says it is updated whenever time you look at the page info, but that is just because it dynamically feeds the time (which is annoying, rather than when it was actually updated). But actually it doesn't seem to have been updated in a long while. No use to Wikipedia, better off deleted. Striking my Delete above but not to change my opinion, just I don't want it counted twice by accident (I got told off for that before.) Si Trew (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete on the possibility that this is a phishing site, given Si's findings and generally the U.S. government's propensity for feeling entitled to spy on anything and everything. *waves to the NSA* Of course my own country is no better. The redirect is also just not generally useful. Ivanvector (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There's no reason to make this so complicated. None of the items shared above offer reasonable evidence to be suspicious about this domain name. What we have determined is that it's operated by the Office of George W. Bush—the website is parked, but it's used for email accounts. In other words, the redirect is harmless. I think the best thing to do is tag it as a {{r from domain name}} and keep it as-is. - Eureka Lott 01:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Horizontal hold[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. (non-admin closure) Tavix |  Talk  21:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

We have this but not vertical hold, which I think should go to the same section: it's well described there. I'm inclined to create it but would like others' opinions first. in case they think that horiz could go somewhere better. (Below Ivanvector and I have been off topic about old telly, but some good may come of it...) Si Trew (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Just do it. In fact, I just did it :-D They could arguably go to the subsection "Horizontal hold and vertical hold", but the whole thing's needed to make sense of it I think - David Gerard (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural close, please. Thanks, @David Gerard:, I am not sure whether I would have taken it to the subsection, but as it stands it is better than what it was. Si Trew (talk) 21:14, 28 March 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.

Jett Ruiz[edit]

It should be deleted, since redirecting the page with the name of a particular professional baseballl team's bullpen catcher to the page with the team name is weird. RekishiEJ (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not mentioned at target. Si Trew (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage the creation of an article. - Eureka Lott 18:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete to encourage article creation.--Lenticel (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

March 27[edit]

United Original Secession Church[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. Deletion would be foolish, now that Jnestorius has created a page about the UOSC. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Despite the similar names, these weren't the same entity: the article says that the USC "existed until 1847 when it merged with the Presbytery of Relief to form the United Presbyterian Church". An 1886 book speaks of the UOSC in the present tense, and the UOSC published a book in 1905. If that's not enough, see the Library of Congress authority record for the church, which gives its dates as (1842-1956). Definitely a case of WP:RFD#DELETE point 2, and the article doesn't mention anything about a group that got going in 1842, so it also looks like a case of RFD#DELETE point 10. Nyttend (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Addendum — see User:Jnestorius/Church of Scotland family tree, which helpfully distinguishes between the two entities. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment - this seems to be a case of WP:SOFIXIT. The current content is a redirect to the wrong thing, so replace it with a stub article about the right thing. Why bother with deletes and wikiprocess? I abandoned that old userspace page long ago; File:Churches of Scotland timeline.png has most of its info and more; although it calls the thing in question Original Secession Church rather than United Original Secession Church, it is clearly distinct, as Nyttend says, from the United Secession Church. jnestorius(talk) 23:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment #2 I've created Original Secession Church so just redirect United Original Secession Church to there and close this RFD. jnestorius(talk) 23:46, 27 March 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.

Sky Ʒ[edit]

These redirects should be deleted because they are unlikely search terms. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - unlikely search term, appears to be only 4 days old (but not sure, it was redirected through WP:AFC). No incoming links. Ivanvector (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, the character does not render at all in mobile browsers. I briefly wondered this morning how drunk I must have been last night to vote to delete the sky, and it must have been some party because all these people were agreeing. Ivanvector (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The nominator has also tagged SkyƷ for deletion, I assume this nomination also covers this entry. Also, a note to participants in this discussion: the symbol in these titles is not a "3" but rather a "Ʒ", a symbol from the phonetic alphabet. --LukeSurl t c 19:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Added SkyƷ to this thread. Ivanvector (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nominator, no searcher is likely to type a phonetics term when they mean to write "3". --LukeSurl t c 19:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete; why would anyone even have thought of typing an ezh instead of a 3 here? You might as well type Sky З or Sky Ȝ, but none of those would be even close to likely. This is a recent creation; it should be R3-eligible. Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above, and indeed WP:RFD#D3, the wonder is how someone manages to kinda create it in the first place. On my screen it was almost indistinguishable until User:LukeSurl pointed it out, I know the phonetic symbol but even on a relatively hi res screen (I think 2048x1024, and about 19 inches) it's hard to make this out in a ten point font. It's just ridiculous. Who would ever type that? How would they type that? Si Trew (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I looked for Sky Ʃ (Greek letter sigma) and SkyƩ just in case, as are Sky ƺ Skyƺ and (Latin small letter ezh with tail). They are all red. Si Trew (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Maimai[edit]

Sorry, looks like I have been very unclear in the nomination, with all the changes and what not. Let me summarize my final nomination here:

Proposing delete Maimai to allow Maimai (disambiguation) be moved in, since I fail to find sources to support Oshida is the primary topic here from any search. After that delete MaiMai resulted from move, because the video game is never written with a middle capital M (in fact proper stylization is all small letters) and hence is inaccurate and misleading.

Still I am open to any other suggestions to solve this debacle. Sorry again for any confusion and thanks. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Miami as likely, especially since all the holiday brochures are out. Hajimemashite, Hisashi-san. Si Trew (talk) 09:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Though I guess Mau Mau is possible, but unlikely... and Miasma seems a long way out. Mama possible? Si Trew (talk) 09:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Move Maimai (disambiguation) over the redirect, then retarget MaiMai to the dab page as {{R from alternate capitalization}}. I don't see any reason that any of these usages is primary in English. We also don't explain anywhere why the singer is referred to as "Maimai". Si: we have full title matches for "maimai" so {{R from misspelling}} would be inappropriate, but Miami (disambiguation) could rightly live in the see also section. Not sure about the others. Ivanvector (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What Ivanvector said The disambiguation page is rather long and is the only obvious target at this point. I do not see a reason to favor a misspelling of Miami over that. Seyasirt (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate replace "maimai" with the disambiguation page and point "MaiMai" to the disambiguation page -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Move the DAB to primary, like wot Ivanvector said. That makes more sense. (Striking mine above.) Si Trew (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I should have mentioned, I added a few entries at the DAB, and was wondering how far to stretch it (for example I added Meow Meow, a DAB which lists it third but slang for Mephedrone, which I think actually was a term invented as a bit of a hoax and never used in real life before – could have been by Chris Morris (satirist)). Just mentioning it so others take a look and can take them out etc if they think them a stretch too far, @Lenticel: or @Hisashiyarouin: might be the best at this one, as those who have knowledge of Far Eastern pronunciations, whether any would sound similar enough to be a likely search term to a non-native speaker? Si Trew (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Ivanvector's suggestion. --Lenticel (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Emily Selke[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 per WP:SNOW and/or WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Person not mentioned at target - TheChampionMan1234 00:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I would have thought it meant that the person was not mentioned at the target. What did you think it meant? Si Trew (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL , WP:N non-notable person -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete with 65.94. I am not particularly happy with people losing their lives either, but people die every day, and we can't have articles for all of them. They have to be WP:N in themselves, for example the Busby Babes. Si Trew (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, most of this rationale is a response to CookieMonster755's question. When a term is redirected somewhere, it should be mentioned at the targeted article (or be a variation thereof). This is a helpful redirect because it points the reader to a place that uses that term. On the other hand, when a term is not mentioned at the targeted article, it's not helpful, potentially confusing for the reader, and is a red flag that questions the validity of the redirect. Tavix |  Talk  12:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete -- I am the one who created the redirect, and I am voting delete. I completely understand now, why a redirect is very unessesary in this case. I want to appoligize for wasting everybody's time, now I know, Wikipedia ain't no Memorial or Soapbox, and redirects like this are unnessesary. Thanks to SimonTrew for clearly explaining why is very unnessary to have this redirect. Yes, I am very heartbroken at what happen, but like I said, this is not a Memorial or Soapbox. Please Delete it, in a respectful manner. Thank you. CookieMonster755 (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E (WP:BDP indicates that BLP applies) and per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and per all of the above. I suggest this be speedy deleted per WP:SNOW and WP:IAR although it does not fit any of the CSD criteria. Condolences to the victims of the crash and the daily victims of whatever troubles are happening around the world constantly, but a blurb on Wikipedia is not the way you want to have your loved ones memorialized. Ivanvector (talk) 15:19, 27 March 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.

March 26[edit]

Channel 53 virtual TV stations in Mexico[edit]

The one TV station assumed to be using a virtual channel 53 in Mexico actually uses a virtual channel 35. That redirect did not exist, so I moved the page. Delete as superfluous. Raymie (tc) 16:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Channel 53, the target of the double redirect that this move created. The bot will likely be along shortly to take care of this anyway. However, it is nonsense per WP:RFD#DELETE #3 to have "channel 35" pointing to "channel 53". The double redirect target above should be retargeted to channel 35. Ivanvector (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I just moved it to where it should be. The thing is that there is no TV station in Mexico with a virtual channel 53. We don't have, for instance, "Channel 68 virtual TV stations in Mexico" because Mexico never had any stations on channel 68. Raymie (tc) 02:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I just learned what a virtual channel means. Never heard the expression before. That being said my telly still takes two minutes for the valves to warm up. Si Trew (talk) 07:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
When you turn it off does the picture slowly coalesce into that little blue dot in the middle of the tube? That might be my favourite bit of retro technology ever. Ivanvector (talk) 15:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I realise this is totally off topic but I presume it did that because in the cathode ray tube, the electromagnets guiding the ray would be switched off by the valves earlier than the tube took to cool down, and therefore not guide the cathode ray tracing across and down the screen (with the vertical hold and horizontal hold), so that it ended up with a dot in the centre of the screen. Si Trew (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised they don't kinda do that as a retro thing on some TV channel, actually. It is a little white dot in my case, as I only have black and white TV (can't afford the TV licence for colour TV). It was bad enough I had to change it when they abandoned 405 lines broadcasts. Si Trew (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Have you noticed televisions actually *do* take longer to turn on now? About ten years ago they would turn on instantly, but now with all the software bootstrap and so on that they put in, it takes ages to get the thing actually to start. A bit of a retrograde step, really. Reculer pour mieux sauter, I guess, as Napoleon said — and look where that got him. Si Trew (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Given that the pages have been redirected already, and the targets are where such channels would be listed if they existed (see Channel 53 virtual TV stations in Canada, for example) then I think it's fine to keep the redirects as they are. Ivanvector (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Outspan[edit]

I found this redirect with a PROD tag on it. Since redirects can't be deleted by PROD, I removed that, but it does seem to me like the redirect should be deleted. The prod rationale was that the redirect is from a brand to a competing brand, and I agree that it doesn't make sense to have a redirect in that case. The target article doesn't mention the redirect name at all. Also, it looks like the redirect was created by someone who has been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account, so it might have been created as vandalism. Calathan (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Outspan Hotel because we have no other articles which use the name. Some indication from Google that an outspan is an area on a farm used for animal husbandry or possibly as a sort of parking lot and rest stop for wagons (see usage in Carolina, Mpumalanga) but I don't see this actually defined anywhere on Wikipedia. Outspan the brand seems to be more closely associated with oranges than bananas, but redirecting to a competing brand seems nonsensical, and I don't think we normally redirect brands to the products they sell. Ivanvector (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. It used to be a very well advertised brand of orange in the United Kingdom. Presumably owned by Fyffes, who are more famous for bananas. Si Trew (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
According to this, the Outspan brand is owned by Capespan of South Africa (about whom we do not have an article). I cannot determine the relationship to Fyffes, if there is one. Ivanvector (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I imagine one of those huge global brand name changes. Si Trew (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Chucking "Outspan Orange advert" into youtube proved, er, fruitful. (Ducks the cabbages thrown for the pun). Si Trew (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Got it, here in the UK Daily Telegraph stocks and share section:
  • "Ffyfes Fundamentals". Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 28 March 2015. The Group markets the widest selection of the finest fresh produce under some of the best known brand names in the industry including Fyffes, Turbana, Coplaca, Cape and Outspan , listed on Epicor (NASDAQ) code "FFY". Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hmmm, so now what do we do with it? It is a brand name of Fyffes but not mentioned there... Of course I could add the reference but that would be kinda something I would do after this discussion closed. Si Trew (talk) 08:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The association is not mentioned at Fyffes, and I'm not sure exactly how we would work it in. If they're a subsidiary then the redirect is probably fine, but I think the hotel is a much more likely primary target. I'm not sure what a hatnote would look like either (For the British fruit brand?) Ivanvector (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I would have thought that was simple. "This article refers to a hotel. For the British fruit brand, see Fyffes" and, in reverse, "This article is about a British fruit brand. For the hotel, see Outspan Hotel". Si Trew (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

National Party (Bohemia)[edit]

Please delete. The National Party of Bohemia (cs:Národní strana (1848)), also known as the "Old Czech Party" existed in the second half of the 19th century (founded in 1848). It is not related to the far-right National Party of the Czech Republic that existed from 2002 to 2011. RJFF (talk) 14:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #2 (misleading/confusing) and per WP:REDLINK. No indication that the more modern party was referred to as Bohemian particularly. We could probably write an article about the 19th century party in this space as well. Ivanvector (talk) 15:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bohemia is not, nor ever was, part of the Czech Republic. Si Trew (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Theresienbad[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 converted to article based on de:Theresienbad, with a request for translation help. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Please delete. Theresienbad is a spa place in Vienna, while Terezín (Theresienstadt) is a former military fortress and a Nazi concentration camp in Northern Bohemia. Feťour (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete Mostly because not mentioned in target. The German name is Theresienstadt, which is quite far from Theresienbad. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

*Retarget to Meidling#History, which mentions the spa by name. Ivanvector (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete as WP:RFD#D5, "The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting apples to oranges". @Ivanvector:, although that target mentions it, it first introduces it without comment on where or what it is, and the other two mentions are links (so we'd end up with circular references). So I am not sure it's really a very satisfactory target. Si Trew (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Definitely it shouldn't target to where it is, but D5 can be fixed by retargeting. There is a very brief bit on what the spa is, but that's what we've got. The circular references can be unlinked. Ivanvector (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Ivanvector, I was about to close this as retarget, because you definitely have the strongest argument, inasmuch as we should avoid deletion if practical. But Theresienbad's mentions at Meidling are really without context. This may have been a consequence of edit wars or just general changes, but the very first mention of Theresienbad (which isn't linked in that instance) seems to assume the idea has already been introduced. WP:REDLINK deletion could still be an option, or Meidling could be tweaked so that a reader could learn something about Theresienbad from it. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy retarget as above. Si Trew (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC) Now I am on BDD's line. An Englishman cannot draw a line in the sand without blurring it. Churchill I think, but might be Orwell. Si Trew (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@BDD: tut, tut. Ivanvector may have the stronger argument, but can't have the strongest since there were only two of us: at least until you pitched in. By the way thanks for the good luck about my new job, it's going well, but unfortunately less time to work on WP. I have a nice article to do for a Hungarian/British engineer a bit of a pioneer in telly in the 30s, that a lot of info has been released by the British, all very James Bond stuff with the secrecy malarkey before WWII, so I am going to scrub that into a stub article I hope. Made a start but will be hard work. Si Trew (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@BDD: I think you're right. I'll see if I can find anything. Ivanvector (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
There is an extensive article in German: de:Theresienbad. It would be hopeless for me to try to translate it but it seems like we should be able to write something about it here. Ivanvector (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • My German is definitely not good enough to translate the whole thing, but with Google's help, I'll take a stab at this this weekend. By all means, if anyone else wants to try, go for it. I'd appreciate notification if so, however, so we don't end up duplicating effort. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep. Note that the Nazi camp at Theresienstadt was also called Theresienbad. See e.g.:

  • [6]: "the Nazis had elevated deceit to an art form. Even the various names they gave to the camp reflected this. At different times it was known as Theresienbad (Spa Terezin), Reichsaltersheim (State Home for the Aged), Judische Selbtsuerwaltung (Jewish Self-Administration) and even Paradeisghetto"
  • [7]: "The first name that the Nazis gave to the garrison town, which had been renamed Terezin by the Czechs, was Theresienbad, which means Spa Theresien, implying that it was a spa town where people could take mineral baths."
  • [8]: "Various names were used by the Nazis for the ghetto here. At an early stage it was known both as Theresienbad"

etc. (Sorry, I just came across this discussion.) — The Great Redirector 06:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

At best, that is an indicator for a hatnote at what should be the article about the Viennese spa, which seems to have fallen off our radars. "For the Nazi concentration camp sometimes called Theresienbad or Theresienstadt, see Terezín." In the meantime, I think you're right given the source, but I would prefer the translated German article to live in this space, if we're up to it. Ivanvector (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid not, and I probably won't get to it for a bit longer, if anyone else wants to have a go at it. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've drafted a stub in place below the redirect. I removed some of the tags because the clutter was distracting. If this looks alright, I'll request a translation from German (via WP:TRANSLATE) and we can wrap up this thread that's been open over six weeks now. Good? Ivanvector (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Looks good, with the hatnote. Thank you. — The Great Redirector 06:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me too, requesting the translation is a good idea, my German is far too basic to even attempt it. I'm striking my delete above. Si Trew (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@BDD, Feťour, Hisashiyarouin: Does the stub-and-translate result work for you? I think you're the only others who have commented on this. Ivanvector (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Support (and strike above) after glancing over the German original under Google Translate. However please do note that the German original has not used inline citation, but that can be for another day and a {{No footnotes}} tag. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 15:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Yep, works for me. --BDD (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, Ivanvector, this looks much better now. Thanks to all for your efforts.--Feťour (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Great, then I will close this and proceed, since everyone seems to be in agreement. Feel free to reopen if I have interpreted that incorrectly. Ivanvector (talk) 14:42, 31 March 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.

March 23[edit]

Crimean War (2014)[edit]

Nonsense redirect. Not a single reliable source refers to the annexation as the "Crimean War". No "war" took place in Crimea. Delete this implausible redirect. RGloucester 20:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete It may or may not be described as a 'war' but this term is implausible. - TheChampionMan1234 22:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep viable search term. Invasion of Ukraine (Crimea) by Russia should be searchable by "Crimean War" -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Surely you mean the entirely justified repatriation of a nation to its original country, not an invasion? Si Trew (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Sure, the planned pre-emptive nuclear strike on Kiev by Muscovy's Grande Duke Vladimiroff Putinoff in defence of the New Rus against the Olden Rus occupiers and the Tartars. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, And also hatnote at Crimean War. But I can see, in my WP:CRYSTALBALL, that what to call it will involve a lot of WP:EDITWARring over "what do we call it", so perhpas just let that happen and ignore it for now? Si Trew (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The topic is correctly listed as "a Russian–Ukrainian military crisis" at Crimean War (disambiguation). "Not a single reliable source refers to the annexation as the 'Crimean War'" might be right, but that's a reason it's unsuitable as a title, not as a redirect. And at any rate, the claim is not right. Al Jazeera used the term. The Toronto Star has this piece on "The (original) Crimean War", in light of the 2014 conflict. Tag it perhaps with {{R from non-neutral name}}, maybe even {{R from incorrect name}}, but it's a useful navigational aide. --BDD (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sorry to be pedantic, but what would an unplanned pre-emptive strike look like? That is a bit of an oxymoron. Si Trew (talk) 06:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Probably like something out of Dr. Strangelove, or any sort of rogue, unauthorized attack from one group to another where tensions already existed. We're straying off topic, though. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Jim Bourbon[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) 14:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I can find no sources to show that this is a nickname for the target player Jeff Strasser. I inquired on the author's talk page and received no response. I likewise asked on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs if this was some sort of in-joke or other valid nickname, but no response there either. CrowCaw 00:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  • 'Weak retarget' to Jim Beam. Hmm, I think I shall more strongly retarget myself to one later... Si Trew (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I could sort of see Jim (bourbon) to Jim Beam, this a bit less so. Jack Daniel's is referred to as just "Jack" all the time. Less so with "Jim" and Jim Beam unless the context is already established, e.g., "Jack or Jim?" James I, Count of La Marche (or James I of Bourbon) could be called "Jim Bourbon" very informally. --BDD (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I had thought of the House of Bourbon but that kinda seemed unlikely. Perhaps best to delete, then, as confusing, or retarget over to there? Do we have a list article of them all? I can't find one. Jim the first and second are mentioned explicitly, and there is a nice lineage in section 9. I would have thought we would have had have a list article but perhaps not... The key thing is whether anyone would refer to James I etc as Jim I. I would, but that would just be my kinda jokey slang. (And I guess at the time they were called Jacobus I etc.) Si Trew (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's not actually Jeff Strasser's nickname and there are no common sense retarget options. Tavix |  Talk  23:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing and WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense. Striking mine above, before the relisting. And Jim is not a short form for Jeff. Si Trew (talk) 06:01, 24 March 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.

Horse and carriage[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 (self-closing). After discussion, it is fine as it stands.(non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure about this, whetherit should go to horse-drawn vehicle as we have done with several others recently. Not quite the same, of course. Hackney cabHackney carriage, and I see no problem there, but mention it for completeness. Si Trew (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I have no idea either. Horse-drawn vehicle feels like it was deliberately titled to include things other than a "buggy" or a "carriage", so I would be reluctant to have this redirect there.Mr. Guye (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, we don't have Horse-drawn bus for example, but do have Horse-drawn tram (but not Horse drawn tram). Some years ago I did the Old Rouen Tramway translation both are mentioned there (I am not sure if they are now but were when I did the first translation of it).
We have to stop somewhere or we will end up with Horse-drawn perambulator or something. One thing that did occur to me, and @Ivanvector: is probably the best at deciding this, is the style of horse racing in Ontario has buggies on the back (I forget literally what they are called) and perhaps that is kinda the casting vote, of where we stop with these. Prince Philip I think is very fond of it, not quite chariot racing but with a horse and buggy, but not the sense used in that article. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the style of that article is perfectly fine in being a description of something pulled by an equus generally: the thing is I am searching for redirects that are not general, in case they go to what (in my or others' opinions) are the wrong places. Si Trew (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Harness racing is what I meant. Harness is DAB. Si Trew (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I actually thought it was chariot racing, but you're right, harness racing is the one that is popular in Ontario. I think this redirect is fine as-is though, it's close enough. Carriage and buggy are often interchangeable in this context. Ivanvector (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think a Horse Drawn vehicle (deliberately not linking) is a technical thing used on a driving licence by the UK DVLA, whether you are entitled to drive one... Well it is on the back of mine, class B2 it used to be. I am also actually entitled to drive fork lift trucks, which I have, motor buses with less than 9 passengers (which I have, my brother restored an old Leyland Atlantean), and a tracked vehicle, i.e., tank, which I have (but only a Russian one). I think I am entitled also to be an idiot, according to the back of the licence.... Si Trew (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm still so tempted to take this to Horse And Wells.... desperately trying to resist the temptation... Si Trew (talk) 21:08, 24 March 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.

Hitler's aims[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 Mein Kampf. Despite only the !votes of two editors, one of which is me, this has been around "about a week" and others have had plenty of opportunity to comment.(non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 07:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

No specific section to redirect to. Misleading to the searcher/linker because of this. Not helpful. Unnecessary. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:25, 23 March 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.

Hitla[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) 14:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Implausible. Might be vandalism. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • delete According to Google, it seems to be like nigga but with less taste. Still, delete as a confusing term.--Lenticel (talk) 05:26, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Delete as confusing (WP:RFD#D2). I can see it being confused with Hilter or Halter. We do not have HITLA but HITLER all caps does redirect to Adolf Hitler. We do have it at Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive W from 2011 but that is just a very derogatory and stupid comment (section 156). Seems rather a WP:NEOLOGISM. Can't find it much externally either. According to "There is a rapper named Hitla". theawl.com. February 2011. Retrieved 23 March 2015. , "there is a rapper named hitla", but since the front cover of that album has a certain Nazi on the front with the name in red Mel Brooks, famous for writing Springtime for Hitler (amongst many other things), and since the front cover says "Hitler" not "Hitla", I presume this is, shall we say, an abbreviation. This website is not WP:RS anyway. Si Trew (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • delete If there is a "rappa named Hitla" then someone can write an article but I don't see linking in every odd dialect pronunciation. Seyasirt (talk) 20:21, 27 March 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.

120050[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) 14:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Number is not mentioned in the article. Makes no sense. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete no idea what this number is about. My hits range from an isolated protein to a Color space for green. --Lenticel (talk) 06:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:RFD#D8 makes no sense. I don't see any special significance either, I checked with My Favourite Search Engine if the spaces 12 00 50 in case it was some significant date/commemoration of something concerning Hitler, in some date order I was not aware of, but that came up blank too (as does 12-00-50, 12–00–50, 2000-12 fiftieth anniversary], and so on, and so on...). 07:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Ref. [9], 120050 was "the telephone number of the bunker and Hitler's living quarters". Got that result only more prominently with "120050 +hitler" and not only "120050", indicating this is too obscure. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Nice find, though. Si Trew (talk) 14:04, 23 March 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.

March 20[edit]

Aeon of Strife[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 both to Multiplayer online battle arena. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

overlapping page name, Aeon of strife is a redirect to a different, more germane page. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget as {{R from misspelling}}, then. Si Trew (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Not so fast. This concept is discussed at Multiplayer online battle arena, but not at Races of StarCraft#Protoss. We can probably all agree that the upper- and lowercase variants shouldn't have different targets. But why would the Races of StarCraft page be a more suitable target if the topic isn't mentioned there? --BDD (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
    Aeon of strife was a mod of starcraft, featuring the protoss. in all reality, it might be notable enough to have it's own article, but for the moment, actually, you're probably right, although, it's probably be redirected to the history subsection, rather than just to the article. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 17:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget both to the same target, whatever it is. Multiplayer online battle arena is better, it actually contains the phrase and says what it is. Ivanvector (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It seems like the Protoss are the more relevant topic here, but the subject is only mentioned at the MOBA page. Is Aeon of Strife notable in its own right? An article may be best. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - ok, now I'm the one wearing the non-gamer hat and not understanding what you all are talking about. The phrase "aeon of strife" appears in the lede at MOBA and nowhere at the Starcraft article (neither do the separate words "aeon" nor "strife"). The proper outcome here is quite obviously retarget to multiplayer online battle arena, at the current time. If Aeon of Strife is notable for a separate article, it can be written over the redirect. I don't know what it is so I'm not going to comment on that. Ivanvector (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm the second one doing the same, an Aeon we have,, Strife we have. I get aeons of strife from my missus. But this must make no sense except to a gamer. Si Trew (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I really appreciate your edit summary, first of all. Second, I haven't played this or any Starcraft game myself, but if I understand correctly, Aeon of Strife was a Starcraft mod formatted as a MOBA featuring the Protoss. I don't know why it didn't occur to me to notify WPVG before; I'll do so now. (YOU MUST CREATE ADDITIONAL ARTICLES?) --BDD (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Multiplayer online battle arena reads that Aeon of Strife was the first MOBA, and usually things which are the first something are considered notable, so I can see creating an article in this space. However, I think the fact that it happened to feature the Protoss is somewhat irrelevant, the redirect should go to MOBA, the page which discusses it, with no prejudice against a future article. Ivanvector (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Multiplayer online battle arena. Any significance the mod holds relates to its role in early in the history of the MOBA genre. The usage of the protoss race in the game is trivial, since it has no bearing/notablity in regards to Starcraft or Protoss lore. My two cents. -- ferret (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • To be clear, the term "wikia:starcraft:Aeon of Strife" originates as a period of time in the Protoss race history in the game StarCraft. Then, some enterprising map developer for StarCraft borrowed the term to describe the kind of map he was developing. The phrase AOS continued on into Warcraft 3, where I'm skeptical that anyone playing AOSs then who hadn't played StarCraft knew what the term represented. Then it morphed into "Dota-like" when DotA became a big game, then subsequently (and competing) MOBA and ARTS.

    My opinion is thus that they should both redirect to MOBA. But at the least they should be consistent --Izno (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Multiplayer online battle arena since the term is at least discussed there. I do like Starcraft lore but I think the term has already evolved to be used in things outside Starcraft. --Lenticel (talk) 00:30, 23 March 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.

Plowback retained earnings[edit]

"Plowback retained earnings" is a made-up phrase, invented with the sole purpose of creating this redundant content fork which for some reason was redirected rather than deleted. The redirect should be deleted, not only because it's implausible and useless, but also because it confuses the reader as our autocomplete algorithm will display it every time "Plowback" is typed into the search box thus suggesting we have two separate articles on the subject. We don't. For a more elaborate rationale, see the previous discussion which was closed two months ago and apparently resulted in "no consensus:" Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_10#Plowback_retained_earnings. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep per my rationale on the previous discussion, given that there seems to be no chance this phrase could refer to any other notable term, phrase, or subject. Steel1943 (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The fact that the invented phrase "plowback retained earnings" isn't ambiguous means nothing. We already have Plowback which makes Plowback retained earnings redundant. As for your previous "rationale," it was, in fact, nothing but an unsubstantiated assertion of the redirect's usefulness[10] which contributed nothing of value to the discussion. Consult WP:ITSUSEFUL for more information on why such contributions are to be avoided. If you'd like to argue that the redirect should be kept, you're more than welcome to present an actual argument. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
WP:AADD doesn't always apply to RfDs. In some cases, arguments to avoid at AfD are actually strong at RfD. See WP:RFD#KEEP #5, which explicitly gives "Someone finds [the redirect] useful" as a reason to keep. --BDD (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, WP:AADD as a whole doesn't always apply to RfDs. However, in this particular case, WP:ITSUSEFUL very much does apply, and that's why I made a reference to it. If we were to accept that simply stating "the redirect is useful" was enough to prove its usefulness and thus prevent its deletion, we could just as well shut RfD down as one disruptive editor with enough free time on his/her hands would have the power to effectively close all RfD discussions as "keep" by making that statement over and over. Common sense would dictate that this simply isn't the way to go. I'm all for keeping useful redirects, but Plowback retained earnings isn't useful. If you believe otherwise, let's hear how it's useful. Making unsubstantiated assertions of the redirect's usefulness, especially in a situation where there have been numerous arguments presented in favor of its deletion, including the policy-based argument that it violates WP:POVNAME in that it fails to "anticipate what readers will type as a first guess," is entirely unhelpful, so as not to say disruptive. If you want the redirect to be kept, let's hear what makes it so useful that we need to retain it despite all the problems with it that were indicated by the nominator. And no, simply stating "because it's useful" won't do the trick. I must say that I find your interpretation of WP:RFD#KEEP #5 at least as bizarre as I find the weight you seem to give to it, seeing how it's neither a policy nor a guideline. Do you honestly believe that what WP:RFD#KEEP #5 means is "as soon as someone says "it's useful," the discussion should be closed and the redirect kept?" If that's the case then perhaps it's high time we reworded that inconsequential piece of advice it as in its current form it's apparently a source of confusion. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I was Keep with Steel1943 when I came to this relisting, but I think better to add at the DAB and R there.
  • Reason for keeping: "Plowback" (also → Retained earnings) is, I think, is something specific to the U. S. (and not just U. S. English but the country); but in British English were it anything it would be ploughback): since that is red, it tends to show this is a U. S. specific term. And since the term exists and directs people to where they probably would like to go, it would be absurd to do anything else with it.
  • Reason for DABbing: Ploughshare or Plowshare is just about possible, I suppose. (I note with some disdain that the lede says "international English" instead of "British English"... as if "international English" means anything: see WP:ENGVAR).
Isiah 2:4 has it in KJV "they will beat their swords into ploughshares" (of course variously translated), and perhaps the difference between a plowback vested in stocks and shares and a plowshare is something genuinely ambiguous that we should care about. Hence I suggest the DAB: it may not be always what someone is expecting to find, and from a DAB this meaning would be only one click away. Si Trew (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
"Plowback" isn't ambiguous, it has only one meaning—that of reinvested profits.[11][12][13] Retargeting it as you suggest is thus out of the question unless you produce a reliable source that corroborates your claims of the word's ambiguity. Your comment presents an argument in favor of keeping Plowback, which isn't necessary as Plowback isn't being considered for deletion, but fails to present a valid argument for keeping Plowback retained earnings, which is being considered for deletion, and as such it should be ignored by the closing administrator. Iaritmioawp (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per my previous rationale. To expand: when a corporation earns more in revenue in a fiscal period then it spends in the same period, it has net income. Net income is either distributed to the corporation's owners as a dividend or kept for the corporation's use as retained earnings (note: this is quite simplified). These are proper business terms. The act of taking net income for retained earnings has become known as "plow back" (verb; versus "pay out" for dividends), and the amount itself has become known as a "plowback" (noun; compare "payout" for dividends). Those aren't proper business terms but are common enough; they even come into colloquial names for business performance measures such as "plowback ratio" (properly earnings retention ratio, the inverse of dividend payout ratio). The phrase "plowback retained earnings" is doublespeak nonsense; it's striving to invent a definition where there is none, and as I said in a different discussion, we shouldn't keep redirects from business terms which are so close to being entirely made up. See also Department of Redundancy Department. Ivanvector (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can see both sides of both sides here. @Iaritmioawp:: If you dislike my refering to the R at plowback, then I put the same point to you: can you produce an RS for the entire phrase "Plowback retained earnings" then? I can't, so in that case, it should go Delete. But since R's don't have to be RS but only helpful, the point is moot: and since Plowback goes there, and why I mentioned it, there seems little chance of confusion and it can go Keep. Howewer, I could be swayed by Ivanvector's RS suggesting that if it meant anything in its own right, it would be almost the opposite of what "plowback" means in the fiscal sense, in which case anyway it could be kept as an {{R from opposite}}, but that would be stretching it as a WP:NEOLOGISM, and that says those often go Delete. Si Trew (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood me. My point was not that "plowback" and "retained earnings" are opposites. They are synonyms (the opposite of opposites!) with a possible subtle difference in usage, since plowback can also be a verb. But your confusion backs up my point: this is confusing and should be deleted. Ivanvector (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. It was your "doublespeak", above, that made me think that... I fess up, I didn't check your RS. Si Trew (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
To answer your question, SimonTrew, no; neither I nor anyone else can produce a reliable source that uses the phrase "plowback retained earnings" because the phrase, as I've already noted twice, was invented by the creator of the Plowback retained earnings page. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Plow back (@Ivanvector: "...has become known as "plow back") is red, but plough back is a very stubby economics article (just a WP:DICDEF and not a good one). Both should probably be R'd to whatever Plowback redirects to (currently Retained earnings), but I'm disinclined boldly to do so while this discussion is in progress. I'd also be inclined to add those to this nomination, but that would be out of order (I assume) after the relisting. Si Trew (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have redirected it; thanks for pointing it out. It is clearly the same thing as plowback, just a UK English spelling. Neither are mentioned at retained earnings but our finance articles are a bit of a horrible mess. Ivanvector (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. The first time I heard of this term was in an American English book and I had no idea what it meant (even though I could guess what the correctBritish spelling would be, the term itself was not common in the UK and I am not sure is even now: I think in Br. Eng. it is generally called something different. A bit odd, then, that the term was in Br. Eng. but not in US Eng: but the Rs there tend to indicate they've been created ad hoc. Si Trew (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm interjecting here to respond to your comment; apologies to the few comments below. If you mean that you read "plowback" and interpreted "plough back" you are mostly correct, those would be interchangeable US/UK English. I couldn't tell you if "plough back" is used in UK English to mean "retained earnings", but "plowback" is used this way in US English. The proper term is "retained earnings" in both internationalisms. Regarding this redirect, "plowback" is the same as "retained earnings", however "plowback retained earnings" is meaningless. To make yet another analogy, you put cold beer in a refrigerator, but there is no such thing as a cold beer refrigerator. (Alternate: all fridges are beer fridges). Ivanvector (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: (interjecting back) Actually, I meant that I had never heard the word and had no idea what it meant... it was obviously something financial but had no idea what it could mean. The US vs UK spelling here is not at issue (with me) because obviously we can R one to the other &c., but I think the term is quite US centric and I genuinely had never heard it. The book was "From First to WorstWorst to First" by Gordon Bethune, then CEO of Contental Airlines, who used to fly with me a lot. A kinda motivational business book, ghost written by Greg Someone I think (I haven't it on my bookshelf here), and it was not obvious from context. Which is why it would be good to have an encyclopaedia article... oh, um... er... we do :) Si Trew (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
SimonTrew, I'd like to remind you that you are participating in a discussion whose sole purpose is to establish whether Plowback retained earnings should be deleted or not. Please keep your comments directly relevant to the issue at hand. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought this was a discussion. That allows me to have a different opinion from yours. Thank you for reminding me. I did my research and others did too, so I am not sure who's the fool here. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
All opinions are welcome as long as they're directly relevant to the subject of the discussion and supported by valid arguments. Iaritmioawp (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
As per WP:CONSENSUS, "[c]onsensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" rather than by a headcount. SimonTrew's above comment is nothing but a vote and should thus be disregarded by the closing administrator. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, Iaritmiawap is right, even though it pains me to say so. But here we don't tend to do all the how's your fathers of quoting policy but use WP:COMMONSENSE. The common sense seems to me that if we can't find a better place for it then stet, let it stand. I am a bit grumbly about kinda have the finger pointing at me but I will get over it. Si Trew (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Common sense would dictate that if there are numerous reasons to delete a redirect and no reason to keep it, which is clearly the case here, the redirect should be deleted. So far, no valid reason to keep Plowback retained earnings has been presented. If you know of a reason why the redirect should be kept, let's hear it. Iaritmioawp (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Of course this is a discussion and your points are valid and appreciated (and none should be disregarded per se), however you seem to have put a !vote beside as many as five of your comments, and they aren't all the same. I think that it would help the closer of this discussion if you could summarize. Ivanvector (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry about that.... by "!vote did you mean the ones that say bolded "Comment"? I am genuinely confused here since I see only a keep after the relisting, and a I don't like going back and changing a !vote once something is relisted... but the second is a weak retarget to DAB. I gave after that reasons why I couldl see a delete or a reason to DAB, and those weren't intended as !votes but just to show I could see both sides of both sides. I won't make more confusion by bolding or referring to it here now (or adding links to policy here), but obviously I have caused unnecessary confusion.... for which I can only apologise. Ivanvector added an R that I pointed out was kinda missing with ENGVAR were it to stay, but that was not a !vote for it to stay, only that if we have one we should have the other. I have made this one messier than it could have been, and I'm sorry about that. And thanks all for their good faith in realising I was not trying to do anything other than make WP better. Si Trew (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I do see I did put keep twice after the relisting. Sorry about that. Struck one, but kept the other. Hope that's less confusing rather than more... Si Trew (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Relisting comment - the administrator who closed the deletion review as "relist at Rfd" did not relist (see their talk page). Since the result is not one which requires administrator rights to complete, I am completing it on their behalf. My opinion on the redirect has been thoroughly stated above, thus I do not intend to comment further in this discussion. Ivanvector (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
.I think (for the best of reasons) you'd be wasting your time doing so. Si Trew (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep As long as I've been officially deemed to be involved here, I might as well make it official. I'm thoroughly convinced that this redirect is unnecessary, but also that it is harmless and unambiguous. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
This will take you to Retained earnings may be "harmless and unambiguous," but that's not enough to warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia. WP:POVNAME, the relevant content policy, makes it very clear that "redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess." Neither This will take you to Retained earnings nor Plowback retained earnings satisfies this requirement; having such redirects doesn't improve the encyclopedia, and thus they ought not to be kept once proposed for deletion lest they encourage the creation of more such purportedly "harmless and unambiguous" redirects. I must also add that I disagree with your claim that the redirect is "harmless." Plowback retained earnings is harmful in that it's confusing to the reader, as has already been explained—see Ivanvector's comments as well as the nomination statement. It would be helpful if you would address this concern instead of simply asserting the redirect's harmlessness while completely ignoring the concerns regarding its potential for confusing our readers. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that your argument relies entirely on WP:OSE—that the existence of this redirect will "encourage the creation" of others. That's just not true, and if you can give me any evidence of that, I seriously will rethink my position. This term needs to be evaluated on its own, not compared to a phantom menace of imagined similar redirects. You're really grasping at straws here, quoting bits of irrelevant policies like POVNAME. Nonsense. There's nothing non-neutral about this term. --BDD (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I will take your persistent failure to address the concerns regarding the redirect's potential for confusing our readers as a reluctant admission that they're well-founded. As for evaluating each redirect on its own merits, I entirely agree, but I don't believe I quite understand how that relates to my above comment; would you mind quoting the exact portion of the WP:OSE essay that you believe is pertinent here? Try as I might, I've failed to locate it. I must also say that I find your accusation that I am "grasping at straws" a bit ironic, seeing how it's predicated on the deeply flawed assumption that common-sense use of clearly applicable portions of various content policies is somehow disallowed in situations where said policies arguably don't apply in their entirety. Although the WP:POVNAME policy may not have been written with situations such as the one we're dealing with here in mind, the principle behind its wording, as well as the common sense advice it provides, is universally applicable as per WP:BURO. Do you honestly believe that it's not true that "redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess?" Do you truly consider that to be an unreasonable recommendation? If you do, would you mind explaining why? And if you don't, would you mind explaining why you object to my use of it? To me, it's common sense that implausible redirects shouldn't be allowed unless there's a good reason to allow them—and in the case of Plowback retained earnings such a reason simply doesn't exist. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
A good redirect "should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess", yes. And I don't think this is a good redirect. But absence of good isn't enough to delete. There are a great many redirects that readers would not likely type as a first guess that are nonetheless kept by consensus. One thing I think we can all agree on is that "Plowback retained earnings" can only reasonably refer to one topic. We address that topic at Retained earnings, so how is redirecting the term to that article harmful?
I referred to OSE perhaps more thinking of the first discussion of this redirect, where you compared the term to the likes of Tap faucet and Dictionary lexicon. That resembled the example argument "We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this." The absence of those terms hardly means this one needs to be deleted. To anticipate some likely questions: no, I don't think those should be created, but yes, if they were created in good faith, they should also be kept. --BDD (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete There is no valid reason to keep the redirect and an overabundance of compelling reasons to delete it. Below, for convenience, is a reproduction of a table that summarizes all arguments presented in favor of keeping/deleting the redirect so far; the table was originally created for the purpose of making the job of editors at DRV easier, see this diff. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Carthorse[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 your good servant (non-admin closure). I just retargetd it, being a bit bold.

It just goes to horse. And we've just decided, I think, that it should go to Horse-drawn vehicle. Si Trew (talk) 09:18, 20 March 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.

United States national basketball team[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. George, I think United States national soccer team can be taken as a precedent for you to convert this title to a dab on your own. I suspect inertia is what's maintaining this odd status quo. There are a lot of incoming links which should be fixed first. For now, the redirect remains. --BDD (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Many articles are linking to this redirect. Shall I convert this redirect to a disambiguation page for men's and women's basketball? George Ho (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Dunno. My guess would be that most of them mean the men's team, not the women's. That's not disparagement, but womens' sports, in real life, don't get the TV coverage that men's do. We do have to be realistic. How popular is the US womens basketball team, in your opinion? I mean, it's not the Harlem Globe Trotters. Si Trew (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC) I'm all for being "fair and balanced" and not sexist but in reality sexism in sport exists... so does antisemitism and whatever, we have to make a choice between what we'd like reality to be and what it actually is. Si Trew (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep it seems that the target article already has a hatnote that also points to the United States women's national basketball team. --Lenticel (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep it then, makes sense, as Lenticel always does. Si Trew (talk) 09:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Listify WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS convert to a set index on all US national basketball teams -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    • How do we do that? Si Trew (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
      • By making a list page of all national basketball teams of the USA -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Lenticel, SimonTrew: A request to scrap off "men's" from the title was attempted, but many opposed. --George Ho (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm struggling to think of alternatives in any sport. For example, it is just "horse racing" but "women's horce racing". I am not saying this is right, it is just reality. You can argue that men should play three sets at tennis, or women five, the fact is, this sexism exists, and Wikipedia is not here to right wrongs but to reflect reality. Si Trew (talk) 22:25, 21 March 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.

Directions Techniques Des Constructions Naval[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. --BDD (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

contains typographical error; redirect is unused, even as acronym . signed:Donan Raven (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep the article indicates DTCN Direction Technique des Constructions Navales, so making the typo form viable -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, makes sense to me. Possibly {{R from plural}} but that seems pushing it a bit with a foreign-language term I haven't even looked at the target but I can understand this and I bet they make big boats of some kind. Si Trew (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh it's a defence company (they are always changing their names). Still, keep. Si Trew (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh the French article says in the lede they make great big ships to build up a military arsenal... whatever happened to Napoleon, he tried that one. Si Trew (talk) 10:41, 20 March 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.

March 18[edit]

Bongistan[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) 17:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Another implausible search term for an old Daily Show joke. Since it isn't mentioned at the targeted article, it should be deleted as unhelpful and/or confusing. Tavix |  Talk  03:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as confusing. Will try to immigrate there though :P --Lenticel (talk) 07:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Surely, you would emigrate there :) Si Trew (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
See I'm already qualified to enter the country. I don't even need a bong to be high. :P --Lenticel (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Joking aside, could we push this to -stan or something? Si Trew (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
that wouldn't be helpful. It isn't mentioned there either. Tavix |  Talk  15:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete: You're right, would not be helpful to do so. I was wondering (and I realise on The Daily Show it was a joke etc) that "Bangladesh" or "Belarus" or something were just about possible if unlikely, or "any of the other stans", but I don't think so. Si Trew (talk) 07:42, 23 March 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.

Prophet of regret[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. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Something tells me that the title of this redirect could apply to something else. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - Since the character's actions are discussed in the article. I found no other notable alternative aside from Halo during my search. --Lenticel (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Disagree. Surely Jesus Christ is the prophet of regret? Mea culpa, mea culpa mea maxima culpa. My sins, my sins, my most grevious sins. Where to put it? Si Trew (talk) 06:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I already ran my search it with without the Halo entry. No hits on any religious entity. --Lenticel (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
As if just because it is some computer game makes it right. We're an encylopaedia not an advert. Si Trew (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The prophet's mentions are cited. Our preferences doesn't matter anyways. --Lenticel (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
'Take it with Lenticel... it's an odd one but better than I could do. Si Trew (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep because it's mentioned at the target, and because I can't find any wikilinks for any other possible uses. Google reveals this is the title of a work (song? album? not sure) by artist (singer? DJ? again not sure) "S100" and/or "Staffan Linzatti" (per [31]) none of which we have pages on. Ivanvector (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Found it. But your search results really do differ from mine, Gsearch is kinda localized to where it thinks you are by geolocation. I even get the Canadian weather in Hungarian, it is a bit weird like that. gsearch is not global. Striking mine. Si Trew (talk) 08:28, 20 March 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.

Lord British (ship)[edit]

The subject of this redirect refers to a fictional spaceship in its target article's subject. The fact that this redirect contains the disambiguator "ship" instead of "spaceship" could lead readers into thinking that they are going to find information about a sea-faring vessel. (Also, the attributions that were here previously have been moved to Lord British (spaceship).) Steel1943 (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep unless there's some other ship this could be confused with -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The main issue here is that the "Lord British" topic at the redirects' target gets such a slight passing mention that unless the subject is as specific as possible in the redirect's disambiguator, a reader could be searching the target article forever trying to find something in the article that doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It is the main protagonist in the videogame, being the avatar that you control (a spaceship). -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing per nom. Tavix |  Talk  05:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • There's no other ships, so how is it confusing -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. The minor issue is that nobody has ever been called "Lord British". Si Trew (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Taking out your pipe. I meant a genuine "Lord British". a Lord of the Admiralty or something. And actually that is one of the few things one cannot do in the UK for naming, is to fake your name. That is just a style. Screaming Lord Sutch of the Monster Raving Loony Party, I give you by example. He was not a Lord and never claimed to be. 62.165.221.104 (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Not logged in. Si Trew (talk) 09:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I'll check that give me a sec. We are treading on each others' feet here. Si Trew (talk) 06:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm a liar, well I think I am right in the case of heridatry titles, but we do have Lord British as an article. Si Trew (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Lord Finchley tried to fix the electric light
Himself. It struck him dead. And serve him right.
It is the duty of the wealthy man
To give employment to the artisan. — Hillaire Belloc ([[32]], I think this is reproduced in minor variations because that one is different from what I have in my collection).


Noblesse Oblige and all that. Si Trew (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • section four in that article is the queer one. Apparently they only exist in computer games, not in real life. Si Trew (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You know the old joke about the engineer with constpiation? He worked it out with a pencil. Si Trew (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
It's amazing how off-topic you got. That joke has nothing to do with Lord British (ship). Tavix |  Talk  07:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I go off topic a hell of a lot. The reason I do is it makes other people, whose minds work differently from mine, think oh well we could have this or that. Which is what we are here for. It is not as if I started talking about Bengal Tigers or something. It was actually connected, in my mind, to a ship. If you want me to go off in a whirl, there is a pub, just being rebulilt, called "Ye Olde Friggate"" just round the corner from Budapest Eastern Station. Take tram 79 and get off one stop before the terminus. My mind connects things in different ways from yours. Si Trew (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I don't recall there being a seafaring component to any of the Ultima games, thus no ships, at least none named for or owned/captained by Lord British. Thus it's not particularly confusing. Ivanvector (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • ...Except when someone who is familiar with the Ultima series, such as myself, sees this redirect appear in the search bar when I try to look up "Lord British", and then arrive at the Salamander video game article and assume that the Salamander video game has some sort of connection with Lord British or Ultima. Also, ships are used quite often in several Ultima titles, and since the phrase "Lord British" has strong notable ties with the Lord British character as well as Richard Garriott, the redirect could be considered misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • But the Ultima series doesn't have a monopoly on all possible uses of the term, just like Star Trek doesn't have a monopoly on Enterprise. There can be other uses without them being automatically misleading. Ivanvector (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The comparison presented here isn't as strong. The word "enterprise" has several meanings that do not relate to Star Trek, such as a car rental company, or any of the almost hundred other meanings on the disambiguation page. The only use I have ever seen of the term "Lord British" specifically refers to Ultima, Lord British (the character), or Richard Garriott. If there were any other possible notable subject or terms that could be referred to as "Lord British", then I probably would have never initiated this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Steely probably has the best knowledge on this one then, and I'll follow whatever he says on it. Haven't voted I don't think but will likely recast in Steely's favour, whatever that decision is. Si Trew (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, I played a lot of The Stygian Abyss (a LOT) in the mid-'90s, but I'll bow to Steel's knowledge on this one. Also, we've had enough snow this winter. Ivanvector (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
We have had, I must brush my boots. But I think it is snowing on this one. Si Trew (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
And, may I ask, what is an avatar? Not the whole of the world plays computer games. Some of us have better things to do. Si Trew (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The Avatar is the character that the player controls in the Ultima series of computer games. Ivanvector (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
an avatar is the item which represents the player in any computer game, it is not restricted to Ultima. Your character you control in The Sims is your avatar, the car you control in Outrun is your avatar, Super Mario in Super Mario Brothers is your avatar. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
True, but in the Ultima series, the playable character is specifically called "The Avatar", even by the other NPCs in the games. Steel1943 (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Kind of off topic, but the Ultima usage seems to have been the origin of the computing term. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I think the massive discussion surrounding the renaming of Avatar articles established that many editors believe that the South Asian religious concept is the origin (and not Origin Systems Inc.) of the computer avatar. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
And so he is a fictional character in a fictional game. That does not make him notable. Delete, Si Trew (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Retarget Since you asked, we have HMHS Britannic as article. Close enough? Si Trew (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Eh, not really, since I do not see where this ship is mentioned or named as "Lord British". Steel1943 (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, striking that one then.... You would think it would go kinda to some ship of the British Admiralty, but I can't think of one either.... HMS Victory would seem a long stretch out, although gets some search results as Nelson's flagship, but I don't think close enough, and First Sea Lord seems a stretch too. 07:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I was a bit ASTONISHed here because I'm familiar with Ultima and expected that the term was at least an homage. Garriott's house, Britannia Manor, is named for the character, so I would've expected something like a yacht belonging to him. But ultimately,(lol) there seems to be only one thing called "Lord British" which is a ship. If there's no other actual topic it could be confused with, I'm inclined to let the redirect stand. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Watch it, I do the bad puns around here... Si Trew (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Lord British. That seems far less astonishing. The parenthetical DAB is sorta unnecessary but to avoid breaking incoming links, etc. Si Trew (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as this is not ambiguous or incorrect. A spaceship is a ship, and there are no other ships with this name, so people will not be astonished if they are searching for this title. If they are astonished following an internal link, then that is the fault of the surrounding context not of the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

March 17[edit]

Kanak (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 because this is no longer a redirect (non-admin closure). Tavix |  Talk  20:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This page redirected to Kanak, which was a disambiguation page with only two pages listed, Kanak people and Katharine Kanak. Kanak people is clearly the primary page, and so I redirected it there per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. This means that Kanak (disambiguation) is now obsolete.  Liam987(talk) 20:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I went ahead and made a proper disambig, with additional meanings (all minor). bd2412 T 20:32, 17 March 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.
  • Comment what a mess, two cut-and-pastes -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree Si Trew (talk) 05:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:1r[edit]

I came across the use of both the "1r" and "lr" templates in some articles in which they were tagged, and I simply couldn't tell which one was which. While one editor may find them useful, other editors who perform maintenance on such articles will find their use confusing and may have to perform a series a steps just to figure it out (oops, I cleaned up the bare URLs, but I removed the "one source" tag). Other editors could also mistakenly add the wrong tag to articles, simply because they've seen one or both of these in other articles or by copy-and-pasting the incorrect one to another article. This will add more work for themselves or for other editors who come across them and just add to the confusion. Because "lR" and "LR" are the same thing, I've added the capitalized redirect to the nomination as well. There are less confusing redirects that can be used to help out readers and editors in understanding the tags that are applied to such articles that might need them. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep -
  1. Per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
  2. The redirect was created weeks ago with dozens of uses to its name, so IMO the time has passed for changing the redirect without significant confusion. Alleged confusion is not very plausible at all. So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete.
  3. "There seems to be no evidence of confusion, just conjecture on the part of nominator, and no argument grounded in WP:R. Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended. We don't delete redirects based merely on conjecture. Someone obviously found these useful given they were created."
  4. "One of the lowest things one can do is steal another mans tools. So you have no use for it. That it's being used on [talk pages] is good enough, and there is zero reason to take away something that has no higher use. Such Nominators should be required to be the one to hand edit and remove any deleted tags."
  5. "Redirects are not only cheap but this is a redirect from and to template namespace. That would tend to indicate to me that anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it [confused]. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as {{tlc}} or {{tlx}} or whatever as useful shorthand for editors."
--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem with this statement in regards to {{Tlc}} and {{Tlx}} and how they pertain to this discussion is that they are the actual names of the templates, not redirects. For that reason, how this point relates to this discussion is like comparing apples to oranges. Steel1943 (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Reply - By this same logic, if {{Tlc}} and {{Tlx}} are acceptable names for the templates, the redirects are also acceptable as they are. If not, these two redirects should be renamed. Per @Thryduulf:, "we also have the {{hat}} (not about hats), {{temp}} (not about temporary workers), {{link}} (not about chains, golf courses, an American singer, etc), {{user}} (not about drug, computer or telecommunication system users), {{admin}} (not about administrators), {{ill}} (not about illness), {{top}} (not about spinning tops or clothing), {{bottom}} (not about buttocks or the seabed), {{columns}} (not about architecture), {{reliable sources}} (not about publications, {{cleanup}} (not about cleaning), {{fiction}} (not about fiction), {{copyedit}} (not about copyediting), {{tone}} (not about literature, linguistics or music), {{neutrality}} (not about international relations), and many others". --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Not only that, but copy pasting RfD's own policy into an argument is perhaps preaching to the converted... Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all. Shortcuts in the template namespace are usually very ambiguous to a point where they are not helpful, and the nominator has made a good statement why; in the template namespace, if there is a shortcut used, the shortcut creator has to basically realize that the shortcut cannot mean anything other than its target, even if the other options don't exist as a template, given that new editors may think that the template shortcut will return a function that they think is possible, but has neither been created nor will ever be created. In addition, I can add these two examples to the nominated redirects' ambiguity: "1r" could mean "One redirect", and "LR" commonly means "Left right". Steel1943 (talk) 00:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Reply - See my reply at "05:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)". --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all. I was on that line of thinking. LR commonly means left and right, and the "1", at least in my font (Courier ten point), looks extremely similar to a lowercase ell. I would have thought Template:Bidi_Class_(Unicode) as a possibility, but these can go as WP:RFD#D2, confusing, and WP:RFD#D5, makes no sense. Si Trew (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Template:LR, which matches WP:LR. Weak keep on the others. I do see the potential for confusion, but it's simply a fact of life that lowercase l and the number 1 look alike, or are even identical. Somehow we manage to survive. Since these aren't in mainspace, the matter is even less urgent. --BDD (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
That's true. Striking mine as a bit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on my part, I think. Si Trew (talk) 07:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't even have a number 1 on my typewriter, I have to use a lowercase ell. When I started, all we had were ones and zeros, and sometimes we didn't even have ones. I built a whole database using only the number 1 and spaghetti hoops for the zeros. Si Trew (talk) 08:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Reply - I agree, as the arial font is the most common font that I have seen used on Wikipedia. The "1" and "l" indeed look different in most fonts anyway, including the font that I am using now. --Jax 0677 (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
So if it's useful to one it's acceptable, but if it's confusing to one, it doesn't matter? Something existing for weeks does not mean there is potential for confusion. It was only when I saw these being used in the same main space article that I could see there could be confusion because I was confused. Not everyone will have the fonts displayed significantly different. Interesting how the author's initial "copy and paste" response above has nothing to do with the argument being presented here. Not about usefulness, not about laziness, not about what other shortcut templates exist. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Reply - I have struck through my error, as I meant to say that being used on articles is good enough. This seems like a case of WP:IDLI, and people can preview their work before they submit their changes. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Gearing[edit]

where should this go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.162.73 (talkcontribs) 19:23, 17 March 2015

  • Keep the hatnote at the target article addresses your concerns. --Lenticel (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Not sure. Leverage seems fine but wasn't that greek chap good at levers but not good at wheels? Perhaps this is more confusing than it first appears... Gearshift possible. I am not saying it should be, but a lever and an inclined plane and a place far enough away to stand and you can move a planet... so perhaps this is not so obvious... that it is technical slang in the financial industry, probably it should stand, but there are other possibilities. Si Trew (talk) 05:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Mind you the chap I am on about did invent the Archimedes Screw, so he must have known something about turning (which to my surprise is primary). 05:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talkcontribs)
  • Comment - Hmm, gearing redirects to leverage (finance), but leverage redirects to mechanical advantage. Well, this is a fine mess. Ivanvector (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to mechanical advantage. It is quite a fine mess, Stanley... Have can will worms. Si Trew (talk) 08:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - when I Google "gearing" my search results strongly indicate that financial leverage is the primary topic. I was not expecting that. I considered that my search results may be skewed because I work in finance, however my recent search history also reflects that I've been working on building a fixed gear bicycle, so I would expect any skew to be in the mechanical direction. There are several possible targets for mechanical gearing and I don't think that mechanical advantage is the best one (we also have gear ratio and gear train which might be better). I don't think there is a strong enough rationale to do anything in particular, so I'm going with status quo on this one. I agree with Lenticel that the hatnote at the finance article adequately addresses the navigational concern. Ivanvector (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Your Google search results are a bit different from mine, I imagine. Si Trew (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Worm gearWorm drive at all possible? I mean we don't need the whole vermicelli but that is possible, maybe? Si Trew (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Move I'm fine with the move. The targets are still linked either way anyways. --Lenticel (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
This seems like a snowball to move it, I think. Best decision. I don't think I can do it meself, I am not an admin. Going to RM is just makework so let it stand for now. Si Trew (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Move' I recommend Gearing redirect to Gear train. The use of gearing in the finance industry should be represented by an article Gearing (finance): from Investopedia For example, a gearing ratio of 70% shows that a company’s debt levels are 70% of its equity. Is this too much debt? That depends on the industry in which the company operates. A gearing ratio of 70% may be very manageable for a utility, but it may be far too much for a technology company. But Gearing (finance) is not an article of Wikipedia, and Leverage (finance) is not an equivalent, despite the first sentence of the lead. Prof McCarthy (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Reply. Maybe it should be, but it isn't. WP:NOTPERFECT, WP:NOTFINISHED, WP:JUSTDOIT. If you want to make the article, go ahead, make it, it will be automatically (well semi automatically) removed from RfD as converted into an article. As it stands, we have to decide what to do with it. I would take it in a completely different direction as meaning, yes, a gearshift or something like that, but there's obviously a genuine ambiguity here. Si Trew (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I would not call this a genuine ambiguity. It is clear that gearing is a well-known physical object with specific properties such as mechanical advantage, and gearing as applied to finance is a metaphor intended to draw on this physical meaning. Prof McCarthy (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Prof McCarthy: Just a note, since Gearing (disambiguation) exists, "delete" really isn't a feasible option. It sounds like you may agree that the term "gearing" is ambiguous; if that is the case, moving Gearing (disambiguation) to Gearing may be the best option to coincide with your opinion. If this is done, the reader could then decide what meaning of the term "gearing" they are trying to locate. Steel1943 (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry if I was not clear. I was referring to the GearingLeverage (finance). It is this redirect of gearing directly to leverage (finance) that I recommend be deleted. It connects a physical object not to its use as a metaphor but to a different metaphor of a related but different physical object. Prof McCarthy (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • disambig (i.e. move the disambig page to this title). Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support move as suggested by Steel1943. This is the correct action for an ambiguous title that has no clear primary topic, or might have more than one significant meaning. Gearing (finance) would simply redirect to Leverage (finance) (and does, actually). Ivanvector (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sun Television News Channel[edit]

Apparently, the article was created when the channel was still in the planning stages and had no name and this name was the result of speculation by the article's creator and changed once the channel was actually named. Redirect is the result of a move in order to avoid breaking links but there are no links to the redirect. Unlikely search term. Enza Levant (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - redirect from page move in 2010. It has no links and no hits in the last quarter, but I think it is actually a reasonably likely search target. Sun Media went through a very public battle to secure mandatory carriage on Canadian cable providers for their televised news channel, and they claim that their campaign's failure led to the closure of the network. Ivanvector (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Sun is the most popular UK newspaper, and Rupert Murdoch's chain of television stations makes him a lot of money. I don't like it, and I don't read or watch them, but it is the truth. Sky Television is possible, but unlikely, Keep it where it stands. Star Television I guess is also possible but unlikely. How fun to be a Media Mogul, eh! Si Trew (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Note, the editor above changed his vote to Delete below on 19 March 2015
    • Um, this has nothing to do with the British newspaper. The link referred to a Canadian news network linked to the Canadian Sun newspaper chain which has no relationship to Murdoch. Enza Levant (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
      • That may be so, but we have Sun TV as a DAB.... so the confusion is not just mine. Perhaps best to retarget to that DAB? Si Trew (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see that it is specifically a news channel and not just a general channel, that is not the point of the matter (with me)... It is what would people be likely to be looking for? Si Trew (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, well, that was my point. If someone types "news channel" they are likely looking for a news channel, and this is the only one of the lot that is a news channel. Ivanvector (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to the dab at Sun TV. If there was reporting at the time speculating on this name for what became Sun News Network, I may change my mind, but if this really was just speculation, I don't think we can confidently say a reader using this as a search term isn't looking for a similarly named network. --BDD (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - unlikely search term and there seems to be confusion and disagreement on what it should redirect to in the first place meaning that deleting the redirect having the wikipedia search engine give results should anyone ever use the search term "Sun Television News Channel" is the most sensible option. AnonAnnu (talk) 04:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing and WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense, also WP:REDLINK. Anyone searching for this is presumably looking for something else and we are getting in their way. Si Trew (talk) 08:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You advocated for a "keep" position above. Surely you can't want to keep and delete it? It might be best to strike your above !vote if you are changing your mind. ;) Tavix |  Talk  08:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I assume, not as if we stand on principle herem that the !vote falls when the relisting takes place. 15:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
That comment doesn't make sense to me. If you strike your !vote, it's a courtesy to new people reading it from the top that you no longer are advocating that keep position. Tavix |  Talk  15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Because taking it out would make it look like I was lieing. 16:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
No. You're not "taking it out," you would be striking it. The only thing it shows is that you changed your !vote. There is no lying concept involved at all. Tavix |  Talk  19:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Not needed and confusing, could just as easily be a redirect to Sun TV or Sun News so preferable not to have any redirect at all. StoneyHenderez (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing. Not confusing to me but I live within reception range of the former broadcast tower, and from the discussion above clearly confusing to others, particularly our mates across the pond, with other more prominent uses of the "Sun" brand. Also apparently unused. From memory, it was in the past reported that Quebecor was seeking to start a television news channel under this brand, which became Sun News Network, but I can't find it now. Ivanvector (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Deletion is fine with me as well. Search results will probably do just as well as the dab in this case. --BDD (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete fine by me too. Si Trew (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually when I type in "Quebecor to start news network" in a general search, I get back to here... Si Trew (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but we do have Quebecor which is essentially a DAB or list (stupidly it had not occurred to me) masquerading as an article. This one is getting odder... Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Irlande[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 Irlanda and Irlandia, Retarget Irlande to Irlande, Quebec. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:FORRED. There's no inherent connection between Ireland and French, Italian/Spanish/Portuguese, or Polish. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep retag as {{R from misspelling}} due to misconceptions held by English-speakers on how to spell things. (ie. using "ia" for any old country name, or "a", or adding "e" 's ; and dropping the "e" in "Ire" ) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Update retarget "Irlande" to Irlande, Quebec per Hisashiyarouin; the others would be stripped of the altlang templates and be retagged as misspelling redirects -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all. I can see this as a likely search term for non-English speakers. Especially because often it is misspelled in travel brochures etc. Hibernia would be correct I think, but nobody ever hibernates in Ireland these days. Si Trew (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all per WP:RFD#KEEP #5 (useful) - all are bringing in a moderate number of hits, so obviously someone is using them. Maybe we should check the interlanguage links at the other Wikipedias? Ivanvector (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if this is relevant but visitireland.com have a bit of a TV campaign on at the moment. Apparently they have Guinness and stuff. Si Trew (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
If that campaign is translated into Spanish/Portuguese, maybe? But not really relevant to our discussion. We wouldn't keep foreign language redirects like this because of advertising. Or we shouldn't. Anyway, visit Toronto. We have Guinness too, you can drink it with your poutine. Ivanvector (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget Irlande to Irlande, Quebec which is actually known as that in English. No specific comments for the others. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
That makes sense. The rest are still harmless. Ivanvector (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
That makes kinda sense, but wouldn't it make more sense to reverse the redirect to have Irlande, Quebec at Irlande and then the other as the retarget? (We don't have Irlande, Québec with the diacritic, but that is easily fixed once we decide what to do). Si Trew (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Good find. Irlande, Quebec should be moved there. --BDD (talk) 14:26, 23 March 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.

Beds[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. --BDD (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to bed per WP:PLURALPT; if bed has a primary topic, the plural should follow it. bd2412 T 16:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget per nom -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget' as {{R from plural}}}. No-brainer. Si Trew (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget - obvious plural are obviouses. I have to ask, why didn't you just do it? Ivanvector (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Comment I just thought of something. In UK postal addresses Beds is the abbreviation for Bedfordshire. Sorry to queer the pitch there. Si Trew (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC) (as is Herts the abbreviation for Hertfordfirdshire, Cambs for Cambridheshire and so forth). 19:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talkcontribs)
Ah, now I get to draw your attention to Countries which are not the United Kingdom! That tidbit is worth a hatnote at best, and I'm not even really sure that's necessary. I'll grant you that Middx exists, but I'd be hard-pressed to suggest an alternate for that abbreviation (and I'm from Middlesex County, Ontario). Herts is not quite the same as Hertz, and Cambs is a town in Germany. Ivanvector (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Nicely played. I was half asleep and it just came to me so I just threw it in for consideration. Surely Countries that, not Countries Which' :) Si Trew (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I've been there. It's very beautiful. 07:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talkcontribs)
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.

Microsoft Cabinet Object[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) 13:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably a bogus name. I tried searching for it but every single search result seem to have comeoriginated from Wikipedia itself. Codename Lisa (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete and remove link - I created the redirect in tidying up MCO (disambiguation), which had a long standing claim (from 31 December 2008‎) that one meaning of MCO was this. Given that this had remained unchallenged for nearly 7 years, I didn't consider the possibility it might be bogus.-- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK, and WP:CRYSTAL, Microsoft tends to use lots of slang internally (such as "Codename Lisa" :) but this is crystal if anything. Unless somehow it means something from Microsoft Office, something you'd stick in a filing cabinet. But we already have metaphors for that, such as "file". Si Trew (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm, isn't this something to do with Office Assistant? He used to have "cabinet objects" in the sense of OLE Automation objects? Si Trew (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
You mean its filing cabinet? Wow! That is one gloriously brazen abusing of editing rights. If that's okay, I wonder if must enumerate all articles for celebrities and create a "[celebrity's name]'s left sock" redirect for each. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:54, 24 March 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.

Boog!e[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) 13:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 21#BooG!ie. This is another variation of his name that I just now found. Tavix |  Talk  07:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

If if saves you a click, the explanation is that it should be deleted per WP:REDLINK: "It looks like that's the name of the actor, not the character, and he goes by "BooG!ie" as a nickname. According to his IMDB, he's known for a few different minor roles, not just in iCarly." Tavix |  Talk  07:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 "confusion", could go to Boggle or Booger as equally likely plus A Well Known Search Engine (that is more than one click away). I do think we have to think now a bit more of people typing on mobile devices etc instead of my trusty faithful Tesco 20p Keyboard but even so it's quite a step away... 08:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete confusion with 7337-5p3@k for Boggle -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing. WP:REDLINK can be a secondary reason but I think it's more appropriate for "BooG!ie"--Lenticel (talk) 07:05, 24 March 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.

Das Dualwiktorkeinekanzlormerklenschroederlowenbraudeadheatlickin'kopf[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) 13:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Completely implausible search term for a joke that was used on that show approx. 10 years ago. Since it isn't mentioned at the targeted page (or anywhere else), it should be deleted as confusing and unhelpful. Tavix |  Talk  07:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. I liked that show and this kind of rubbish was part of its intelligent humour, but the chances of someone searching for it, unless they have a Weltanshuung different from mine, must be close to zero. But then, almost everyone has a world view different from each other, and I am glad they do, makes life fun. 178.164.198.39 (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Sorry not logged in. Si Trew (talk) 08:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You cannot just say "per nom", you have to give your own reasons. I've been told off about it before. Si Trew (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If the nom has an adequate reason then "per nom" is fine. It's when the nom's reason isn't okay that "per nom" is also not okay.--Lenticel (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Well I am not okay and you are not okay either. (Edward de Bono, I think... never read his rubbish). I know we don't stand on ceremony here, and that is why I like it. We make sense, not rules. Si Trew (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I interpret "per nom" as "I agree wholeheartedly with the nominators rationale and I don't have anything further to add." Tavix |  Talk  00:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree: but I read somewhere (I forget where but somewhere arcane in Wikipedia namespace on guidelines/policies) that "per nom" is "not a reason". I can't find it now... It's not on the WP:RFD "rules" but somewhere, and it's not at WP:NOTVOTE. I don't mind saying "per nom" and leaving it at that as shorthand for "I completely agree for all the reasons stated above", but I can't remember where I saw that is kinda not a valid reason... someone even more pedantic than I, I imagine... Si Trew (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

(resetting indent) Here you go It is an essay, not a guideline. --Lenticel (talk) 02:51, 24 March 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.

March 16[edit]

North Oshawa[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 retargeted to Oshawa by Some Gadget Geek. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

North Oshawa is not a real place, not defined or recognized by any municipal, provincial or federal entity. Mrfrobinson (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears on Bing Maps and Bing Weather and has a number of incoming links. Furthermore, it is officially the name of one of the campuses of UOIT, hence the redirect to the history page there. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
So? People genuinely have been misdirected about 900 miles because of bad maps, including, I think oe reported occasion, people managing to get to spain and back from Humberside with some bad directions....[citation needed] you think they would have spotted it.... I remember good old Autoroute (now apparently Microsoft Autoroute)).... and I keep paper maps in the car and look out if I see a subtle object like an ocean, but apparently others don't. We are adding to their confusion, I think. Si Trew (talk) 03:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
But North Oshawa is
Not to be confused with Downtown Oshawa, where UOIT has another campus.
. Either keep the dab or redirect the page to Oshawa. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The fact is you want to keep this because UOIT says they have a north and a downtown campus. UOIT North Oshawa campus may exist (and does) however North Oshawa is not an official geographical designation. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
No that is your "fact". It was John Maynard Keynes, wasn't it, who said "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?" Si Trew (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Mrfrobinson (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
If you say something is a "fact" then tell us the fact... I didn't realise that was hard to understand. Actually what you are saying by "the fact is..." is "my opinion is..." I do not want to turn into Gradgrind here, but there is a difference. Si Trew (talk) 13:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
All of its "incoming links" were added by you at the same time as you created the redirect, to articles where the link wasn't actually useful or desirable at all — they were all already linking to University of Ontario Institute of Technology in the same sentence or paragraph anyway, and thus didn't need to double-link it via a redirect alongside the direct link. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - no such area is recognized or designated by the City of Oshawa. PKT(alk) 13:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as per PKT. Furthermore, this redirect is confusing as if the northern part of Oshawa only consists of the UOIT. -- P 1 9 9   14:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
That is why I am suggesting that if we don't keep the redirect as is, we change the target to Oshawa as is the case with Downtown Oshawa. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The redirect for Downtown Oshawa is stronger since one would expect a city to have a "downtown" area. My concern is if we keep a redirect for north oshawa why not east, west and south oshawa? Mrfrobinson (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, one new issue that came to my attention after I posted my comments below is that we do have a longstanding redirect to the city's article from the redundantly overdisambiguated North Oshawa (Oshawa). (As opposed to what other North Oshawa, exactly?) The difference is that that title was originally created as a standalone article before being converted into a redirect for the same reasons that pertain to this discussion — but because some content from that was merged into the target article, WP:GFDL requires us to keep it in place as a redirect for writer attribution purposes even though it's technically even more unnecessary than this one would be. I'm still hard pressed to come up with any substantive reason why either form is warranted — but I'm equally hard pressed to come up with a good reason why we should keep the overdisambiguated form but not the more logical one. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Oshawa. Shouldn't redirect to an institution that happens to be located there. As a redirect to the city it's kind of pointless, but harmless. Ivanvector (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It's pretty pointless but harmless as a redirect to the city — as I pointed out Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#North Oshawa?, while the term does have some small amount of utility as a general geographic marker (in the same way that every city has "north", "south", "east" and "west" parts), it's not the proper name of any specific part of the city, and thus not a thing that will ever actually warrant its own standalone article. But it's definitely, unequivocally wrong as a redirect to UOIT, which is just one thing out of many in the north end of Oshawa — if any redirect of this type to UOIT were warranted at all, the title of that redirect would be "North Oshawa Campus", not "North Oshawa". {For the record, I don't see how that's warranted either — no Wikipedia user in their right mind would actually expect either of UOIT's individual campuses to have their own standalone articles separately from the main one on the institution as a whole, so it would serve no real purpose standing alone as a directly searchable or linkable term in its own right. The only place in all of Wikipedia where that could ever actually be linked as a standalone term that didn't coexist right next to a link to UOIT's main article is in UOIT's main article, where it would have to be delinked as a recursive redirect anyway.) But that's a separate question from this — getting back to the redirect that's actually at hand, while my initial preference would have been to delete it, the existence and WP:GFDL-mandated retention of the overdisambiguated North Oshawa (Oshawa) redirect leads me to conclude that the more appropriate solution is to repoint it to Oshawa instead. I don't see that as valuable, but it doesn't cause much harm — and as long as we're keeping a patently ridiculous alternate version of the very same thing, I can't actually justify arguing to delete this outright as much as I might want to. But as currently constituted, it's just plain wrong since the title covers a lot more than just UOIT's campus — so it has to be either retargeted or deleted, and can't just stay in place as a redirect to UOIT. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Make the page redirect to Oshawa as per Ivanvector. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
The retarget is complete. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Can anyone make a new section in Oshawa#North Oshawa that describes it as a fast-growing area of the city and mention the presence of the college and university? 192.197.54.51 (talk) 13:03, 23 March 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.

University of Blacksburg[edit]

Absurd redirect, nobody anywhere calls it this. It's not a useful search term. The only potential use of this redirect is to amuse people on UVA message boards. B (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as creator, and strongly denounce the implication that I am a UVA sympathizer. Believe it or not, I saw this in a scientific citation. After confirming the the person referred to was at Virginia Tech, I created the redirect. Virginia Tech is the only university of Blacksburg. --BDD (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's the same source, but here's an example of the usage in the wild, and at a .edu address. Here's another in a scientific journal. These suggest this is a plausible, if not outright likely, error for those who aren't native English speakers. --BDD (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • No, it is neither plausible nor likely. It's obviously unintentional, not what someone thinks the school is actually called ... "thesis presented to University of Blacksburg, Virginia, in partial fulfillment". I'm sure whoever wrote this started out with "University of Virginia in Blacksburg, Virginia", then realized that they were mistaken, but forgot to look up the correct name for the school. If they had really meant to call it the "University of Blacksburg", they would have said "presented to the University of Blacksburg in Blacksburg, Virginia ... ." Do we have University of South Bend, University of Charlottesville, University of State College, etc? No - all of these would be absurd, even if somewhere at some point someone accidentally used one of them. This is an absurdly implausible redirect. --B (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
See WP:OSE. Besides, if I saw any of those names in citations, I'd make them too. I've demonstrated that "University of Blacksburg" exists as an error in serious publications. It's likely to confuse people. We could turn our nose up at them, or we could help them. One of those approaches is within the spirit of Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Part of the problem here is the "-burg" ending. Even the 1911ish US Board on Geographical Names (which couldn't quite decide what to call itself over the years) cut most of the "boroughs" and "burghs" off, but left a few here and there, in a kinda botched fashion. (Bill Bryson says so I think in one of his books). So we have the added bonus of deciding whether it should be "borough" or "burgh" for something that is neither, in the first place. Si Trew (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Umm ... what? The town in which Virginia Tech is located is named Blacksburg, Virginia. The etymology of "burg" or "burgh" has nothing to do with the question of whether it makes sense for "University of Blacksburg" to be a redirect to Virginia Tech. --B (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per B's evidence this is actually used in the wild so it is clearly a plausible search term and the target is correct and unambiguous - which is what matters at RfD. It can be tagged as {{R from incorrect name}} if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
    • That's absurd - it isn't actually used in the wild. One person, on the entire planet, forgot to look up what the school was called and so he left it as "University of Blacksburg, Virginia". It is blatantly obvious that Blacksburg, Virginia is the location of the university and he is just referring to the school as "University of". --B (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I've already shown two such cases. You'll see more at "university of blacksburg" -wikipedia, though that also includes benign constructions like "Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, of Blacksburg". --BDD (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Taking out your "benign constructions", there are 28.[33]. WP:R#DELETE lists two relevant reasons for deleting the redirect: #3 if the redirect is offensive or abusive (the head of the VT Foundation says "if we become the University of Blacksburg, we're dead in the water", which certainly sounds like he doesn't approve of it) and #8 if the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym. --B (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
It's pretty clear from that quote that Smoot is saying Tech needs to not confine itself to Blacksburg in terms of influence. It's a stretch to say that it means "University of Blacksburg" is offensive, far greater a stretch to suggest that it's inherently offensive, rather than a mistake. DELETE #3 is more about attacks; even if this were unquestionably a disparaging name, WP:RNEUTRAL still applies. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
It's obviously inherently offensive. There is a prejudice that a college or university named after a city has less stature than one named after the state. See [34], for instance, as an example of an article that discusses the prestige of a school's name. Referring to Tech as the "University of Blacksburg" is about marginalizing it by putting it on par with a lower tier school like Norfolk State University. For instance, if I didn't like UVA, I might refer to them derisively as Charlottesville State University. (Obviously, there are counterexamples - Miami University and Wake Forest University are both named after localities, but are academically prestigious.) --B (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Famous prestigious American higher education institutions named for localities include Oberlin College, Boston University, Bryn Mawr College, Princeton University, and I'm sure many others. That said, I favor deleting this redirect as I believe almost nobody would ever search for it. It is an incorrect term and I would hate to have any Wikipedia article take disadvantage of this screwy link. Which raises the question: Is there a way a redirect can be labeled as deprecated, please don't wikilink? —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Sort of. It's already tagged with {{R from incorrect name}}, which marks it as unprintworthy and has the instruction "Pages that use this link should be updated to link directly to the target without the use of a piped link that hides the correct details." --BDD (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just because of that someone says, presumably from the word "black" and I guess alluding to that "blacksburg" is a town full of black people, how is it inherently offensive? We have an article for Negro and Black people and whatnot, that is not inherently offensive. He was probably right, unfortunately, but we have an article for nigger as well. WP:NOTCENSORED. Si Trew (talk) 06:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The town was named after someone with the surname Black. I don't think there's a racial aspect to the name, nor to this incorrect name for Virginia Tech. --BDD (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Correct. There is no racial aspect whatsoever to the name. The reason it is offensive is because it marginalizes the school's prestige, not because the town happens to be named after Samuel Black and his family. The original Black family house was actually still exists (although it was moved a few years ago to make room for a shopping center [35]). Blacksburg's neighboring town is Christiansburg and, despite what initial conceptions I would bet a lot of people have when they go there, the towns were named after Mr. Black and Mr. Christian - they have nothing whatsoever to do with race or religion. --B (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't saying that there was. What I am saying is, are people typing for "blacksburg" expecting to find a university or a city full of darkies? I don't know... and thanks for telling me it was named after someone whose surname was Black, that was a nmew one on me. It's true that the etymology etc shouldn't affect current use, but I can't help thinking this is somehow the wrong place.... 07:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talkcontribs)
I'm at a loss for words. None of this has anything to do with the redirect in question. --B (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
It does have something to do with it. Probably people will use it as a racist term to mean "a poor university full of black people". Sometimes we have to be a bit clairvoyant here, what are people likely to search for? I don't know. Si Trew (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Simon, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at, but this seems quite a tangent. There has been no suggestion whatsoever of racism. olderwiser 17:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clear evidence that people do make this mistake. The possible use as an insult appears to be mostly imaginary. As BDD say, we can either ignore such mistakes or we can help such users find the correct article. I'd prefer to help the ignorant. olderwiser 17:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I could see it being said so in a kinda Daily Show, satirical sense. I am not saying it is right but that it is possible. We have Bonglaland listed for example... Si Trew (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Module talk:RfD[edit]

This is ridiculous. Module:RfD exists but the template tak page goes to Template Talk:Rfd. I don't mind giving a hand making the module but sheesh, get it right... Si Trew (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually it was @Jackmcbarn:, a good regular here, who made the module. Everyone is entitled to make mistakes. Jack, I'll help you out with it if you want. I'm an idiot but a good softie... I know it is dificcult to do it without kinda Draft:Module:Template RfD etc but this is second in my gsearch at the moment, and probably should be in draft space somewhere. I am WP:AGF as I am sure you are. Si Trew (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Then the intention is beyond me. Module:RfD is now second on a search if you type in "WP:RFD" into Your Favourite Search Engine. Since the module patently does not yet replace WP:RfD, that's a bit premature. I realise Jack can't kinda predict what a search engine sees (that's what search engines are for) but I think at the momemnt it is kinda Getting In The Way, until it is debugged etc. Don't see any talk in either place, anyway. Projects are fine but this is blocking, a bit, our "mission" (now I'm sounding like a crappy businessman eh), Si Trew (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Si Trew, given that I have been Template talk:Rfd's recently most active participant, I would have to disagree with the part of the above statement about the page being "in the way". Template:Rfd invokes Module:RfD; that alone should illustrate why the talk page redirect is in place, given that Template:Rfd is the only template that invokes Module:RfD. Steel1943 (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I just checked that. It says on its page that it must be subst'd. Where am I the fool then? Si Trew (talk) 02:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm unsure how that affects the usefulness of the talk page redirect... Steel1943 (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Because now I am not sure which page I should talk on.... 06:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Si Trew, does this help alleviate the confusion? Steel1943 (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
As iffn that is a really helpful link. I checked it. Si Trew (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Its purpose is to let the reader that the redirect from Module talk:RfD is intentional. One of the best examples of this being used can be found at Template talk:Ln; several talk pages redirect there. Steel1943 (talk) 10:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I presume the ultimate intent is to replace our old friend template rfd (deliberately not linking). at the moment, i think it stands in the way, and I am not saying delete it but push it to one side somehow. 13:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It just doesn't help, in my opinion, it just confuses things. I know we are all in good faith. Si Trew (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Replace with Template:Talk page of redirect and be done with it. I'm not really a big fan of that template, but it seems to fit here. --BDD (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • BDD That's not the intended usage of {{Talk page of redirect}}. The template is used for talk pages of redirects, not redirected talk pages. Since Module:RfD itself is not a redirect, the aforementioned template would not apply. Steel1943 (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, right. Is there something like what I'm thinking about, a sort of "Talk there, not here"? Module talk seems to already have a general disclaimer like the one you see when editing Category talk: "Talk pages in this namespace are generally not watched by many users". Why not just leave a note that WT:RFD is a more lively place for discussion? Questions specific to the module really belong on a module talk page anyway. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@BDD: The closest template that I know of with those specifications is {{Central}}, and I've already placed it on Template talk:Rfd, as stated above. However, to utilize that template properly in this specific instance, Module talk:RfD has to remain a redirect towards Template talk:Rfd. Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, I discovered {{Editnotice central redirected}}, but that template seems kind of odd since it seems the equivalent of an WP:RCAT template, though it is an editnotice. Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Babij[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 Converted to dab page. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete. A Google search for "Babij" has about 320,000 results; Iwan Babij is only the 4th result; there are many others; no reason to prefer Iwan Babij over all others. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia's rule prescribes to delete redirects relying on Google search results? Кадош (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
And which RfD "rule" are you quoting to delete or keep it? Fancy Cyrillic name, I see. But do your homework first. Si Trew (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Stats say 4 hits in the entirety of August last year, one or two elsewhere. In 9 months it has had seven hits. Homework please... WP:RFD#D2, confusion. 20:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talkcontribs)
    • Target is extremely brief stub so I take that one to WP:PROD and I think WP:PUSHPOV too. I checked and improved the sources. This fails on so many counts, target is probably WP:BLP violation as well. Si Trew (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep; harmless. When other articles are created and title becomes ambiguous, it can be converted to a disambiguation page. In the meantime, it's not hurting anything. I tagged it as an {{R from surname}}. - Eureka Lott 21:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep {{R from surname}} says "It is used because Wikipedia has only one biographical article of a person by this surname, or because one individual is ubiquitously known by this surname". This seems to fit the former criterion. --BDD (talk) 21:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment this surname Бабий can also be spelled Babiy (see Short I) and there are various articles on people who have it. Siuenti (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Oleksandr Babiy is the only person I see with an article. Am I missing others? Still, those two would be enough to justify a disambiguation page. To add to the confusion, Бабий is apparently both a Ukrainian and a Russian name. Babi Yar is Бабий Яр in Russian, but that would be a partial title match, so perhaps we should disregard it. - Eureka Lott 00:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Michael Buble, for example? Si Trew (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Well the IJ formation is very common in Dutch orthography and would just mean Baby (R to Infant). How many do you want? We are not a translation dictionary, WP:NOTDIC Si Trew (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Well just close the bloody RfD then. If you're going to change it under someones feet then what the bloody point is for anyone to look at it? Bloody travelator, this one is. Si Trew (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: I drafted a potential disambiguation page at Babij for consideration. - Eureka Lott 16:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Looking nice, @EurekaLott:. Need to bung in some more into that one, but I'll go with that one, and {{R to DAB}}. Si Trew (talk) 08:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I added a couple more, hope you don't mind, not names but orthography. IJ (digraph) I think particularly needs bringing out for an English-speaking audience. 08:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talkcontribs)
This is ok with me too. --BDD (talk) 14:44, 23 March 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.

Colorados[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 Colorado (disambiguation) as {{R from plural}} (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete, because I don't believe anyone would enter Colorados when looking for Colorados Party (Uruguay) and because someone would be more likely looking for a different Colorados, such as Rancho Colorados or Colorados, Nicaragua or Colorados ArchipelagoAnomalocaris (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete: as per the nom, doesn't make a lot of sense as a redirect honestly Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Colorados is a nickname of the party and this fact is shown in the article. I suppose that Anomalocaris harasses me: first he reverted my edit in article Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, then he started offering to delete redirects that I had made. Кадош (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment. As the most ever unimaginitive name for a US state, I could see Colorado being a mistype )or Colorado's. For an English speaking audience, I would have thought that closer than places in South America. I do appreciate that there are other ways to say it in other languages, but this is English Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I support that Retarget. Si Trew (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per anon. I just cleaned up that disambiguation and included everything I could find known as "Colorados." If it wasn't obvious before, it should be now. Tavix |  Talk  09:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Colorado (disambiguation) per anon--Lenticel (talk) 01:19, 18 March 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.

AirAsia Aerhad[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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Implausible typo. - TheChampionMan1234 22:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a misspelling of AirAsia Berhad, an either alternate or former name of the target's subject. Steel1943 (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It's definitely a typo, and an implausible one at that (a and b aren't close on a keyboard). I did a Google Search for "AirAsia Aerhad -Wikipedia" and got a total of 9 results. Even then, all but one of the results were either wiki mirrors or unintelligible. The only mention of "AirAsia Aerhad" I can find is in this blog. Noting the sheer implausibleness of this redirect, I can't see how this is helping anyone. Because of this, delete it. Tavix |  Talk  00:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. "AirAsia Airhead" would seem the more likely throwin, to me, to mean either cabin crew or a pilot (they have fallen out the sky a bit lately), but we don't have that. Si Trew (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I mean "Airhead" in the sense of an oxygen theif, wasn't it Orwell who said of Chamberlain he wasn't a prime minister, he was simply a Hole in the air. Si Trew (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear, apparently Airhead, a dab, does not mean that. Common in my slang, to have you know not much grey matter between the two ears. We do have Airheads, but I think that is different meaning... Si Trew (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Airhead (disambiguation) links to Airhead (slang) with the description "a common derogatory term for a foolish person" (the only meaning I was aware of before now), but Airhead (slang) is just a soft redirect to Wiktionary. I don't think the soft redirect should be deleted, as that's a useful search term in this own right but should we link to Wiktionary direct from the dab page entry? Alternatively, do we have a list of these sorts of slang terms anywhere to point it at? Thryduulf (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's particularly derogatory, more self-deprecation, but (I am sorry I am Cockney) the British call themselves fools themselves all the time and other people don't, that would be an insult. It looks really odd when you call yourself a Hungarian: hulye angol ("Stupid Englishman" in Hungary, wearing a T shirt saying so, but it would not at all look odd in England to do so, it would just make someone smile. (We still actually don't have Self-deprecating humour as an {{R from other spelling}} for Self-deprecating humor, which we discussed here some months ago, but no point creating it for the purpose, that would be rather WP:POINTY, I think). Si Trew (talk) 08:50, 17 March 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.

Asus Transformer[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 Restore article per WP:BRD. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Undo - the list of devices that it was before is more appropriate and convenient for readers looking for what they want; don't take everything for granted. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Restore article per WP:BRD - this was a Bold redirect, apparently contentious, so Revert and Discuss. The page with the history is actually ASUS Transformer (capitals); the Asus Transformer page seems to just be left over from a history merge and at the moment is a double redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Will look at this but best to leave the bot tidy up the double R first, or it is more confusing. But I am with Ivanvector in principle. Si Trew (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep. They all now go to the (extremely boring) article. Si Trew (talk) 08:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Restore. The article is not boring. In fact, it is confusable with the other models, which is what the original page intended to distinguish exactly. 192.197.54.51 (talk) 15:26, 24 March 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.

Darren Jaundrill[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) 14:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This was originally redirect to England and Wales police and crime commissioner elections, 2012 and then it was changed to redirect to Bristol Channel#Swimming Records. Neither article now mentions Darren Jaundrill as the claim at Bristol Channel has now been removed as unverifiable. I do not see any valid target for this redirect. -- GB fan 12:36, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. dailynews.openwaterswimming.com/2013/02/darren-jaundrill-unlikely-swimmer.html and elsewhere. It is rather, um, twee, to say you do not see a target for it, when there is patently a target for it, which is where it is. I'd add that, but don't like doing so when things are under discussion. 20:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talkcontribs)
    • If there is a target for the redirect, please let us know what it is. Neither of the two articles this redirect has pointed to currently mention anything about Darren Jaundrill. If one of them should, fix the article so it does mention him so we have a valid redirect. -- GB fan 21:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I just gave you a WP:RS mentioning it. What more do you want? Si Trew (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
There is not much point saying "Someone should fix the article". WP:JUSTDOIT. WP:BOLD. Just do it, then. Si Trew (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I would just do it my self if I felt the information belongs, but I do not see enough in reliable sources to show the information is true. -- GB fan 23:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I see what you mean. We have this from the Birmingham Mail which presumably is reliable, but it does seem a bit kinda self promoting even so. And by "fastest man to swim it" what does that mean? I mean, presumably it means to swim it in the quickest time, but it could just about mean doing it before anyone else does -- that's Headline language for you, I suppose. (My favourite is from the Wolverhampton Echo that had "Woman, 74, Dies". You could just have that permanently set up in type). Si Trew (talk) 13:49, 23 March 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.

Local knowledge[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) Natg 19 (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete. WP:RFD#D2 confusing. I really don't think these two terms are the same. For example, London cabbies' The Knowledge is local knowledge, but traditional knowledge means more knowing about one's culture etc; the first is specifically is geographical the other cultural/historical. Si Trew (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  • weak keep local knowledge of the local environment (plants, animals, how to live in the wild) is usually traditional knowledge of the environment; at any rate, the target article uses "local knowledge" as a synonym -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's one of the alternative names used in the lede. The word "local" is used in that article 19 times. I'd probably take your arguments to that talk page before coming here to delete the redirect. Tavix |  Talk  07:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, since you said you'd take them there, then, take them there. I will follow you there. Si Trew (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Traditional knowledge. If you don't think the two terms are the same, discuss it there. I say this because "local knowledge" is littered throughout that article, and it would be pointless deleting the redirect before the term is cleared out from the article. It's a "cart before the horse" argument. Tavix |  Talk  09:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, I do actually know how to put a cart before a horse, or one afterwards. I have actually put a horse in front of a cart, and one afterwards, with its straps and its leather and its blinders. They are a common sight round here, and I help strap them up. I do not need to be patronised by you. That may not have meant to be, but was, extremely patronising. I would say actually insulting. Before you throw custard at people, make sure there's none on your own face. Si Trew (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: The point I am trying to make is that there isn't a point in deleting "local knowledge" when it is used several times in the article as a synonym for "traditional knowledge." The use of RfD is to discuss redirects, and all I'm saying is that "local knowledge" as a redirect should be kept because it is used in that article as a synonym. I'm not disagreeing with you on whether or not local knowledge and traditional knowledge are synonyms (because they don't seem like synonyms to me). This jut isn't the right forum to discuss that, the talk page is. If consensus is made that local knowledge and traditional knowledge aren't synonyms, then it might be best to create a new article on the subject of "local knowledge" instead of taking it for deletion (which is just a suggestion because I'm no expert). I'm not trying to be offensive, patronizing, or insulting at all and I sincerely apologize if you took my comments that way. The "cart before the horse" phrase just meant that this is the wrong order for going about this matter. First, "local knowledge" should be deleted from the article, then it would make sense deleting this redirect. It wouldn't make sense doing it the other way around, because you would have a time when "local knowledge" is used several times in the article without the redirect guiding people to a target that uses the phrase. Tavix |  Talk  15:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

>>I can't hear you. You insulted me and as a gentleman should apologise politely. Until then I can't hear you. It takes a big man to say sorry. Si Trew (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

In case you didn't read my above comment, I bolded the apology for you. I'd recommend you read if you haven't already. Tavix |  Talk  22:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
And I sincerely accept, and I should apologise to you, probably, for over-reacting. Things can sound harsher here than they would in real life. Thanks. Si Trew (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The term "local knowledge" seems to be a synonym of "traditional knowledge". See "There are other terms, such as traditional knowledge or indigenous knowledge, which are closely related, partly overlapping, or even synonymous with local knowledge." [36] (first hit Google returns for "local knowledge"). --Edcolins (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Is it not in Clive James for Pudding the Carp before The d'oevure hors? Si Trew (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

  • It does appear that this is used synonymously with traditional knowledge, though the first thing that came to mind for me was local history. Worth a hatnote, perhaps? I can sympathize with Si Trew here in that to the common person on the street, "local knowledge" means just that, literally. But that doesn't really seem like a concept we would ever be able to address encyclopedically. I don't know. I suppose someone could write a book on it. --BDD (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Excuse me, whoever said about deleting it? I didn't.

We don't even have Horse and cart, but we do have Orson Wells. Si Trew (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Nor did I. --BDD (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Ach, we do have Horse and cart. But I don't think we have Horse and Cart. Maybe we should fix that one while we're about it. Si Trew (talk) 09:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm that just redirects to cart.... Turn again... Si Trew (talk) 09:04, 19 March 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.

Lohengrin (opera)[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 revert the original move, restoring the article name back to Lohengrin (opera).(non-admin closure) Prhartcom (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It has been proposed that "Lohengrin (opera)" should redirect to "Lohengrin (Wagner)". The alternative is to redirect it to "Lohengrin (disambiguation)".

While most have heard of the famous classic opera Lohengrin (Wagner), there exists another opera called Lohengrin that is not well-known: Lohengrin (Sciarrino). It is safe to assume by all concerned that most who consult or edit Wikipedia, when encountering or creating a link to "Lohengrin (opera)", will at first believe the link will take them to the well-known favourite written in 1850 by the great German composer Richard Wagner thinking it to be the only Lohengrin opera, although of course those who are searching for the little-known short contemporary piece written in 1982 by Salvatore Sciarrino need to be accommodated also. Because it is generally believed to be more helpful to the vast majority of readers and editors, this proposal is being put forward. But please consider that the alternative to this proposal would be to follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Incomplete disambiguation, which state that a link to "Lohengrin (opera)", an incomplete disambiguation, should instead take the reader to Lohengrin (disambiguation), where the reader can choose which Lohengrin they want. Those who support this proposal believe that the middle step is unhelpful and will cause an unnecessary burden for most people looking for the major work, and that the few looking for the minor work will still be able to find it. Those who oppose this proposal believe that popularity is irrelevant, that the guidelines must be respected and should not be willfully ignored, regardless of any additional effort this causes. Ideally, the outcome of this discussion would either clarify or amend Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Incomplete disambiguation so other similar disagreements will be better-informed by established consensus in the future. Note that, if necessary, a Wikipedia:Hatnote can be placed at the top of both Lohengrin opera articles directing to the other article. Please reply with your Support or your Oppose and hopefully we will see a consensus! Thank-you. (Listed on RFD at this time.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Prhartcom (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. It may be against guidelines but takes readers (and editors) without a detour where they expect to arrive. Note that until recently the article name was Lohengrin (opera). - I don't know if the guideline could be improved for such cases where one of the choices on a disambiguation is The choice in most cases, comparable to a primary topic. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It is for these very cases that the "Incomplete disambiguation" guideline exists. If it were always the case that there was no difference in prominence between the relevant subjects, then the need to redirect the incompletely disambiguated title to the disambiguation page would be too obvious to have a guideline about. Not following this guideline creates the necessity of adding a particularly problematic hatnote to the "primary" article. By stating in a hatnote that an incompletely disambiguated title redirects to a particular article, we are encouraging editors to invent/guess disambiguators when typing things into the search bar, which is not a practice we should be promoting; if casual readers were regularly in the practice of doing this (which they currently are not), then we would have to create many more redirects to anticipate potential disambiguated search strings, in the same way that we currently create redirects from synonyms and misspellings to anticipate search strings. Furthermore, we are inconveniencing almost no one by redirecting Lohengrin (opera) to the disambiguation page. Doing so effectively takes this title out of the picture for nearly all readers; it no longer appears in the search box drop-down menu when people type "Lohengrin" into the search bar, and Lohengrin (Wagner) is presented as the first option in that drop-down menu. The only people it might minorly inconvenience are people looking for the Wagner article who outrun the drop-down menu and incorrectly guess the disambiguator as "opera", an action which seems to me to be an unlikely or at least very uncommon one. The "Incomplete disambiguation" guideline is a good one and there is no reason to deviate from it in this case. Neelix (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
An alternative solution that might satisfy parties on either side of this issue is to simply delete the redirect. I see no reason to keep it. Neelix (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Then where would those who type "Lohengrin (opera)" end up? Rlendog (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
At the search page. 08:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - The Wagner opera is not only the primary topic for Lohengrin opera, it is far and away the most prominent Lohengrin opera. Any reader who types "Lohengrin (opera)" is almost certainly looking for the Wagner opera, and should get there directly. The few looking for the other opera, if indeed any of those typing Lohengrin (opera) are looking for that one, can get there via the hatnote in exactly the number of steps they would need to via the disambiguation page anyway. If the incomplete disambiguation guidelines causes a case like this to be directed to a dab page, then it is not a good guideline and WP:LEAST would be a better principle to follow. Rlendog (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support but add a hatnote to Lohengrin (Sciarrino) just in case. --Lenticel (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per Lenticel. If this conflicts with an incomplete disambiguation guideline (and I'm not aware that it does) then it will be far from the only redirect that does. {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} exists for when there is no primary topic for the search term used - compare with Visions (album) for example. Thryduulf (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    • FWIW I have no opinion on whether the article should be at (opera) or (Wagner), as long as the one that isn't the article is a redirect to it. Thryduulf (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC) clarified per suggestions on my talk page from Prhartcom Thryduulf (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC) and 04:47, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Let the search engine do it. In my view, someone typing the exact term knows a but too much about how we disambiguate things randomly to be typing it in, that is, I am saying it's kinda local knowledge. For anyone else, it's just WP:RFD#D2 confusing. (and why is it two opera anyway, surely it is one opus?) Neelix's reasoning is sound, but the conclusion is wrong: if you can't find it from a search, let the search engine do it. How quick do you want it to be? Si Trew (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    Off topic. We don't have Trade knowledge or Trade Knowledge but we do have Trade Knowledge Network and – rather a stretch – Traditional Knowledge. That's a bit WP:SURPRISEing isn't it? Si Trew (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
    This is exactly the search term that someone familiar with Wikipedia's naming schemes (i.e. anyone who has read a few articles with disambiguated titles) will use if they know (or suspect) that "Lohengrin" alone is ambiguous but don't know that there are multiple operas by this name (e.g. me). It was used 450 times last month, and that will include some who bookmarked it before the Wagner opera was moved from this title last year. Deleting this is the worst of all worlds as it doesn't help those looking for any topic - as discussed here many times, depending how they arrive they may get search results (that may or may not contain the page they are looking for), a search engine error, an invitation to start a page, or an edit box in which to start the page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete is not a possibility for an article name that has existed for almost 10 years. Rather make it the article name again, with a hat note, as described below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. By far the primary meaning of Lohengrin (opera) is Wagner's Lohengrin. It is a disservice to editors and especially readers to be sent to a disambiguation page when 99.999% of the time their target is the opera by Wagner. The only other Lohengrin opera is an extremely obscure work by Sciarrino which can be taken care of with a hatnote. This is not a case of "local knowledge". Observe the Google search results for Lohengrin opera. All of them refer to Wagner's Lohengrin, page after page. Ditto Google Books. In my print edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica Micropædia, there are two entries for "Lohengrin". The first is the German knight. The second is Wagner's opera. There is no third. If there were several equally known operas named Lohengrin then directing WP's Lohengrin (opera) to the DAB page would make sense. When there is only one other with that name and it is virtually unknown, it doesn't make sense and frankly, makes WP look silly. The parenthetical, an artifact of WP disambiguation practice which print encyclopedias don't use or need, doesn't mean that primary meaning must be disregarded in all cases. Note the very top of the Wikipedia:Disambiguation page:
It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions.
That page is a guideline, not the Ten Commandments or even the Five Pillars. This is a case where common sense should be used to make an exception. Si Trew, I'm not sure what you mean by "why is it two opera anyway, surely it is one opus?". They are two completely separate and different works by two different composers and two different librettists from two different eras and not remotely related apart from the fact that the obscure one is very loosely based on one part of the plot of the famous one. Voceditenore (talk) 11:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Smerus, Lohengrin (opera) has been the title of the article on Wagner's Lohengrin since 2005 when an article on the German knight was created at Lohengrin and the opera was moved to Lohengrin (opera) [37]. Fast forward 9 years to October 2014 when Neelix moved it to Lohengrin (Wagner) and the following day changed "Lohengrin (opera)" to a redirect to Lohengrin (disambiguation) [38]. The original proposal here is to reverse that and to at least make it redirect to Lohengrin (Wagner). Michael is supporting that and further suggesting that in fact it be restored as the actual title of the article on Wagner's Lohengrin, not a redirect. Voceditenore (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Tks VdT, in that case I support the proposal, and would further support Michael's proposed move, if it obtains traction. --Smerus (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll add some grit, then, to give it some traction. Support. As long as I never have to listen to it... Si Trew (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, very clear primary topic, and very clearly benefits the vast majority of people using the search term. Siuenti (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed but it is a bit of a curate's egg... good in parts... Si Trew (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Further proposal for Lohengrin[edit]

As the proposal appears to have been decided and consensus reached that "Lohengrin (opera)" should redirect to "Lohengrin (Wagner)" and not to "Lohengrin (disambiguation)", several above have proposed that this action should go further: That "Lohengrin (Wagner)" should be moved back to its original name "Lohengrin (opera)", as there may have been little or no consensus for this recent move. "Lohengrin (Wagner)" would become the redirect to Wagner's "Lohengrin (opera)" article. "Lohengrin (Sciarrino)" would stay as it is. Hatnotes would be placed in both "Lohengrin (opera)" and "Lohengrin (Sciarrino)" referring to the other. Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Incomplete disambiguation may need to be amended to discuss situations when there is such certainty of the meaning of an incomplete disambiguation. Please reply below if you support this new idea. If you oppose this new idea, that means you believe the "Lohengrin (Wagner)" article should keep that name and "Lohengrin (opera)" should redirect to it, as proposed above before this new idea began to emerge in the above discussion. (And you may certainly continue the original Lohengrin discussion above. A smile is certainly deserved for Simon above who is happy to help as long as he "never has to listen to it." :-) Requesting discussion from involved editors Gerda Arendt, Neelix, Rlendog, Lenticel, Thryduulf, Voceditenore, Si Trew, Michael Bednarek, Smerus, Siuenti, and of course any others. Again, please reply with your Support or your Oppose and hopefully we will see a consensus! Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • This is not the appropriate place for such a discussion. Discussion of altering Wikipedia:Disambiguation should take place on that guideline's talk page. Neelix (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Apologies, however can you please clarify your comment? No one is suggesting altering the guidelines for Wikipedia:Disambiguation; we simply need to resolve the Lohengrin redirect as stated above. If the Lohengrin redirect clarification discussion is in the wrong place then absolutely, feel free move it to the right place. Prhartcom (talk) 15:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I should be the one apologizing; I misunderstood your suggestion above. Feel free to ignore my comment. Neelix (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Prhartcom's proposal, as at top of this section.--Smerus (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the same, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The Wagner opera should clearly be moved back to "Lohengrin (opera)". I don't know why it was moved from there in the first place. --Folantin (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Send to requested moves Siuenti (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Who was it, Thurber, who said I love Wagner as long as I don't have to listen to him? Doesn't sound very Thurbeish to me. Could be Marx, but that seems unlikely, too. Si Trew (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Are you thinking of Karl or Groucho? In fact Rossini said it best - 'Wagner a de beaux moments, mais de mauvais quarts d'heure.'--Smerus (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's a nice way of putting it too. Si Trew (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support While technically, RfD should decide only about the redirect, and requested moves should be used for the page move (for which there is overwhelming support here), I see no reason for unnecessary bureaucracy. Voceditenore (talk) 08:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support obviously – see my opinion above. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support proposal. Looks reasonable. --Lenticel (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
It is already back to Lohengrin (opera), - I fixed the navbox, - major cleanup needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes it is; technical move request fulfilled. I applied hatnotes per discussion above, restored disambiguation page. All is good. Prhartcom (talk) 01:34, 23 March 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.

March 12[edit]

Trikamji Bapu[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) 15:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't really know much about this subject, but I'd like to take this redirect here for a second look. According to the caption of an image on the Bardai Brahmins page, Trikamji Bapu was the founder of the Bardai Brahmin Samaj. However, that's the only information about him since he's not mentioned in the main prose of the article. He seems like he could be notable enough for an article, so I'm suggesting to delete this redirect per WP:REDLINK until someone who knows more than I do can create an article. Tavix |  Talk  17:25, 12 March 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.

Ponerosa pine in the Salt Cabin Park Exclosure area[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) 14:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Typo in name, unlikely to be searched for —hike395 (talk) 12:27, 12 March 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.

University of Ontario Institute of Technology redirects[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. Anyone who wants to compile a list at the second title is welcome to try, but the inclusion criteria are not obvious. JohnCD (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete generic terms; WP:ADVERT to the university at the target. There are many tech-enriched learning environments, indeed there are many studies about computer assisted learning having nothing to do with this university, and studies of how providing technology helps underpriviledged children. And Lynn University [39] required the purchase of iPads ; while others require e-textbooks [40] ; and online universities require computers to access courses 65.94.43.89 (talk) 07:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Technology-enriched learning environment is a specific name for UOIT's laptop learning program. Similar programs elsewhere are not called by that name (i.e. it is unique to UOIT), so naturally, anyone looking for that specific name would almost certainly be looking for UOIT. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Laptop-based university is a generic name, I agree with you, but instead of deleting the page, we should just start a list of universities and other institutions with a laptop-based learning program, such as UOIT and those you mentioned (e.g. Lynn and those that require e-textbooks/online universities). <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • delete both The first is a promotional trademark for a single non-notable program, and not appropriate for a redirect. The second is non specific promotional phrases. Inappropriate for a redirect to one university, inappropriate as a list of multiple universities that offer such very common programs under various names (all distance or online learning programs are, in a sense, laptop based, because that's what most students use. ) DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment: I would suggest changing the redirect for the former, promotional trademark, as you mentioned, so that it leads to a page listing laptop and/or online learning-based institutions at laptop-based university. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I must be the only person in the world who has actually been to the University of Ontario, but it is not a very prestigious university. It is in ]Hamilton, Ontario, at least one of its branches... Si Trew (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Goood call. What to do with it then? We seem to have a lot about universities in Pakistan as well... is it WP:PROMO? Si Trew (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
As Gadget Geek said above, don't delete, but just change the redirect into a list of articles about universities with similar mobile learning programs. That would best describe the topic of the article. 192.197.54.51 (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This is an INCREDIBLY suspicious comment as this IP belongs to UOIT/Durham College. Mrfrobinson (talk) 00:07, 18 March 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.

Dual voltage[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 retarget (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Dual-voltage (disambiguation). Many things are "dual voltage" ; this term is not specific to trains. Dual-voltage CPU, 110/220 circuits, dual voltage car electrical systems, etc. 65.94.43.89 (talk) 07:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you; I have corrected the redirect. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Retarget per Geek, perhaps as {{R from alternative punctuation}}? Si Trew (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you; I have applied the latter tag. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 15:44, 13 March 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.

J Clark[edit]

Possible attack page. Makes no sense either. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to J. Clark instead. --Lenticel (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Clark and add entries for the two musicians (note the existence of Jay Clark (disambiguation) ) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Retarget, but not sure where. Clark (or Clarke or de Klerk etc) is hardly an uncommon surname. John Clark is also a DAB, as is John Clarke. Jake Lark fortunately is red. Si Trew (talk) 13:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I have retargeted to Ghetts (a.k.a. Justin Clark) per a mistaken bot move in the article's history, as a WP:BLP matter. We need to create a disambiguation page here since there are multiple targets. I'll start. Ivanvector (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
DAB it. I ain't signed in, but this is Simon Trew, I correct later. 62.165.222.186 (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Just as a follow up note on the redirect, I think per MOS the proper dab title should be J. Clark, and J Clark should target there. There is currently a proposal to move the existing article at J. Clark to the artist's full name (see here), and assuming that goes through, the dab I drafted here should be moved to J. Clark. Ivanvector (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I aint got any problem either way with where you do the stops. I would do without them, oddly, because that is how I write in real life, without stops. except the one after my signature )2hich I just sign "S.", saved me a lot of ink over the years). But certainly obviously they should go to the same target. Si Trew (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to J. Clark or wherever that page ends up, overriding my previous comments and the dab I drafted. I don't know how I missed that Ghetts goes by J. Clarke, so there is actually no ambiguity here. Possible confusion can be solved with hatnotes. Ivanvector (talk) 18:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:REQPROTECT[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 per WP:SNOWBALL. No idee how to sign here Si Trew (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Unneeded shortcut, a) no one is using it (see here),b) does not qualify as a shortcut (too long). I am requesting community opinion on the redirect. Tito Dutta (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as it does no harm, and it is fairly specific. Furthermore, just because "no one is using it" doesn't mean we should get rid of it. Redirects exist also to aid searches. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Harmless, and gets editors to where they want to go. (I mean, if you are looking to delete all long "shortcuts", best get rid of all redirects that include the word "PROTECT" since that makes them "too long" at that point.) Also, I created this redirect to target its current target due to no better retargeting options that I could find; anyone know of a better target? Steel1943 (talk) 02:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep that nothing links to the redirect does not mean it is not being used. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - does no harm, no better targets. I prefer to use WP:RFPP but others might not have the same memory for initalisms. Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP #5 because Steel1943 finds it useful. Ivanvector (talk) 14:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Far from being unused, the stats show that it was visited over 150 times last month alone. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 13 March 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.

March 10[edit]

Celtic sea salt[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 per WP:SNOWBALL (non-admin closure)

Requesting deletion due to inaccuracy. Celtic sea salt is not just Sel gris, but other types of salts as well. Also Celtic Sea Salt is a trademark and not a generic term for Sel gris as this implies. Mattnat1 (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I would guess Celtic sea salt is any salt from the Irish Sea. The sea has been known to be a bit saline. What would you guess? Si Trew (talk) 04:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Or perhaps it is a specific brand of salt... in which case WP:NOADVERTISING... Si Trew (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
And lo and behold we have celticseasalt dot com... Si Trew (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #2 (confusing, misleading or inaccurate), #4 (self-promotion) and possibly #5 (makes no sense). Per nom and per their website, "Celtic Sea Salt" is a brand marketing many kinds of sea and other salts. Ivanvector (talk) 14:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:PROMO. as well as all the others Victor said. Si Trew (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
That"s a bit naughty of me to pun his name. I think it is understood I do it on purpose. Si Trew (talk) 14:37, 11 March 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.

Jianada[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) 14:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:FORRED. There's no inherent connection between Canada and any Chinese languages. BDD (talk) 18:03, 10 March 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.

Kaenada[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 as described. JohnCD (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

As a Korean name for Canada, this would fall under WP:FORRED. It's currently tagged as a misspelling, which seems very implausible to me. Looking at Google results, it appears to be a Korean personal name, though maybe it's just being used as a pseudonym. "Togil" has the same issues except for the misspelling. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

We're not here to speak Korean. Would throwing Kannada into the mix be helpful or harmful? Si Trew (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually I think more likely as a misspelling of Kannada for the first one. Not checked the second yet, Si Trew (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

***Yeeőp. I am happy with that. Si Trew (talk) 08:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget TogilNames of Germany per Si Trew. Ivanvector (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget KaenadaName of Canada: this is a simplification of IPA for the pronunciation of "Canada" in English, and close to the IPA for a number of other languages. The romanization into French of the Laurentian language word that this comes from is variously "kannada", "kanata", "kanada", etc., depending on school of thought and which particular language it is said to come from. Ivanvector (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy with that, Si Trew (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm okay with a Retarget to Name of Canada as well.--Lenticel (talk) 23:22, 11 March 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.

Celebrity deaths[edit]

I'm sure this is better off somewhere else. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, Last Word a programme on Radio 4 ppresented by Matthew Parris is possible but unlikely. We get good obituarys on that one. Can't beat a good death can you. Si Trew (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

We dom't have obiter dictium though. Si Trew (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't type for toffee. Try obiter dictum then. Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah that would not make sennse, the Latin is the same, "Speaking for someone who has passed", but that wouléd make no sense to put it there. 08:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talkcontribs)
You know you are getting old when the first section of the newspaper you read is the obituarys. Si Trew (talk) 08:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Light-hearted[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. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

How do we know that we aren't talking about Humor? We don't. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Wiktionary:lighthearted doesn't even mention humor. It could mean humor, but how is a "not found" search screen more helpful? Art LaPella (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    • In my opinion, a "Not found" search screen is more useful, because then one can try to search another way. What is harmful is if a redirect takes you directly to the wrong topic (which the things on the left and top do) so that one doesn't even get to the search screen. For this reason I have asked at WT:RFD to get a search button on the page, but that's just my opinion. To me, it's like GOTO Considered Harmful, but I am just one of many and others disagree. Si Trew (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Dunno. We don't have Light comedy or Light humour but this is a common British expression. Light entertainment is too far a stretch, and the Light Programme doesn't broadcast any more. From the spelling of "humor", as in Light humor, kinda James Thurber kind of humour, I guess this may be unknown in the US, but doing a search, there are plenty of articles that say "light hearted" but no really good link. Light hearted is red. Perhaps not WP:WORLDWIDE? Si Trew (talk) 10:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Happy go lucky is the closest I think in meaning, but that's a DAB to films etc. What to do? Si Trew (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wiktionary defines "lightheartedness" as "the property of being lighthearted, joyous, cheerful, without a care". Cheerfulness redirects to Happiness, and the Joy disambiguation page lists Happiness as the first entry, so having these lightheartedness pages redirect to Happiness as well seems most appropriate and consistent to me. Neelix (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - my dictionary search points me to "heavy hearted" which is a poetic term or sadness, melancholy, etc. Makes sense that its opposite "light hearted" should refer to happiness then. Creeping up on WP:DICDEF but I think the target we have is the most appropriate for this. Heavy heart, heavy hearted, heavy-hearted are red, but Heavy Heart is a music dab page. Ivanvector (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
For consistency, I have created the "heavy hearted" redirects. Neelix (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Surely that would be R from opposite? Si Trew (talk) 06:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
I have apparently lost the ability to type. :) 07:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talkcontribs)
But What Becomes of the Brokenhearted then? I'm led to believe, she found love, but then she farted... Si Trew (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC) (More seriously, we have neither Broken hearted nor Broken-hearted, apparently). 09:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I have created them as redirects to Broken heart. Neelix (talk) 19:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
It would help if you didn't. Rs are cheap, but time is expensive. Si Trew (talk) 20:55, 13 March 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.

Sun Television News Channel[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 17#Sun Television News Channel

ABA Divisions and Conferences[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) 16:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This is the fourth in my series of ABA related redirects, after Atlanta Experience, Carolina Cheetahs, and the other team redirects. This time, we're dealing with former/proposed divisions and conferences of the ABA. They should be deleted per WP:RFD#DELETE #10: "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject," and per WP:RFD#DELETE #2 "the redirect might cause confusion," due to the fact that that the article doesn't contain information about these divisions/conferences. WP:REDLINK might also come into play here. Tavix |  Talk  01:07, 10 March 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.

February 25[edit]

Akranis[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 Akranes. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Does not make sense. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Convert page to a soft redirect to Wikt:akranis (in other words, {{Wiktionary redirect|akranis}}.) I'm not seeing any encyclopedic information for this term per search engines, but the Wiktionary entry does exist. Steel1943 (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
My alternate opinion to converting to a Wiktionary redirect is Delete. This spelling has no strong connection I can find (on search engines) with the subject in Akranes, and thus the redirect should probably be removed altogether. Steel1943 (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Akranes as a likely misspelling. A redirect to wiktionary is not really helpful in this case. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete with WP:NPA in mind. Looking at creator's history, it seems the purpose of this was to call User:Akranis a nerd. Tipped off by his last edit before this one to Amathev (now to Art) to Japanophile, which was started by User:Chrodyn redirecting to Homosexuality and presumably with similar connotations to User:Amathev (i.e. calling them gay). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 05:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Oiyarbepsy; Wiktionary is highly inappropriate, since it is a non-English word that Wiktionary is defining. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I just did a Google search for "Akranis" and couldn't find any connection to Akranes. I feel like if it's a plausible misspelling, then someone has had to have used it, but I couldn't find any. I'm willing to change my vote if someone finds an example of someone using Akranis to mean Akranes. Otherwise, I'm falling more in line with Hisashiyarouin's rationale. Tavix |  Talk  18:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget, then. Gsearching for "Akranes, Iceland" gave me these (amongst other bad matches):
  • "Names in the Game". apnewsarchive.com. Associated Press. 22 August 1993. Retrieved 27 February 2015. Despite free admission for women, only about 4,000 people attended a European Champion's Cup match between Albanian champion Partizani and Akranis of Iceland. 
  • "e-freak" (22 July 2007). "Iceland". mapcore.org. Retrieved 27 February 2015. Keflavik -> Reykjavik -> Hof -> Blue Lagoon/Continental Drift -> Akranis -> Keflavik (and many stations between but's that the endkeys of the parts we made through) 
We do also have AkraniDhadgaon, but as a place name it can't really be made plural (and hatnoting the two is probably unnecesary). Akrane is red, so there is no confusion there. Si Trew (talk) 22:11, 27 February 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.

Table-lookup synthesis[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 coverted to an article. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Nonmatching title pointing to a disambiguation page. We don't do this. If Table-lookup synthesis has a meaning, it should point to that meaning; if it is ambiguous, it should be a disambiguation page, not point to a different page with a markedly different title. bd2412 T 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: @BD2412: I'm glad if you withdrew this deletion request, because this redirection will be later converted to a proper article (based on Curtis Roads 1996, p. 87), as written on Talk:Wavetable. I'm sorry for my slow hands. I should write about it also on the Talk:Table-lookup synthesis page. best, --Clusternote (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
This is not a deletion request, but a discussion request. If this is to be converted, do it now, to address the many incoming links. bd2412 T 00:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry for my confusion. Please wait for preparation of new article. By the way, can I replace the content field on the page from "#REDIRECT Wavetable" to new article ? --Clusternote (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
You can replace the whole thing - once it is no longer a redirect, this discussion is moot. bd2412 T 01:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your kindly advice ! I've converted the page to proper article. --Clusternote (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks - any admin watching this page, you can close this discussion as resolved. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:29, 26 February 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.

Wololo[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) 15:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

In case you've never played it, the priests in Age of Empires do a chant that sounds like "Wololo" when they attempt to convert enemy units. But it probably doesn't make for a good redirect, because that's not mentioned at the target article, and it probably never will be. BDD (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete It's just a meme that has no notability outside the game. It's also the term no in Kalenjin languages. Damn it. I wanted to vote "Convert to something" :(. --Lenticel (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Swahili gospel singer Rose Mhando has a song by this name, according to Google, but none of her work is mentioned at the stub we have on her. I don't know if it is related. Delete to avoid confusion and/or to encourage article creation. Ivanvector (talk) 16:25, 2 March 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.

Star Trek Text-Based Role Playing Games[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 9#Star Trek Text-Based Role Playing Games

Israel and the Palestinian territories[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) 15:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

delete the redirect, because it's only purpose is political (we can also direct it to Land of Israel as much as to Palestine, and it creates needless edit-warring; it is like making a Russia and Ukraine redirect and point it to Russia) GreyShark (dibra) 17:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2, "may cause confusion". That being said, off the top of my head, I seem to remember that "Israel and the Palestinian territories" was exactly how British Telecom ( [sic]) used to list it for the International Direct Dialling code around 1980, since presumably, telecommunications cables are no respecters of political borders (and I have a good reason to remember that has nothing to do with either Israel or Palestine). But barring me obtaining about a 1980 copy of the book of STD codes supplied by Post Office Telephones, I'd have a hard job verifying this feat of memory. And even if I did, the term was obviously politically loaded – or an attempt to make it not so – even then. Si Trew (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Actually I think it was "Israel and the Occupied Territories", which we don't have. Neither should we have this. Possibly WP:RFD#D8 "offensive", but it's not actually used in article space at all, and not much outside it. Si Trew (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY. There are two subjects and you can't redirect to both so it's better to just delete. Tavix |  Talk  01:36, 27 February 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.

Money and fame[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 Crazy World (Scorpions album). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone searching "Money and fame" would be disappointed when they only find Money. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as WP:XY. I think "Fame and Money" is too much of a stretch. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Alright, that works for me. --BDD (talk) 14:58, 26 February 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.

Foreign relations of South America[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. It looks like many of these are linked from navboxes, suggesting the appetite for articles at these titles. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I came across this redirect from the "foreign relations of the Americas" template, and was pretty surprised when there wasn't actually an article on the topic. It should probably be deleted per WP:REDLINK unless there's a better suited target? Tavix |  Talk  01:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment; I've tagged it as an {{R with possibilities}}. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Interesting. I wouldn't think of continents as having foreign relations—they don't, at least in the sense that countries do. But I suppose you could discuss international relations in the context of a continent. There's an equivalent redirect for Asia, which I hope you won't mind my adding to this nomination. There's no similar redirect for North America, Africa, Asia, or Oceania. Foreign relations of Europe redirects to Foreign relations of the European Union, which is probably cromulent. I'll also inform WikiProject International relations. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:12, 25 February 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.

Diskurso[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 list of art magazines only includes notable publications. Until this one can be demonstrated to be notable, it doesn't belong there. --BDD (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The subsection of Periodical literature has rightly been deleted as being nonreliably sourced fluff. As such this redirect should be deleted as well. Saddhiyama (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I was thinking vaguely that the phrase "language of discourse" (universe of discourse) may make this something other than a WP:DICDEF. Si Trew (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep? - Please refer me to the ruling on "self-sourcing items" like this. It is on the Internet and has something to contribute to the idea of the "periodical". Must there first be an accolade of this contribution from a third party, preferably a mainstream journalism outlet? I was wondering, if a video threatening the bombing of the city of Barcelona is to appear on a terrorist group's website, would that video qualify as a valid "self-sourced material" for the creation of a section in the article "Bomb threats", or must a third party—preferably someone from the Washington Post perhaps—first report on it? --Bagoto (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they must: we need reliable, secondary sources, one of the three pillars of Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Simon. --Bagoto (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
@Bagoto: My pleasure. Redirects do not have to be reliably sourced, but since the article no longer has any content which would make this redirect make sense, either we have to send it somewhere else or delete it. I think it is unlikely that it goes where I suggested because it's not mentioned at that target. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:52, 25 February 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.

Channel 93[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) Natg 19 (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This redirects to KHON-TV, a VHF TV station, which is on digital channel 8, virtual subchannels 2.1 and 2.2; there is no evidence of "93" being anything other than a branding for marketing purposes (which the article at KHON-TV#Hawaii's CW lists as obsolete) or a digital cable converter position on one system. K7L (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep, refining to section KHON-TV#Hawaii's CW and mark as {{R from old name}}. We do have Category:Channel 93 TV stations in the United States and Category:Channel 93 branded TV stations in the United States, which I found (among others) high on the list of my Special:Search for "Channel 93", so it might be better off as a redlink so that others could do likewise without undue contortion. Si Trew (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - The use of categories to sort North American television stations by real or virtual channel numbering is deprecated, with multiple deletion votes either currently in progress or already closed as "delete and listify". The category is therefore not a rationale to keep this particular redirect. We normally classify stations by the frequency and subchannel numbering actually going out as an over-the-air signal (as the cable slots may differ on every cable system, plus fibre, plus dish...) and really don't care that one particular CATV operator on one digital box put this on 93 if it's VHF 8 (subchannel 2.2) it's not 93 OTA. K7L (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. But if someone came across "Channel 93" in an old book or whatnot, what would they want to find? One of those lists or categories (I presumed there was some rationale for having "TV stations" and "branded TV stations" as separate cats, but didn't look into their talk pages beyond noting they existed, when I searched). They probably wouldn't expect to jump to KHON-TV unless they happened to live in Hawaii. So that's a good argument for deletion to let the search engine do it. In the UK where I have lived most of my life, TV stations were never referred to by their frequency, always just by ident, for the reasons you state (different frequencies in different locations). Radio stations similarly, although some do use their frequency or range of frequencies in their station ident (BBC Radio 4 for example calls longhand as "On 92 to 95 FM, 198 Longwave, on digital radio, and online, this is BBC Radio 4"). Si Trew (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Although just now (listening via the Internet) it just called "This is BBC Radio 4", just before the pips at 22.00 GMT. Si Trew (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The problem with using cable or subscription TV channel numbering for anything is that cable operators like to deliberately move things to the wrong channel. As one example, a North American VHF TV station usually wouldn't be on its over-the-air channel on cable in its own home town for technical reasons: an issue known as ingress where a poorly-shielded old telly would pick up over-the-air signal itself. That direct signal would arrive before the cable signal as multipath ghosting; in the days of analogue TV, one could see two superimposed images. Go to some other cable system an hour down the road and the station would be back on its original OTA frequency. The over-the-air channel might be useful for a purely-local station, but a cable channel on one system? No. K7L (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - The subchannel was at one time publicly identified as channel 93. This should be addressed when the categories are listified. --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:37, 28 February 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.

Zero (Marvel Comics)[edit]

A result of my WP:RM, considering the other Zero in comics was also a Marvel Comics character. However, this creates a possibly ambiguous redirect, as the old page now refers to Kenji Uedo exclusively. Perhaps disambiguate? J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 19:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

For the anthology comic, see Zero Zero (comics). For Kenji Uedo, the Marvel Comics mutant, see Kenji Uedo.
I'd rewrite that as:
For the anthology of comics, see Zero Zero (comics). For the Marvel Comics mutant "Zero", see Kenji Uedo.
Si Trew (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Aye, it is a mess. But we have to start somewhere. Zero (comic) would maybe seem reasonable as a simple retarget, or DAB? Maybe I draft a DAB... Si Trew (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Bugger, Zeor (comics) is an article where call me Mr Picky but I would expect that to be a DAB. It is a mess. Si Trew (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Anti-whistleblower laws[edit]

Delete – A discussion about the target article (Ag-gag) is underway. The discussion is leaning towards making "Anti-whistleblower legislation" (or another similar name) the target. See Talk:Ag-gag#RFC_regarding_article_title. Rather than setting the stage for creator's desired result, I think the discussion should conclude, and then needed redirects can be created. – S. Rich (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC) – S. Rich (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - since articles can be moved over redirects pointing to them, it makes complete sense to create a redirect ahead of a proposed move for a legitimate alternate term, without regard to how the discussion concludes. This is common practice. There are no reasons, and none were given, why it might be preferable to wait for the discussion to conclude. Nominator and I have a history of difficulty in the past, and I had been told he had chosen to abide by a voluntary interaction ban. EllenCT (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Reply – the RFC has this title linked in the discussion, only it shows up as a blue link. Deleting this redirect will allow editors to clearly see that the new titles being discussed are not yet created. The blue links improperly invite them to click into the very article being discussed. – S. Rich (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I'm combining two very similar nominations with very similar discussions here. If someone could draft what a disambiguation page would look like here, that could be very helpful. And which title would be preferred for that page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment for BDD about history of this request: There has been a RfC underway at Talk:Ag-gag#RFC regarding article title about renaming the 'target' article (Ag-gag). While the discussion was underway one of the commenting editors created these 2 redirects.This was a problematic undertaking. First, it served to complicate what may be an eventual outcome – renaming of the article to one of the redirect targets. But these redirects served to confuse the RfC discussion; i.e., one of the RfC commenting editors has mentioned the 2 possible titles, saying they redirect to Ag-gag. These 2 redirects should be deleted so that the RfC can proceed in an orderly fashion. One the RfC is resolved, then needed redirects can be created. (Also, these 2 redirects were deleted under a G6 Speedy CSD and then again created by the same RfC commentator.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC) And to answer your last question, the very title of the re-titled article is what the RfC is about. 05:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't think this is suitable for disambiguation. WP:DABCONCEPT maybe, but really this is a broader topic than ag-gag. WP:REDLINK it is, then. --BDD (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Baracketology[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. I can see which way the wind blows. --BDD (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Presumably a neologism about Barack Obama's NCAA bracket choices, this term isn't mentioned in the text of the target article. It's used in a title of two of the references, both of which just support the vague statement that "the concept of bracketology has been applied to areas outside of basketball". "Baracketology" isn't a concept that can be discussed encyclopedically, at least at this point, so the redirect should be deleted. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment Oh this one you mean:
No mention of "Baracketology". Si Trew (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This term has gotten much media attention considering the coincidence of Barack Obama's name and the fact that he's a known basketball fan. There should perhaps be a subsection devoted to this term on the bracketology article, but the redirect is a valid one. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep looks like a plausible redirect to me. --Lenticel (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment More sources: FiveThirtyEight has extended analysis of Obama's 2014 picks.[43] SportsOnEarth.com says "President Obama is famous for his NCAA bracket."[44]Bagumba (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment no mention of it, nor its target, at FiveThirtyEight:
Nor here:
Si Trew (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
SportsOnEarth is owned by Major League Baseball.[45] Since the subject is about basketball and not baseball, this wouldn't be promotional, non-independent coverage either. This seems reliable. A basketball article by Will Leitch from SportOnEarth has also been quoted by The New York Times.[46].—Bagumba (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Backwards run argument structure until reels the mind. How about you quote them rather than my doing your homework?
  • If it's not to do with basketball, it is irrelevant.
  • If it is, how about quoting it in full, rather than me doing your homework for you:
I don't know the plural of non sequitur, (hint: I do) but you have two of 'em. Si Trew (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • "... doing your homework for you": Apologies @Si Trew, but it's not my norm to provide full citations in discussions. You'll find them in my article space work, where I usually provide archived links as well. Being that it's not compulsory, I'll leave it for any gnomes who might find mere external links to be inadequate. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete', with BDD. The only references I see, reliable or no, are to Barack-etology with the hyphen: If it were to redirect anywhere, it should be to there: but tellingly that is red. There is no reference, RS or otherwise, to this being even a neologism (although noun fusion, i.e. welding the nouns and after polishing out the hyphen, is common in English, but it takes time to polish, and this hasn't had the time. Not so much a neologism as probably a one-off phrase, I forget the technical term, nonce word? WP:NOTDICT. Si Trew (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
    • WP:NOTDICT applies to articles that define words, while Baracketology is a redirect of a subtopic to its larger related topic. Per the guideline WP:R#KEEP, redirects should be kept when they "aid searches on certain terms." Obama's relationship with bracketology is clear from the above sources, and worthy of a blubr or two in the article. It's an article content issue, not a redirect deletion issue, whether the article should specifically mention the neologism; however, there is no harm in it being a plausible search term that redirects to the larger related topic. Obama's relation to bracketology can be discussed in the article without using the neologism. As for the redirect, no criteria in the guideline WP:R#DELETE calls for deletion here.—Bagumba (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
      • Then discuss it in the article. Since it is not, you haven't a leg to stand on.
      • criterion is singular. How often do I have to insist on this? Even Wiktionary says so. Si Trew (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
    • And by inventing and thus defining a word no reliable sources, the only leg you have to stand on is that a redirect is not an article. But then it goes as usual as "not mentioned at target" by various of the WP:RFD#DELETE rules but on the whole by consensus, I think, (e.g. WP:RFD#D2 "The redirect may cause confusion"), that a term not mentioned at any target cannot be retargeted thereto and thus should be deleted, to encourage the creation of the article. Old Shakespeare said somewhere, we think tis sport to see the engineer hoist with his own petard. To quote another RfD reg "No reasons have been proposed". Care for any keep reasons to propose? Si Trew (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Set out my stall

Since this is a linguistic argument I bring my linguistic arms to the grounds ready to aim and fire. But it is clearly not exactly a neologism but a nonce word that has been repeated in papers the day after. It is something that lexicographers would note in case it caught on, to give it first reference, but has no place in an encyclopaedia when.

  1. There is no usage of it in its hyphenated or unhyphenated form in any of the refs given
  2. One of the refs is, to my mind, unreliable, and RS insists on multiple' reliable sources: we have none giving the term
  3. Further references given were given with rather good faith that on my part I looked them up. More fool you, I looked them up. The term is not in any of them.
    1. This is quite simply a nonce word that someone once fancied.
    2. Whether we like it or not, WP is treated as somewhat reliable by the outside world (at least we hope so and strive to be so).
      1. Presenting this as the Word of Wikipedia gives it a sanction it does not merit or deserve.
        1. Therefore, it should be deleted, to encourage the creation of the article.
Si Trew (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bagumba and expand the target article to mention the President's picks, which is apparently a notable annual event at least in the eyes of sports nerds. A single sentence should suffice. There are multiple reliable sources, such as Bleacher Report, ABC Australia, Chicago Tribune, and this silly Time bit which isn't about basketball but is certainly about the President. Yes, they don't all use the name "Baracketology" or put a hyphen in it, and it is most certainly a neologism, but it's a neologism for an apparently notable thing, thus it is a valid redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Looks like this is leaning keep. Could someone add a sentence into the target page, or whatever is going to happen? With March Madness approaching, this may become easier to do.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:30, 25 February 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.

Calvary at Saint-Thégonnec.[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 Speedied. Peridon (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Left over redirect from moving a newly created page (today) under an incorrect title. No incoming links, and not useful for navigation. I will notify the page's creator to look in the new location. Ivanvector (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete per WP:G6 Housekeeping. I'll try it. Si Trew (talk) 21:37, 27 February 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.

February 19[edit]

Idiot/Idiocy (Athenian Democracy)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 26#Idiot/Idiocy (Athenian Democracy)

List of every person in the world[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) 15:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect redirect JZCL 12:01, 19 February 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.

NaiveRelativismAboutTruth[edit]

Unlikely redirect JZCL 12:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. Is this some remnant of the transition from Wikipedia:CamelCase? History is not very revealing. Naive relativism about truth redirects to the same target and perhaps should be added to this nom. But Naïve relativism about truth (double dotted I), Naive Relativism, Naive relativism, Naïve Relativism and Naïve relativism (double-dotted I on last two) are all red. I am not sure, does "What links here" work for CamelCase links? (I guess it does.) Si Trew (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a relic from the early days of Wikipedia. It was actually created as an essay back in 2001. It's quite a fascinating read, even though it is entirely non-encyclopedic. Unless someone feels strongly about preserving that essay, it is probably best to Delete both because I can't find any articles that use the term "naive relativism". Tavix |  Talk  00:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete confusing at best.--Lenticel (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to relativism. As a CamelCase relic it shouldn't be deleted, and there may be useful history although this seems to have been copy-pasted from some other source ("LarrysText" = Larry Sanger?) which was wikilinked but seems to have long since vanished. There is also useful history at Naive relativism about truth which also targets to truth but seems to more accurately reflect relativism. Also, relativism seems itself to be about truth, so having "about truth" in the title is just redundant. Ivanvector (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that might be a good argument if it was just "RelativismAboutTruth" or some variant, but "naïve/naive" isn't mentioned once in the article on relativism. The fact that we are discussing the term "naïve relativism," which Si Trew pointed out is redlinked, changes that argument. If there were any articles that discussed this topic, I'd love to retarget, but until then, any such retargetting is unuseful and/or unhelpful. Tavix |  Talk  20:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that naïve relativism is a thing or was meant to be; it's more like, here's an essay about how relativism is naïve. But I'm stretching. We do have naïve realism but it seems to be completely different; not so much about truth, and basically the opposite concept to relativism anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I seem to have found LarrysText from a very old Wikipedia archive. Indeed this is part of a number of lectures Larry Sanger wrote out and read to his Ohio State students in 1998, and which went on to contribute some of the first content to Wikipedia. Others which are still around are TheoriesOfTruth, TheJustificationOfTheState, CommonSenseAndTheDiallelus, and DefinitionOfLogic (all now redirects, of course). They're not encyclopedic and probably unlikely search terms, but they are part of the history of the project and I think they're not hurting anything by staying around. Ivanvector (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd be happy with that treatment. Ivanvector (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
BDD, if this is something that you or another admin was willing to take on, I think it'd be a cool project to give that treatment to the entire catalog of Larry's Text. Tavix |  Talk  19:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure, I would do that. Pinging JZCL, Lenticel, and Si Trew for their thoughts. --BDD (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm okay with a Userfy too.--Lenticel (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Userfy per BDD. JZCL 14:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It's the same essay. Once the essay is userfied, both mainspace redirects would then be deleted. Tavix |  Talk  16:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Question (related): is Larry's Text encyclopedic? Could we write an article about it? Or is that WP:NAVELGAZING? Ivanvector (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • For one, I don't think there would be enough reliable sources available to establish notability. Tavix |  Talk  16:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Water : the Organic Mineral[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) 15:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate redirect JZCL 11:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2, "confusion", WP:RFD#D5, "makes no sense". Water is not an organic compound because it has no carbon; neither is it a mineral except by stretching the definition that it is extracted from mines, which indeed it is but not for its commercial value. (We have articles about specific mine floods but not one in general; also Category:Mining disasters but not a subcat for those caused by H2O). Si Trew (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can't really see where this would really be a redirect term that anyone would consciously type into the search box. I have no true opinion on whether or not ice is a mineral (although at least one RS says that it is) or if it'd warrant a redirect labeling it as such, but this just isn't a feasible redirect search term. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, because water is not an organic compound. ApparatumLover (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete criterion WP:A3 as the article was originally tagged; page creator removed the tag inappropriately. Page served as nothing more than a placeholder for a spam link to a commercial website. Lankiveil redirected to ice in good faith, however the reference to ice being considered a mineral was also sourced to that website, and is thus not reliable. Ivanvector (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, when I redirected this in 2008 it probably seemed like a good idea at the time, but obviously it is not a plausible search term and should go. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:03, 24 February 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.

Xauxaz[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 26#Xauxaz

Dark Forest[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 actually a request to move Dark Forest (disambiguation) over Dark Forest per a possible claim that there is no primary topic. In effect, this discussion has been moved to Talk:Dark Forest (disambiguation)#Requested move 19 February 2015. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Legends of the Hidden Temple is certainly not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. See Dark Forest (disambiguation). RJaguar3 | u | t 02:43, 19 February 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.

Fifty Shades of Grey: A XXX Adaptation[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/retarget to Fifty Shades of Grey (film)#Pornographic adaptation lawsuit. Tokyogirl79, I definitely did not look at the film article prior to nominating this. Steel1943 (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I just recently retargeted this redirect to Fifty Shades of Grey#Origin as fan fiction, but I don't believe that target is helpful. (The only vague mention of the redirect's subject is in the last paragraph of the section.) Per some research, I found that it seems that this was to be the possible name of a porn parody of this movie, but due to a lawsuit, never saw the light of day. Might as well not redirect readers trying to find something that is not mentioned at its target in enough detail. Steel1943 (talk) 02:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep, but change redirect to Fifty_Shades_of_Grey_(film)#Pornographic_adaptation_lawsuit. The porn does exist and it was released, but it wasn't out on the shelves for very long because of the lawsuit. (It was out long enough for it to hit the torrent sites, though.) I'd argue that this would be better as a redirect to Fifty_Shades_of_Grey_(film)#Pornographic_adaptation_lawsuit, where it is discussed in far more depth. The thing about the porn is that although Smash tried to make a legal claim based on the fanfiction origins, ultimately all of the news about the lawsuit centered around the official film since the movie companies were the ones going after Smash. It received more than enough coverage to where I think it'd be a reasonable redirect to the subsection in the film article. Originally this did redirect to the main article, but that was before the film itself actually had an article and before the content was merged into the film's article with this edit. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:13, 19 February 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.

Plowback retained earnings[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 26#Plowback retained earnings