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 18[edit]

A Guerra não Declarada na Visão de um Favelado[edit]

WP:NBOOK, article was redirected to the author's article which subsequently was removed via AfD. ☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 13:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Home (2014 comedy film)[edit]

An implausible redirect as the film was released in 2015, not 2014. Should be deleted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. wrong but useful. Films are released at different times in different countries: to generate income essentially. It used to be because the film reels were literally sent over e.g. from the United States to the United Kingdom, because printing the reels costs a lot of money, so they would send over the reels. Now with Digital that rarely happens, but the film releases are timed to the season, California gets them first (surprise!) and the UK gets them about six months later, Hungary about three months after that. Seems entirely plausible redirect to me: This is now showing down at the cinema complex near the Arena Plaza, a posh shopping place near Keleti in 2015. I have had the good fortune of the rebuilt Broadway Cinema inLetchworth, a beautiful Art Deco cima that was restored and now in good order and the projectionist shoed me how to do it round on a Latham loop and run it all through the projector. Sometimes I talk, sometimes I listen.. Si Trew (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
HHmm the Broadway Cinema is in Nottingham apparently, but there is a beautiful one in Letchworth. I try to DAB that or hatnote it or something. Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I think, but don't know and it would be hard to source, that they were all built by Odeon Cinemas in the thirdies. It's a beautiful building with stained glass etc in the windows, very much in the Art Deco style. I'd have to source that by looking up the deeds but it is a typical ODEON. Unfortunately now most have been changed into bingo halls. They, in the 20s and 30s, made such beautiful picture palaces. Unfortunately a lot have been knocked down now. Si Trew (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
A search for "Broadway Cinema Letchworth" immediately brings me up this so it is patently there, and a very beautiful bulding it is after its restoration. I am not sure that Nottingham should be primary, but not sure wat to do about it. That is off-topic anyway because we are discussing a film not a cinema, just I care for that cinema a lot, and probably went overboard a bit cos I love it so much. Si Trew (talk) 08:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not that just is not useful, it's also senseless. 1) I would not classify Home as a comedy film (comedy is a very common term expressed in movies, Pineapple Express and American Pie are also comedies but they are quite different then Home, aren't they? lol). 2) Also even the better point, the year was changed from 2014 to 2015 and now we can freely have Home (2015 film). — Tomíca(T2ME) 09:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

April 17[edit]

Advanced persistent vector[edit]

Should be deleted: redirect replaced a cut-and-paste content fork of the target article, redirected back to original article in lieu of deletion, but title of redirect is not, as far as I can tell, a term that is in use anywhere, as a Google search for "Advanced persistent vector" will show -- Impsswoon (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Apv advanced persistent vector. It's wrong (and I worked for a well-known aerospace company for nine years) but useful. The caps are well out as in English one tends to cap each initial, but that is the best we can do right now. Si Trew (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Nah, that's no good it goes to the same place Advanced persistent threat. Where is the vector in it? It's nonsense and should be Deleted. Si Trew (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
?Comment' this is rubbish. The lede says it is, I shall try to find it media vectors i.e. things that influence journalists. That is a totally different meaning, and a neologism, from what I would expect to find. A vector is an angle and a distance, as any fule kno. You can't go bandying around techinical terms in that way and not expect a chartered engineer to say something back. It's nonsense, absolute nonsense. I'm trying to find Media slang or something but this is not used outside the mass media publishing industry: and it is an industry but they like to think they are all perfect. Si Trew (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

One cannot hope to bribe or twist
Thank God! The British journalist
But seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there's no occasion to.

Si Trew (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Uncle Adolf[edit]

Orphan'd redir, unlikely "misspelling", but has existed for 6 years. ― Padenton|   17:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete this is clearly not a misspelling, but it might be a plausible nickname or something like that - it gets a lot of hits. However, I am recommending deletion per WP:REDLINK as this is the title of a 2005 film that has articles in Italian and German but not yet in English. Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thryduulf. --Lenticel (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I remember that film but I swear I saw it in English, so will try to find the title etc. IMDB should have it. What I call the "Hitler Channel", Yesterday (TV channel), it would be before their time when it was broadcast, but I can imagine them showing it. I swear it was in English, I have to find it. Si Trew (talk) 06:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
It's [here at IMDB], I think in English (not sure). Si Trew (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Yep, deffo English. Nicholas Renton played the part and Ken Stott directed it. I think the decision now is not that it exists but what to do with it? 09:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm a liar since according to INMB Ken Stott did the acting and Nicholas Renton did the directing. But that seems unlikely since Ken Stott is usually behind the camera and Nicholas Renton in front of it. Anyway, we have to sort out WP not IMDB — it's a start. Si Trew (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I am probably thinking of a different Kenneth Stott. Who produced all of Dennis Potter's TV films? Anyway, we are on our way to a solution. Si Trew (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, IIRC correctly (deliberately havent checked) that is Kenith Trodd, which seems a long way away. But if it reminds me would it remind others? I think the unusual spelling of "Kenith" is problably why I was kinda misled here. Si Trew (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Jack Spratt (character)[edit]

Deletion.
History: JS(c) was very recently created by a move (made without any discussion) from Jack Spratt (fictional detective), on the grounds that it was "Proper disambiguation". In fact it was a case of improper ambiguation, since Jack Sprat (aka Jack Spratt) from the nursery rhyme is just as much a "character" as Jack Spratt from the Jasper Fforde nursery crime mystery novels. I moved it back (the mover hadn't changed links), leaving explanations on relevant talk pages, and then PRODed the R from move that was created. The mover unPRODed, changed it back to R to Jack Sprat (disambiguation).
Rationale: JS(c) serves no purpose, and can be misleading. Someone who types "Jack Spratt (" into the WP search box will be offered to choose between the "fictional detective" and the "character", and would presumably assume JS(c) means the other Jack Spratt, when it doesn't. Choor monster (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That is an old joke and not a very funny one. Actually, I believe Humpty Dumpty was the name given to an extremely large cannon used to protect the Tower of London, and I'm not sure how that name originated, but see the Oxford Book of Nursery Rhymes as RS. Most nursery rhymes have a lot of history. Si Trew (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and Little Boy Blue choked himself. But what, in all due seriousness, is a nursery crime? Ah, now I see.--The Theosophist (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, in that case, Fforde′s Jack Spratt is obviously based on the rhyme′s Jack Sprat and this should be mentioned at the disambiguation page--The Theosophist (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC).

(1) That's a topic for the dab page, not here. (2) It's obvious, so why mention it? (3) It should not be mentioned, per MOS:DAB. Choor monster (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC).
(1) Agreed, just saying. (2) Obvious to me, after you demonstrated what sort of novels Jasper Fforde writes. (3) According to which section of this page?--The Theosophist (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
(1) Sigh. (2) It's obvious on the dab page, which starts off with the nursery rhyme name in bold. (3) Per your suggestion that it should be mentioned on the dab page, I referred you to MOS:DAB. Choor monster (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. "fforde", like "fforbes",, is usually spelled with the two F's in lower case: it's a typographic ligature done by printers because they didn't realise it was a long F, according to Radio 4 the other day (so I would have trouble RSing that), but would whack the two F's together whhen people wrote it that way and they set it up in type. Psmith might serve as another example, but Wodehouse did that on purpose, and the P is silent, as in "taking the". Si Trew (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I can't resist this. Margot Asquith was once introduced to Jean Harlow and the latter said to her Hello, Margot. She replied, the T is silent, as in Harlot. Si Trew (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} as there are multiple Jack Spratt characters this could refer to which are listed on the dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf, the nursery rhyme has a character named Jack Spratt, and there is the detective, etc, so pointing to the dab page is the correct thing to do -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Jack Spratt redirects to Jack Sprat. I think I learned the rhyme with two T's but no doubt there are variations. The lede of that article lists both spellings. I'm inclined to take this over the top as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC but not very strongly, since there is obvious confusion here with the end T's. Si Trew (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Baron Sugar of Clapton[edit]

"of Clapton" is part of the territorial designation, not the title. Practice is to have a redirect for the title itself, without the territorial designation. The Theosophist (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. My mother grew up in Clapton but you might as well make it Lord Mayor of London. This is WP:RFD#D5 misleading. There is no Baron of Clapton. It could possibly go to Alan Sugar, who is a Lord, but not of Clapton. Si Trew (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec) Retarget. He is in fact Baron Sugar of Clapton, as it says at the article in section 3. So that would seem the obvious retarget. Si Trew (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, it already does. So a redirect goes to exactly where it should. And your point was.... ? Strong keep'. 13:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - entirely logical search term that goes to the article people are looking for when using it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Without prejudice, I created an anchor at the target for Baron Sugar of Clapton#Baronetcy, in section 6. Si Trew (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Which Baronetcy are you referring to?--The Theosophist (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that his title is "Baron Sugar". "of Clapton" is part of the territorial designation, not the title. --The Theosophist (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see your point. His title is "Baron Sugar of Clapton" to distinguish him from (made up) "Baron Sugar of Mortlake". It is, is it not, part of his title? Even if not it is a useful search term, so it does no harm to keep it. The fact that I think he is an arsehole is irrelevant, that is his ennobled title. I appreciate we don't list people by their titles here, but this is a redirect and a useful one, the article does not say "Sir Alan Sugar" and never has, even before he was ennobled or knighted. Do you want to delete Sir Alan Sugar as well? Si Trew (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: No, you did not understand. His title is not "Baron Sugar of Clapton". His title is "Baron Sugar". As much as Quentin Davies' title is Baron Davies of Stamford and not "Baron Davies", Alan Sugar's title is "Baron Sugar". Note that the first person of the surname "Davies" who was created a Baron, David Davies, took the title "Baron Davies", without an "of". When the second person called Davies was created a Baron he took an "of" for distinguishment, and so did the third and the fourth and all others afterwards. By the very same logic, the first person whose surname was Sugar, took the title "Baron Sugar", without an "of". If another Sugar becomes a Baron, then there will be an "of".--The Theosophist (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: See also the Sainsbury's. The first Sainsbury who became a peer, Alan Sainsbury, took the simple title "Baron Sainsbury", without an "of", while the two others, John and David Sainsbury took "of's". Also, the Wolfson's: Leonard Wolfson, was just "Baron Wolfson", no "of" because he was the first of his surname to become a Baron. David and Simon Wolfson, on the other hand, took titles with "of's".--The Theosophist (talk) 09:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The "of" actually is an important part of the title. If you are "Lord Finchley" you can pass it on to your son, if you are "Lord of Finchley" you cannot. It's the difference between an honorary title and a hereditary title. Si Trew (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: (I just noticed this one) It seems to me that you have an unclear view of the subject. What you mean by "honorary title" is what we actually call a life peerage, to begin with. The "of" plays absolutely no role concerning whether a title is a life peerage or an hereditary peerage. For example both Baron Widdrington (no "of") and Baron Willoughby of Parham (with "of") are hereditary peerages and both Baron Warner (no "of") and Baron Wilson of Rievaulx (with "of") are life peerages. The "of" is a bit irrelevant.--The Theosophist (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Patently it is an Honorary title and he does not own all of Clapton. He essentially chose his ownn title and being a "common bloke" called himself that. Nevertheless he is the Baron of Clapton and therefore Clapton is his Baronetcy. It is not even a borough let alone a baronetcy, but useful and correct are different things. Our raison d'etre here is to make things useful, not correct. Si Trew (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: First of all, it is not a "Baronetcy" it is a Barony, because we talk of a Baron, not a Baronet. Secondly, I do not know what is the purpose of all these feudal references. I do not see how it is relevant to our discussion either whether Alan Sugar owns Clapton or whether Clapton is a borough. And still you have not addressed my main argument. I am going to say it again: "of Clapton" is NOT part of the title.--The Theosophist (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not do titles anyway, so in a sense it is irrelevant. Sir John Major for example is a redirect to John Major. I don't call myself Simon Trew PhD and not just because I don't have one. But it is reasonable, I think, for redirects to direct in that matter. So the question is whether it's the correct title. If it is, it stays, if not, it goes. Si Trew (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Any way to get Burke's Peerage online to check? 09:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Yes, but it requires subscription. Would the site of the House of Lords be as fine as Burke's?--The Theosophist (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec) whacking this in before I read yours. I just thought of something. In the East of England, Anglia, there is a lot of good sugar grown by Tate & Lyle and the other one. Tbey are known as sugar barons, because they own so much land to plant sugar beet. Should we hatnote it? 09:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not have the slightest thought concerning how is this helpful in our discussion. "Sugar" is just his surname and even if it had to do with actual sugar, that was generations ago and there is no real connection.--The Theosophist (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah well it was just a thought, Sugar baron is a fairly common phrase. It might be on Wikt, I check. Si Trew (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Bizarelly, we actually have Category:Sugar barons but no article on it. Si Trew (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Again, would the site of the House of Lords be (as a source) as fine as Burke's Peerage?--The Theosophist (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: So, what is a better source, the House of Lords (no "of"), Leigh Rayment (no "of"), the Letters Patent themselves (no "of") or the Telegraph (with "of"). Answer that, please.--The Theosophist (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
here at parliament.uk Si Trew (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: I consider this one the best source, too. Do you see any "of Clapton" there?--The Theosophist (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: Leigh Rayment, Letters Patent (from Hansard), Darryl Lundy, Debrett's --The Theosophist (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

His official title is The Lord Sugar. We have to check how he was ennobled I guess, cos this could simply be wrong. A lord beats a baron any time, especially at poker. Baron is the lowest rank really so we better check that. It could be simply wrong. Si Trew (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: No, Baron and Lord are a bit synonymous. We never say "the Baron Smith" when he is a Baron. We say "the Lord Smith".--The Theűosophist (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)ű
He is actually Baron Sugar of Clapton in the London Borough of Hackney.
What more do you want? Si Trew (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Oh my God, have you ever read Letters Patent before? The title is what comes before the comma. What comes after the comma is the territorial designation. Look here for example. If the title has an "of", the title's "of" comes before the comma and there are TWO "of's" in the Letters Patent, that of the title and that of the territorial designation. If the title does not have an "of", then there is only one "of" in the Letters Patent, that of the territorial designation, as the comma comes after the name.--The Theosophist (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

..thanks. in the Hansard ref you gave it is "Baron Sugar, of Clapton" (I am not sure how important the comma is, but I think it is the sticking point on this one).

@SimonTrew: Indeed, it is. As you see, in the example I posted above it says: "Baron Stevenson of Balmacara, of Little Missenden in the County of Buckinghamshire" which means that his title is "Baron Stevenson of Balmacara" and he is from Little Missenden in the County of Buckinghamshire. On the other hand, "Baron Shipley, of Gosforth in the County of Tyne and Wear" means that the title is "Baron Shipley" and he is from Gosforth in the County of Tyne and Wear. So, in our case, his title is "Baron Sugar" and he is from Clapton in the London Borough of Hackney. Also, look here: "Baron Green of Deddington, of Deddington in the County of Oxfordshire". In this case, Deddington is referred to twice because it is part of both the title and the territorial designation. Thus, the title is "Baron Green of Deddington" and he is from Deddington in the County of Oxfordshire.
Don't insult me, of course I have read legal documents, how do you think I own my own house outright and have half a million quid in a pension fund without ever reading a legal document? The fact of the matter is not what is correct but what is useful. I have done my best research to make it useful. Si Trew (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry for any offence.--The Theosophist (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Still, although it is not my custom, I would bet that it was the first time you read Letters Patent for creations of Peerages.--The Theosophist (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right on that one but I have read many legal documents in English, French and Hungarian: I usually speak at least three languages a day, so please don't insult my intelligence. I take it as an apology, although sorry is the usual word in English, je me trompe in French or bocsanat in Hungarian. I still don't know what to do with this, tending to keep, is the comma important or not? If the comma makes a difference we should delete it, but if it is not, we should keep it. Si Trew (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: I certainly did not want to insult your intelligence and I said I am sorry at the Strasburger section. By the way, what I said about Lord Sugar and the comma also applies to Lord Strasburger (the comma is before Langridge).--The Theosophist (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (edit conflict) All this arguing is irrelevant here and were I not involved I would hat it as such. All that matters is whether "Baron Sugar of Clapton" is not a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: I am sorry, but I would not call it irrelevant, at all. I believe that it was a healthy discussion and it will largely contribute to the eventual consensus.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@The Theosophist: it doesn't matter what his title is, what other people's titles are, why he has a title, whether his surname is relevant, what type of title it is, etc, for the purposes of determining whether this is a good redirect or not. These might be relevant questions elsewhere, but we are concerned here only with whether this specific redirect is useful. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Well, I have to agree. Still, I believe that this dicussion had to take place, whether this was the right place or not. And I believe that had I suggested to take the discussion somewhere else, it would have died out.--The Theosophist (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: Hmm, I would not call it "alternate punctuation" but I do not think that it would look bad.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Alternate punctuation because of the missing comma. But maybe {{R from alternate title}} is better. Also, redirects don't have to be categorized. Ivanvector (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: I believe that redirects that are even mildly controversial do have to be categorised. And you can certainly say that for this redirect.--The Theosophist (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Theosophist (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand that a redirect should be kept if it is a common search term, whether or not it is correct. However, the utmost goal of Wikipedia is that the reader learns something, right? In our case, when someone searches for “Baron Sugar of Clapton” and they are automatically redirected to Alan Sugar, they are left with the impression that the incorrect title they entered is the subject′s actual title. But when the only redirect that exists is “Baron Sugar”, the correct form, even if they were about to write “of Clapton”, they back of and think “Oh, it looks like I was wrong in thinking that his title included «of Clapton» in it.” In other words, the very existence of this redirect makes the person who does the search believe that something wrong is actually true.--The Theosophist (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I presume the proper education comes from the article's lede and infobox. Note that in addition to redirects helping readers as they type, they help editors get blue-links in that we hope will be to the correct target. For want of a comma an editor creates an undesirable red-link, and if it's the "wrong" blue-link, someone can fix it. Choor monster (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, plausible search term, tag with {{R from incorrect name}} if appropriate (no opinion). Siuenti (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. The argument was neccessary, vigorous, and without any personal attacks on either side: without it we would not get this consensus. It is a bit long-winded, I know, but it is one of those that run and run and we have consensus now, I think. In the House of Lords he would be referred to I think as Baron Sugar. Baroness Thatcher was so referred, but Sir Denis Thatcher got his K in his own right and not because of his missus. Wrong and Useful are different things. Si Trew (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Bryan Price (baseball, born 1986)[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. User:The Theosophist already retargeted it (without discussion), so any argument is moot. (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Redundant with Bryan Price (pitcher). Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment No discussion needed: obvious retarget, which I did.--The Theosophist (talk) 15:24, 17 April 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.

Ocsp[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 as the nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Tavix |  Talk  23:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

OCSP already redirects to Online Certificate Status Protocol; there is no need for another lowercase version, when the official acronym is capitalized. This lowercase version is showing up in search results. Deleting this page will still allow readers to be redirected to Online Certificate Status Protocol when they type "ocsp". Thus, I think this page should be deleted. Thanks. Tony Z. Tan · talk 14:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

(Please close this as "keep". I have changed my mind. Thanks, Tony Z. Tan · talk 21:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC))

  • Keep. Lowercase versions of acronyms are plausible search terms. Steel1943 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Steel1943: I understand that, but when you search on Wikipedia, the search bar is usually not case-sensitive. For example, if you typed in the search bar "ocsp stapling", you will be automatically directed to OCSP Stapling, even though there is not a redirect at Ocsp stapling. (This is the case regardless of whether you pressed the "enter" key on your keyboard or clicked on the "search" button.) Thus the redirect at Ocsp doesn't really serve any real purpose, besides showing up in the list of search results in a confusing manner. Thanks, Tony Z. Tan · talk 18:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The internal search is only one of many methods to search and/or browse Wikipedia, most of which are case sensitive (e.g. direct URL entry, searches from the address bar, links) and search suggestions are only available to those using the internal search with javascript enabled. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: That makes sense to me. Thanks for explaining! I have changed my mind and don't think it should be deleted anymore. Tony Z. Tan · talk 21:08, 17 April 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.

Rare species of Penguin[edit]

If anyone were to type this in, they would expect a list of the rare species of penguin. Instead, they would be confronted with a generic article that doesn't even mention the "rarity" of penguins. Delete as confusing. Tavix |  Talk  04:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. What would be a common species of penguin? I've never seen any around here. The yellow-eyed penguin is apparently the rarest species of penguin, with a colony of around 4,000 (see section Conservation) but I don't see much use in retargeting it there, since this does not say "rarest" only "rare" (and of course the plural of "species" is "species" so that doesn't help matters). Si Trew (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I checked and we do not have Rarest species of penguin or Rarest species of Penguin. We don't even have Rare species of penguin (I just realised the nominated redirect has unusual initial cap on "Penguin"). Si Trew (talk) 05:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Looking at the history, this was an article in 2007 and had a section about the Emperor penguin (diff here) but I think this is kinda a remnant and can be safely deleted. Si Trew (talk) 05:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete we don't have any listing of penguin species by rarity that I can find, and our complete listing of living penguin species doesn't mention it so there is nowhere useful for this to point. FWIW, our article on the Galapagos penguin claims that it (and explicitly not the yellow-eyed penguin) is the rarest. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
So it does. I think therefore at best we kinda DAB or hatnote the two, since there is conflicting information there, but a delete would seem the more reasonable choice. I guess in theory it could fire over to List of bird species by population or something like that: Do we have WikiProject:Ornithology which may advise? Si Trew (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
No, but we have WP:WikiProject Birds. I'll drop them a note. Si Trew (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
With a population of 1,800 Thryduulf beats me on this one, probably, but I'll have a stab. The list is good but does not enumerate the Yellow-eyed penguin: of course that is easily fixed but I don't like doing so when things are being discussed. That its title is "lists" not"list" is also out of kilter, but can easily be moved, but if I did so now I imagine it would make matters worse. Si Trew (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:NOTGOOGLE+[edit]

I'm kind of puzzled why this was ever created because it has zero links. Since Google+ was a failure I can't see this ever being used again. I don't think we should create shortcuts of every social network, website, etc., and say that it is something that Wikipedia is not. It's a bad precedent to start. Therefore, Delete as unhelpful/unuseful. Tavix |  Talk  04:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't cry if WP:NOTTWITTER was deleted. The difference between the two is that WP:NOTTWITTER does have a few links so the argument to delete it isn't as strong. However, it's not hard to pipe the links where it has been used... Tavix |  Talk  05:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
None of those links is in article space: so no great harm in deleting it. One of the links, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_66 is interesting since it also mentions WP:NOTFACEBOOK, WP:NOTMYSPACE, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOTCHAT and WP:NOTFORUM. The last three I think are fine as kinda general topics but if we are going to name names, they should either be kept or deleted wholesale. I would go for Delete myself since I don't see they are of any use and are not in article space: just a bit of gnoming. Si Trew (talk) 05:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Commment. Odd that it links to section (well presumably an intended anchor) WEBSPACE as there is no such anchor. Si Trew (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Of course we're not Google+; people are active here. --BDD (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Other social media-related shortcuts (such as WP:NOTFACEBOOK) also redirect to this section. So, I see this as useful and a valid search term. Steel1943 (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually they redirect to different sections or nonexistent sections, as I said. Si Trew (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTGOOGLE+ redirects to an anchor which refers to the same section that WP:NOTFACEBOOK targets. In fact, it seems that they all target anchors in the same section. Steel1943 (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right. I don't know why but yesterday it just took me to the top of the page. That anchor actually includes all the ones I listed above, and the infobox on the right lists them too. I suppose that's a Keep then, changing mine. Si Trew (talk) 07:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Boddy wieght problem[edit]

Delete per WP:RTYPO: One typo too many to be useful. Tavix |  Talk  04:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"Never put down to criminality what you can explain by stupidity". Si Trew (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
True, but, after seeing that the creator of the page was indeed a vandalism-only account, I ruled mistakes out.--The Theosophist (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a plausible misspelling. ― Padenton|   18:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely misspelling. --Lenticel (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was wondering when this opened whether bodyweight should be one word, using the usual word fusion, that compound nouns tend to lose their spaces and are fused, I am not really qualified evem to attempt to make that article. In boxing or wrestling, welterweight and bantamweight and so on are single words. I am not saying we should create words, but whether they are kinda out there in the market: well
Look up bodyweight in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

has it in two senses and we have Bodyweight exercise as an article apparently, and bere at yahoo.com (not RS of course) it is spelled as one word. Si Trew (talk) 07:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

April 16[edit]

Funk-pop[edit]

Delete. Same as my posts about disco below. This re-direct suggests WP:OR, where genres are being interpreted as fitting in a section. There is no information about "funk pop" or "funk-pop" or anything in this said article. It's against WP:OR to interpret this genre as representing this in any fashion. I propose this re-direct be deleted. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete. As discussion in November 2014, this is linking to something that doesn't expand on the music genre. There is no mention of disco-pop or disco pop in the article and it is WP:OR to suggest that this genre should link to this section of the article, or even this article at all. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Ditto for the above. discussion in November 2014, this is linking to something that doesn't expand on the music genre. There is no mention of disco-pop or disco pop in the article and it is WP:OR to suggest that this genre should link to this section of the article, or even this article at all. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment All three of the above nominations by @Andrzejbanas were previously on the discussion page for yesterday. I also merged the discussions as best I could since the rationales for each were almost identical. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ethics in fashion marketing[edit]

This was originally created as a class project, but I don't feel like it should be redirected to a page that doesn't mention fashion at all. Tavix |  Talk  20:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

When was the clarinet invented[edit]

This was created as a joke and thus should be deleted. Wikipedia is not Yahoo! Answers... Tavix |  Talk  19:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Patently created as a joke since at that time it attributed the invention of the clarinet to the Virgin Mary, where any fule kno it was invented by Adolph Sax. Jokes are kinda fine, I like them, but this doesn't help. The best place for jokes is WP:DYK because to make "twisty" (misleading but accurate) hooks for the main page is quite good fun. Si Trew (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per made up policy redir: NOTYAHOOANSWERS.― Padenton|   18:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, questions like this should be taken to the Reference desk. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 20:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Lenticel (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Video vixen[edit]

Delete or retarget WP:REDLINK video vixens are not an exclusive hiphop topic, indeed, Alicia Silverstone and Liv Tyler are not hiphop models, yet are famous video vixens from Aerosmith's videos. The current target is misleading. Video vixens have existed since the rise of MTV. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting thought. I would clash by suggesting that those two examples aren't so much "video vixens" per se, as much as they are just would-be vixens, who happened to wind up in a few music videos, but were otherwise known for other things. I believe the overwhelming majority of video vixens are known for being that and only that, without any other overriding source of prominence, fame or notability. Still, you're right that they could be present as models in other genres. I think the term is just most widely associated with the genres of hip hop/rap. 24.6.187.181 (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Video vixen is most often used to refer to women in hip-hop videos, and especially black women (see e.g. this link and Confessions of a Video Vixen). The term 'video vixen' is also bolded as synonymous in the lede of hip hop model. The new article Hip-Hop Video Vixens was recently merged with hip hop model. gobonobo + c 23:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I would not say that, check out all the video vixens from Robert Palmer videos and 80's rock. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, I can't see a better target. We don't have standmeat (slang for a pretty woman employed to drape over a car or whatever at a conference, who has no other skill) but I can't see fashion model being a good retarget either. Si Trew (talk) 06:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Bobert[edit]

Quite useless. Is not linked to from any articles, has no significant history, and was originally created as a joke article. I would say it's an implausible typo and have speedied it as such, but it doesn't qualify for WP:R3 because it's not recent. œ 03:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Portoryko[edit]

WP:RFOREIGN: Puerto Rico doesn't have any particular connection to the Polish language Tavix |  Talk  02:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Agree with nom, WP:RFOREIGN applies here well enough. No incoming links from articles. Essentially zero traffic. -- œ 03:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. Polish has no particular affiliation with PR -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is Interwiki linked to pl:Portoryko but it is WP:RFOREIGN and WP:NOTDIC, we are not a dictionary, let alone a translation dictionary. I think I suggested at one time we should have WP:PHRASEBOOK as a redirect to one of these, but obviously that didn't get consensus. Si Trew (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

2020s in film[edit]

It is waaaay too early to have film redirects of years in the 2020s. List of years in film ends at 2016 so redirects of this type are unhelpful. Anything this far out is usually speculation anyway. See WP:CRYSTAL. Tavix |  Talk  01:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree, as I redirected 23,26. I want them to be deleted. UBStalk 02:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That would mean that 2023-2026 qualifies for CSD G7... Tavix |  Talk  02:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete only 2023 to 2029, keep the first four in the list. Seeing as we already have a "2019 in film" it's not that unthinkable to look ahead at least a couple years, perhaps if reliable sources say a certain big budget movie is scheduled to be released at a set date. But 2029 is just too far. -- œ 03:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I understand your point, but if a 2020 film is announced we could then just create the article... List of years in film doesn't contain any information about 2020 in film so it is an unhelpful target. Tavix |  Talk  19:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Samantha Cope[edit]

Samantha Cope is a non-notable decoy from To Catch a Predator. She is not mentioned in the main article so this redirect is confusing and unhelpful. Tavix |  Talk  01:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete, the show used many decoys - none of whom are presently notable enough to be included in the article. If they were, they would probably best be mentioned at Perverted-Justice since that was the agency for which they worked; the organization was simply used by the show, which it both predated and outlived. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 23:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE can also be a reason considering the security issues in the field where they work in. --Lenticel (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

April 15[edit]

Unsound mind[edit]

Not synonymous. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. I think I originally created this redirect many years ago. The basis on which I did it was to clear some redlinks in various articles which used "unsound mind" as a legal term. I had been tempted to redirect it to an insanity related legal article, but the only one I could find was Insanity in English law which seemed too narrow. I have no strong views on changing the redirect elsewhere, but it might be worth combing "what links here" to see how the terms is used most frequently on Wikipedia. --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • REtarget to mental disorder -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to mental disorder per 65.94. It's a legal definition referring to someone who is not mentally healthy (mentally ill); mental illness redirects to mental disorder already. Ivanvector (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

*Not sure. The Latin expressiion is Mens sana in corpore sano, sound mind in sound body, and apparently someone once on a bus wrote "mens womens and chidren's sana in corpore sano", but I I would have trouble to RS that. I think Retarget but to Mental health. Si Trew (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Stet, keep. No good can come of changing it, by your own evidence. Si Trew (talk) 16:48, 12 April 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) 14:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (to Si, mostly) - "unsound mind" does not refer specifically to the state of insanity; it could also be dementia or coma or a number of other mentally incapacitating conditions. Mental disorder is a better target for this term. Ivanvector (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

X-rayish[edit]

How can something be "X-rayish"? Mr. Guye (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Most of those results refer to Brave New World. A neologism from there? It's not important enough to be mentioned in the book's article, at least. --BDD (talk) 18:00, 14 April 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, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Some suggested discussion questions: 1) Is this a likely search term? 2) Assuming a reader does search for this term, what is he or she likely seeking? --BDD (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete. No, I think the neologism is from [here], which quotes Huxley, and so it has kinda got linked in by reverse if you see what I mean. It's been years since I read Brave New World but I have a good memory and can't remember it being in there: in any case, I think X rays hadn't sorta been discovered when Huxley wrote that (yes technically they had but were not in widespread use where you would put it in a novel). Si Trew (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - X-rays were indeed well known by the time of Huxley, having been in medical use for about 30 years. As I recall, Huxley used this as a term for a deep and penetrating thought, in much the same way Orwell used bellyfeel, though obviously not in the same context. It's a neologism limited to Brave New World but isn't explained there, so probably this redirect should go. Ivanvector (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I bow to your better knowledge. It is not so much then a neologism as a nonce word. I'm trying to think of if we have some kind of WP:ISH policy for words ending in "-ish"?
  • We haven't "moreish" but we do have "Moorish" → Moors
  • We haven't Slavish or Slaveish (I would assume the former spelling the correct one) i.e. one who acts like a slave, not like Slav.
  • We do have a lot of colours that seem rather useless, these I have found so far:
Similarly of course we should keep Dawlish, Cavendish, English, Scottish, Irish etc. proper nouns, not suggesting otherwise (before someone thinks I am), nor the reductio ad absurdem of "fish" or "dish"".
Have can will worms eh! Presumably these go by the same token, then, if we don't like "-ish"? I bet there are many more but better save before I lose it. Si Trew (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
If consensus is that "X-rayish" is a nonce word from Brave New World, let's add it to the list at List_of_Newspeak_words#Other_Newspeak_words and retarget the redirect there. Neelix (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
But it's not a Newspeak word: Brave New World predates Nineteen Eighty-Four by more than a decade and a half. Si Trew (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not a synonym, it's an entirely different literary universe. Nineteen Eighty-Four and Newspeak have been extensively studied and written about, but the same is not quite true of Brave New World. It's not a word deliberately constructed by a malevolent ruling power to subvert free thought in the proletariat, it's just a word a character sort-of-invents to describe a feeling. Ivanvector (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Maliciously[edit]

They are probably better off at the disambiguation page Malice instead of to the the legal term. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The legal term is the only entry on the disambiguation page to which these terms could refer; all of the others are proper nouns. Neelix (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Malevolence, a disambiguation page with several related entries listed at the top. (By the way, that disambiguation page needs some serious cleanup, but it seems like the best option, especially considering that the title "Malice (law)" contains a disambiguator.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
If any of those entries could be referred to by the terms above, then the entries should be added to the Malice disambiguation page, which would then be an appropriate target for these redirects. Neelix (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think that "Malice" is a particular term in US law in various states and does not, for example, exist in the United Kingdom ("Absence of Malice" being the most obvious from Agatha Christie I think, so this is not WP:WORLDWIDE. I think it is a fairly common term but in the US most states make a distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor which has been lost in UK law, and really it is absense of malice that is the difference. I think best to DAB it, but not sure about the adjectival forms. Si Trew (talk) 09:07, 14 April 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, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

EDGS[edit]

Is this redirect notable enough to be used for The Ellen DeGeneres Show? Personally I was quite confused by the fact that it didn't link to Siegerland Airport. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Siegerland Airport per nom and per WP:SURPRISE. I get no hits at all for the TV show when Googling this. In this case the double-redirect-"fix"ing bots seem to actually be fighting over the redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I was wondering about edges (a DAB) or EDGE (S and E being both left hand ring finger and a mere slip down). I am not so sure about the airport, although correct, not many people outside the industry would know it by its ICAO code but by it three-letter IATA code SGA, that is what they get on their luggage. (Have you noticed by the way most Canadian airports start with Y, I don't know why, or Y, that is). Si Trew (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? Maybe that has some truth for if it was a international airport, but this airport doesn't even have any scheduled services. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 08:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
There's also being the plural of EDG ; Canadian airports that start with IATA-code "Y" refer to international airports (airports with customs services), per the CFS (Canadian Flight Supplement; a pilots guide to Canadian airports) ; ICAO airport codes for Canada start with "C" prepended to the IATA code. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I learned something. Si Trew (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
It is an active airport, despite not having scheduled services, and this is its ICAO code. We therefore have an exact title match, and it seems this is the only one, so redirecting to the airport is more appropriate than trying to guess at a misspelling or acronym for something else. Ivanvector (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Brak obrama[edit]

Delete per WP:RTYPO: Too many typos to be a plausible search term. Tavix |  Talk  16:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope; R3 requires recent creation as well as implausibility. Just Chilling (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

HGFS[edit]

There is zero information on HGFS; not in the old target (VMware), nor the new target (VMware Workstation), nor anywhere. Codename Lisa (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Information 176.92.183.71 (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Not WP:RS and neither are any of the others I found. www.minix3.org is patently WP:PRIMARY and the others I found essentially refer to that page. We need WP:RS, reliable, secondary sources. It seems to be used a lot by Ubuntu but again I am not sure that would count as a reliable, secondary source. You might as well take it to Harry Gee's Fantastic Shop (a small electrical shop run by i think he must be octogenerian by now, in Mill Road, Cambridge: his wife suffered a stroke some years ago unfortunately, and also his H fell off the front of the shop, but everyone knows Harry Gee's, I think the first Acorn Computer parts were supplied from there, according to a friend of mine who worked for them) if we are playing that game. Si Trew (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I think the main challenge is where to put those info. VMware Workstation is certainly not a suitable place; it is the kind of places that link to the actual contents of HGFS. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

List of of Cyprus[edit]

This is an implausible search term, and it's not clear why it should redirect here specifically instead of something else Cyprus-related. Reyk YO! 15:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Extremely weak retarget to Cyprus (disambiguation) as a misspelling of "List of Cyprus". Ivanvector (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete due to the fact that: List of Cyprus is red, there isn't an obvious target, and it is unhelpful as a search term. Tavix |  Talk  16:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete since Of Cyprus doesn't exist, and is thus confusing due to the repeated word. Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Steely and Tavix. "of of" is not entirely implausible as a typo (and is even grammatical in a very kinda contrived way as a schoolboy exercise, and I think you can manage to get nine if you put some in quotes, but that is just playing: of "of" and so on), but there's no obvious target. We do have lots of lists of things in Cyprus, but none would seem to stand out. There's no List of lists of Cyprus (although we have List of lists of lists for example) so that's no good. Ferenc Liszt never went anywhere near Cyprus so that would be really bad. Si Trew (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague and confusing. --Lenticel (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Tacünnisa Hatun[edit]

A user move Tacünnisa Hatun's page to Hatice Halime Hatun about 5 months ago. I can't find the history of Tacünnisa Hatun's page now. I think that these two persons are completely two different historical figures. That user just moved the page and changed the whole material except creating a new article for Hatice Halime Hatun. I think these two pages should become separated now and Tacünnisa Hatun's page should become restored if it's possible. Tacünnisa Hatun's redirecting to Hatice Halime Hatun's page has no meaning and just makes people confused. Keivan.fTalk 14:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - the article started as Tacünnisa Hatice Halime Hatun (I have added the left over page move redirect) about "the fifth wife of Ottoman Sultan Murad II". The current article is about "the wife of Sultan Murad II". Are you saying that these are actually two different individuals? Interestingly, Murad II's article says he had four wives, then lists three, and the reference provided lists six. A comment on the talk page there suggests that perhaps he married sisters, but gives no reference. So, yes, I'm confused. Ivanvector (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: Yes it was really confusing for me at first. Actually I couldn't find this article's history before moving but after seeing it, I checked Turkish Wikipedia and realized that Tacünnisa or Hatice Halime is one individual with the full name Tacünnisa Hatice Halime Hatun. And also most of the time Ottoman sultans had only four wed wives at the same time. The others were concubines. That's why the reference provides six names. I added the name of Murad's fourth wife to his article. It seems that Hatice Halime Hatun and his other wife Hüma Hatun were relatives but I don't know that they were sisters or not. Finally, I don't know what to do with discussion now. Everything is clear, isn't it? Keivan.fTalk 08:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the redirect pages can remain now. Keivan.fTalk 08:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, if these are different English names referring to the same person, then we should keep them. Ivanvector (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Ali Fadavi[edit]

Deletion because the page was redirected Fadavi Doctrine and in the Fadavi Doctrine article did not introduce Ali Fadavi as Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy commander. The redirect was irrelevant and explain about Iranian policy proclaimed by the Ali Fadavi and this person have not notability.Papeli44 (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. Thanks for your contributions, Papeli44. When a person or topic is known for a notable thing or event or philosophy, but not notable enough on their own to meet our criteria for a separate article, it's normal for us to create a redirect to the thing that they are known for. That is the case here: the Fadavi Doctrine is an Iranian military policy created by and named after Ali Fadavi, so this redirect is appropriate. Based on my own search, it may be that Ali Fadavi in fact does meet the article criteria, and if you would like to contribute an article about him, you can start one in your user space, or create one by editing on top of the redirect if you like. Be bold!
For everyone else: I considered whether Fadavi Doctrine was itself article-worthy, and I'm not sure, but I'm also not sure where else it should go. We have a number of possible merge targets, such as Iran–Israel relations, Iran–United States relations, or Iran–Israel proxy conflict. If someone were to start a discussion on that, then this redirect should point to the same place. Ivanvector (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • comment I've nominated the target for deletion, so the survival of this redirect will depend on that. Mangoe (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Wounder swan[edit]

Not a likely typo; "wounder" isn't even a valid word according to my dictionary, much less a valid alternate spelling for "wonder" (even if it were, it would be pronounced with a long O sound and be used to describe one who wounds or has inflicted a wound). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - contribution from a foreign-language-speaking IP apparently, or one with a tenuous grasp of English at any rate. I doubt that attribution depends on this. Ivanvector (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible synonym. The most notable hits that I got are about wounded swan"--Lenticel (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmm,, that would make sense, and I can see Royal Society for the Protection of Birds as an outside chance (to which RSPB redirects). Since there is the kinda folk tale that a swan can break your arm with a swipe of its wing – which I believe is false – I wonder (or wounder) if we have a better target somehow for swans wounding people? Every now and again a swan does wound someone and it hits the news, but that is just because it is quite improbable (that's what makes it newsworthy), but unfortunately poor things they tend to get wounded more by eating the lead shot of people using it as fishing bait, nor being tied up on a line of people who are coarse fishing in a river. The nearest I got to an RS for "wounded swan" (I realise that is not the R we are discussing) is:
  • Radhakrishnan, Reeja (13 June 2014). "Siddhartha and the Wounded Swan". New India Express. 
A Google Books search brings up this: here at google books in one of John Lydgate's poems published by the Percy Society (I presume something to do with Lord Percy) but the word "wounder" is simply an alternative spelling of "wonder" from I guess 17th c. English, so we are back where we started with that one. Wiktionary is no help as it just lists "wounder" as "one who wounds", where patently this means "wonder", amazing, like WonderWoman. I'm tempted to augment the definition there over at Wikt but don't like to do so while discussions are in progress. Si Trew (talk) 14:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. If you touch type, R and D are on the same finger (middle finger of your left hand) and proximate, so perhaps this is simply {{R from typo}}. You shouldn't really slip in that way as your index fingers are on the F and the J, but it is possible. Just throwing it out as a possibility. Si Trew (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Communism (religion)[edit]

Delete as misleading. Communism is not a religion. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


No, that is not my point. If someone is looking for a religion of communism (implied by the disambiguator) then religious communism is the appropriate target. Not an opposite. Ivanvector (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete This redirect treats communism as a religion, whereas religious communism deals with communism as a component of religious observance (and of many different religious traditions, no less). These are fundamentally different concepts. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Are they though? If, for example, Jesus Christ throws money-lenders out of the temple, that would seem quite Communist to me, but that is just my WP:POV (and I am not particularly Christian). I am not qualified to argue that farther, as I am no theologist, but it would seem to me that even if this term is incorrect it is still useful for people to find out about it. Si Trew (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Religions are mostly not intercompatible - if you mix & match elements of religious belief, the end result is heresy to whichever traditions you took inspiration from and is a new religion all on its own. On the other hand, you can mix & match political systems, which can be observed regardless (or at least mostly regardless) of your religious leanings. I don't know if any of that is particularly relevant to this discussion, but Wikipedia's all about sharing cool stuff and points of view, so I figured I'd throw my two cents in. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment How so? Political Allegiance does not seem very much of a difference from religiion to me. I think that's just your WP:POV. Si Trew (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
No, if there is a not-so-normal WP:POV it is yours. Obviously, the established view is that politics and religion are two different things. 78.87.40.250 (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Well then, we are agreed the term is WP:POV and mine is different from yours. I don't see why your POV should be more "normal" than mine (tyranny of the majority?) The question is, how to make it WP:NPOV? I think my suggested retarget does that. Si Trew (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Since Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is both head of the Church of England and head of the Government, I don't think it's as clear as all that. She is both Defender of the Faith and appoints the Government. Her son is constantly getting into hot water for expressing political views which the Establishment do not believe an heir to the throne should do. Yes, in the U. S. Church and State are kept separate (in theory), but in the United Kingdom they are inextricably bound together in the person of the Monarch. Si Trew (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
A correction: Elizabeth II is head of state, not of government. And her responsibilities in both are (sadly, will I say, but not open such a discussion right now) just a little more than pure formality. Especially Defender of the Faith can be even considered a sinecure. But even if it was more than that, how does this one example of yours justify the view that politics and religion are the same? Even in a theocracy, there is the political aspect of the state and the (different) religious aspect. And this is the case with one′s everyday life, too. 78.87.40.250 (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
In case anyone's wondering, I am not the IP (the IP comes from Greece, I live in the United States and have never been to Greece in my entire life). What the IP and I are trying to say is that X (y) is a way of calling X the name of a y. In such cases, y is the disambiguator - that is, the form of X under discussion. For example, we have The Beatles and The Beatles (album), the former not carrying a disambiguator because it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. If it did, however, it would be The Beatles (band) (which exists solely as a redirect). In this particular case, the redirect is basically saying, "The religion of communism," which there patently has never been. Again, communism or forms thereof have been components of religious observance, but that is not the same thing as making communism a religion. That would be like making multi-floor housing a religion because that's how monasteries are commonly built, and therefore warranting a redirect called storey (religion) to storey. All that being said, if we had Communism in religion, that would make more sense, but that is not what the redirect appears to say. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 14:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Yes, but storey (religion) would have something to do with the Tower of Babel or something like that, perhaps the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. This is disambiguating, or trying to, Communism from something else – not very successfully, I think we all agree. The nub of the gist is, are we talking about the role of religion in communism (e.g. the suppression of the Russian Orthodox Church) or the role of communism in religion? I think that is the crux, if you'll pardon the pun. Si Trew (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
My view is that it's neither of those, that it's appealing to a specific variety of communism that is being treated as a religion - which does not seem to exist. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

April 14[edit]

AQOS[edit]

This redirect is very misleading as AQOS does not only refer to this British quiz but also to Architecture Quality of Service, one of the most respectable French consultation companies. I request that this mistake be corrected as soon as possible. AQOS: Des solutions pour contrôler la disponibilité et la performance de votre SI 176.92.183.71 (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep since the other article doesn't exist. However, if the subject without an article is mentioned in a different article, I'm not opposed to either the current target having a hatnote or the redirect converted into a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per exactly what Steel1943 said. Is "Architecture Quality of Service" a translation from a French name? I do not see any hits on Google for this phrase which are not about quality of service that happened to have the word "architecture" right in front. Using a machine translation, I get a hit from "qualité de service de l'architecture" pointing to Ordre des architectes du Québec but this is a longshot for this redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
However, "Application Quality of Service" comes up on Google when searching for "AQOS". Not worth an article, but there is an Applications section in Quality of Service that might be worth a hatnote. Ivanvector (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

AQOS: Architecture Quality of Service 176.92.183.71 (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Yes, aqos.fr is a French website for managing "SI" (as if I needed to be managed by them, my wife does that). Its site says it is marché de la supervision et de la gestion de la qualité de service des Systèmes d’Information (SI) that is roughly, to work for the supervision and improvement of the Quality of Service of Information Technology systems. As far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with the Systeme Internationale of measurements. Si Trew (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a weird one. The French website is about Information Technology but includes lots of nice pictures of Architecture. I don't think they do anything with kinda the built environment but are using it as a metaphor for computer architecture, but not 100% sure, they might provide information systems for architectural companies. The info on their website is so vague it is hard to say 100%, but I think it is the former. Si Trew (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Looking at their Faites marquant ("Notable projects") page, it becomes obvious it is indeed computer architecture that is their speciality. Apparently they have 31 enmployees. So not particularly notable then. Si Trew (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Should I take this as libel towards our company? 176.92.183.71 (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
No, you shouldn't. J'accuse, if you will: now I know your company's IP address, but not your name. I said quite clearly that this is not self-promotion, having investigated it. I am saying that your company is not WP:N by Wikipedia standards. You are perfectly entitled to have a website and nobody is doubting that, but there are millions of small companies that are not WP:N: I have worked for several of them. If any fact is incorrect, you are welcome to correct it, but as an interested party I should advise against that. In what sense is it libellous to comment about a small company? I didn't say it was a one man band. And since Wikipedia is based in the US, you are (I presume) in France and I am in Hungary I don't know what jurisdiction you would do it in anyway. If there is any incorrect information you are welcome to correct it, but as an interested party I should advise against it. Am I correct in assuming that you do computer architecture? It is a question of WP:N, notability, one of the three pillars of Wikipedia. I am not sure if you took "weird one" to mean the company, I am not saying your company is weird, but that the redirect is a bit weird. I'm sorry if you took it that way. Thank you for contributing. Si Trew (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Non, ce n'est pas la compagnie, c'est le redirect, c'est tout. J'accuse. Et maintenant, je connais l'addresse IP de votre compagnie, mais je ne sais pas son nom. Mon plaisir, enregistrer. J'avais récherché est je connais ce n'est pas un self-promo, ce n'est pas vous, mais un editeur a crée cette redirecte: c'est pas la fautte de la compagnie mais la redirecte. Un de les trois pillars de Wikipedia c'est WP:N, notability, est je m'excuse mais une petite compagnie c'est pas notable, c'est pas WP:N. Il y avait milliards des petites compagnies qui n'est pas "notable". Je vais dire "mon erreur" si on vous offendre, mais c'est pas la compagnie, mais le redirecte. Excusez-moi, m'sieur, la francaise affreuse, je parle en anglais et hongrois, quotidienne, et oublier mon francais! Si Trew (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh some good comes of it, I've tied together Léon Bloy who wrote an essay called Je m'accuse in 1900, according to his article, tied him into the DAB at J'accuse (disambiguation) and created the redirect to section at Je m'accuse. Not sure I marked that as R to section, will back check.Si Trew (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
AQOS should be a disambiguation page because not even one of the ten first Google results is about A Question of Sport. [2] 78.87.40.250 (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
comment. I completely fail to see how Google's search results have to do with anything at WP:RFD. We spend time here to improve our search results (at least I hope we do), Google's are their own affair. (And they tend to follow Wikipedia anyway: when I search for things on Google, I constantly get purple links because lo and behold they are articles or redirects or DABs I have looked up on Wikipedia to suggest here.) In short: We lead, they follow. Not the reverse. 20:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment: The link you gave is a search on google.gr, which unsurprisingly gives Μετάφραση αυτής της σελίδας, which is the Greek name for this company (at least according to them). My first result is for AQOS - Page d'accueil, that is, the company. I also note that if I check with google.co.uk – and bearing in mind that Google is in the news in the UK for skewing results – two have been removed under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act. We don't follow Google: they follow us. They're a search engine not an information provider per se. Si Trew (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment: You must have done something wrong. “Μετάφραση αυτής της σελίδας” means “Translate this webpage”. 78.87.40.250 (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hippocite[edit]

How do we know we aren't talking about Hippocrates? WP:SURPRISE. Delete. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I made the hipocite page redirect to Hypocrisy because it sounds more like "Hypocrite" than "Hippocrates". "Hipocrite", in my eyes, is a common miss spelling of Hypocrite. You can remove/redirect the page if you disagree. Anarchyte (talk)
  • Keep as is Yahoo, Google and Bing all include search result for "hypocrite" when "hypocite" is entered into the search bar. This seems to be a common misspelling, and I think the redirect is useful and will do the most good redirecting to its current target. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Withdrawl per arguments above. I have changed my mind. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose withdraw, given that I think that this is a case of "since Wikipedia did it first, search engines must follow suit." Steel1943 (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
This may be a case where a hatnote might be needed on the determined target result of this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, I could understand someone mispelling "hypocrite" as "hypocite" but, keeping WP:RTYPO in mind, "hippocyte" is a bit much to have to account for. It seems to me like a case of the blind leading the deaf, kind of causing itself to enter mainstream usage like what Steel said. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Zeke, the Mad Horrorist. I am now convinced that this redirect might cause more harm than good being a plausible misspelling for multiple topics. That, and as far as I know, disambiguation pages are not created for list of misspellings, but someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RTYPO. One would need to make at least three typos to get from Hippocite to either Hippocrates or hypocrite. Seeing the ambiguity here and the sheer unlikeliness of making three typos, it'd be better off to have this deleted. Tavix |  Talk  16:28, 10 April 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) 18:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible typo.--Lenticel (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Can't we hatnote between Hypocrates and Hypocrite? But I am not sure about the "Hippo'" (horse) bit for that since "Hypo" means essentially "exaggerated" or "much larger" and not "horse" and I don't think is etymologocilly related at all. We have Hippodrome, for example, as a stadium where horses run. I agree it should be deleted if we can't sort out this mess. Si Trew (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment if it meant anything presumably it would mean presumably From the horse's mouth, but that would be a mix of Greek and Latin, essentially a Portmanteau word. Si Trew (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec) Comment. I seem to recall reading a long time ago, and I can't source this as it was in print, that "hypocrisy" is one of the most commonly misspelled words in English (as Hypocricy which follows the general pattern). So perhaps this is a likely typo. The most commonly misspelled word is, ironically, "misspelled"? people miss the double S. But that was presumably a survey of English teachers or something who would have a different bias from whether you looked at corpora of newspapers or something, or the Grauniad. Si Trew (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The Ice Age Movies[edit]

Ice age (disambiguation) lists two films that aren't a part of this particular franchise. Thus, these aren't all of the movies with Ice Age in the title, even if they are the most notable. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:24, 5 April 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) 18:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually as you see we don't have I or IV (IV being the Latin for @Ivanvector:). Ice Age (film) exists as a DAB so maybe we should retarget it there, Si Trew (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Ice Age (film) is itself a redirect to Ice age (disambiguation)#Film. Ivanvector (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't noticed that. I suppose a bot would "correct" it if we took it that way. I'll mark it as {{R to section}} if that is not already done, just as a bit of gnoming and no prejudice to this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It was already marked and I changed mine above since I don't see it in any way prejudices the discussion, struck Ice age (film) and going with Ice Age (disambiguation)#Film. Si Trew (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm Ice age (film) is red (Ice Age (film) being the R), but Ice Age (disambiguation) redirects to Ice age (disambiguation) with lowercase A, and that redirect is already marked as {{R from alternative capitalization}}. Should we create the film one with the alt caps as an {{R from alternative capitalization}}? I don't see the point right now to do that, but it kinda balances things up. Si Trew (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Auroconf[edit]

Confusing and unhelpful redirect that isn't mentioned at the target article. It seems to be a fan group? Tavix |  Talk  03:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep WP:MAD this redirect is the result of a 2007 October merger. As such the edit history needs to be kept around. If the redirect's name is inappropriate, then the edit history should be moved to a talk page subpage, such as talk: Sri Aurobindo/Auroconf and marked as an edit history page. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:MAD doesn't apply. None of the history from that article is present at the target article. Tavix |  Talk  14:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
It exists as part of the edit history of the article in a past version, and that edit history is available and perusable, so the content that was merged there is available. You can just move it to a history subpage (one of the recommedations of wP:MAD ) which would eliminate the mainspace redirect -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing from that article at Sri Aurobindo. There is nothing that needs to be attributed because there isn't anything that needs attributing. It's a non-issue. Tavix |  Talk  18:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
It was merged into the page in 2007 [3] so exists as part of the history of the article. Part of it was still in the article over half a year and many many edits later [4]; The integration into the article at that point means that unless you hide the revisions that contain this information, it is there, so these edit contributions need to be kept around. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You need to attribute all contributions to the current article. If there is a contribution that later gets deleted, it's no longer a contribution to the current article because it doesn't exist in the article's current form. That is why we are allowed to delete things. If we had to keep every contribution ever made to the encyclopedia, we wouldn't ever be allowed to delete anything. We don't have an issue with deleting Auroconf because nothing from that article is contributing to Sri Aurobindo. Nothing. Therefore, it can be deleted because there isn't anything we need to keep for attribution purposes. Tavix |  Talk  14:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Nol; we would be allowed to delete anything that wasn't merged elsewhere. Most things are not merged elsewhere, so they can be easily and safely deleted. If we delete the merge target, then the merge source can also be safely deleted, as the target article has been deleted (and its contribution history also deleted). This is not the case in this instance, since this is a result of a merger. Anyone can rollback to any version that is not revision deleted in the article history. As such all prior revisions that are accessible to the general readership/editorship needs to have their contribution history properly attested to. Deleting this and then someone coming along an pulling the data out of the page history, or rolling back to a revision with it on the page means that attribution will be broken. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Your argument is falling apart. You admit that we are allowed to delete things that wasn't merged elsewhere. That would allow us to delete Auroconf because there isn't anything from that page that is merged to Sri Aurobindo. Tavix |  Talk  14:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • How is it falling apart. I've stated from the beginning that WP:MAD articles that have been merged cannot be deleted because they are required for attribution for their merged articles. If the merged article is deleted, then the attribution is no longer required. This is the same as revision hiding all revisions where the merged information is available. If the edit history is available, then the content of the merger is available, so the attribution is required to be kept around. If you delete the revisions, then it is no longer available. If you delete a merged article, then all revisions requiring attribution are no longer available, so the source of the merger is no longer required because the target was deleted. IF an article has never been merged then it is never impacted by WP:MAD so can be delete without concern as to attribution of other articles. There is no inconsistency. There is only GFDL and Creative Commons, which we should not be violating just for the fun of it. The material is available from the article history of Sri Aurobindo which any reader can access through page history. Which any editor can revive by rollback or copying it out of the past version. Therefore it requires the attribution history to remain available, since the revisions and data remain available. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Indeed your statement seems to imply that WP:SPLICE is not needed to splice entire histories in most cases when cut-and-paste moves happen, because old revisions that do not affect current versions should not be required to be kept as contribution history. This is the same as of saying that merged content contribution history does not need to be kept around. Do you believe that SPLICE is overly generous in merging entire edit histories and not just recent history? -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have no idea why you brought in WP:SPLICE, that really doesn't apply to this. It wasn't a cut-and-paste move and has no relevancy to this discussion. There is no violation of WP:MAD taking place because Auroconf makes no contributions to Sri Aurobindo. It's that simple. Tavix |  Talk  03:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It is exactly like SPLICE, in keeping contribution history with the articles where the contributions are added. If you find a 10 year old cut and paste, but the current version of the article has no content from the version from 10 years ago still around, it appears to me, that from your own statement, you don't need to keep such contribution history around, since it is no longer related to the current content of the article. But a merge is a cut and paste of a separate article into the current article, so is the same as a cut-and-paste move, in relation to contribution history attribution. The content of the merged article was cut and pasted into the destination article. This is the same case as with SPLICE-ing cut-and-paste moves, since that is essentially what happened with the merged information. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems as though the term is exclusively connected to the redirect's target's association's website. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Tavix is right about attribution (either that or else I and other are quite mistaken). But will Auroconf realistically ever be mentioned at the target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, I just reevaluated my stance, and looked up the term "auroconf" again using a search engine, and it actually seems as though it is a forum about yoga in general, and not exclusive to this target. So, without further ado, I change my stance to retarget to Autoconfig as a possible misspelling of "Autoconf delete since it could be a possible misspelling for Autoconfig as a variation of "Autoconf", but Autoconf is its own article and not a redirect to Autoconfig. Steel1943 (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Autoconf, I was thinking of that but didn't mention it, but that would seem like a likely {{R from typo}}, R and T being next door neighbours. Si Trew (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Autoconf per Si Trew as plausible typo ("r" and "t" are side by side in the QWERTY keyboard) --Lenticel (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Not just on the QWERTY but the QWERTZ that I have and the AZERTY, for that matter. I can't think of a (Latin alphabet) keyboard layout where they are not adjacent. Si Trew (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Şehzade Abdullah (son of Suleiman I)[edit]

Actually there were at least two Şehzade Abdullah in Ottoman history. One of them was the son of Suleiman I and the other one was the son of Selim II. I think these two pages should become separated. Şehzade Abdullah (son of Suleiman I) will be about Suleiman I's child and I can create an article for Selim II's son titled Şehzade Abdullah (son of Selim II). Şehzade Abdullah will turn to a disambiguation page. Keivan.fTalk 14:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment. No English reader can even type that first S with the cedilla (if it is a cedilla, but the tail on the back of the S) let alone will ever search on it. In that case it is useless and should be deleted. Sezeade Abdullah does not exist as an {{R from title without diacritics}}. These are harmful and I would say WP:POV, because no English keyboard has the marks to enable one to type that. And this is English Wikipedia. I can type őúüóáűéö as they are on the right of my keyboard, and various Polish symbols with AltGr key, but in English we don't have this symbol and nobody will search for it. Q.E.D. if you look at the stats it has exactly 0 hits. Si Trew (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

commment. i am a complete liar. In fact it has had 318 hits in this month alone. I think what we should do is create the R from title without diacritics. But don't want to do that without consensus. My comments about English keyboards I think are valid. Si Trew (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: About English typing I said my opinion in Hafsa Sultan's section. I'll be happy if you or any other user who reads this take a look at it. Keivan.fTalk 14:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I mistyped Sehzade Abdullah, that is my fault. But we have a general problem with Arabic transliteration (I appreciate this is a Turk but the name is Arabic) because e.g. Mohammed, Muhammed, Mohammad (peace be with him) may be spelled in so many different ways, as can Abdullah or Abdollah and so on. It's just a problem of transliteration. Si Trew (talk) 00:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Yes, there are many types of transliterations, but as this person was Turkish, I think the name should be written in the way they write it, Abdullah. Keivan.fTalk 07:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
@Keivan.f: I totally agree, it should be written in the way that the person himself writes the name, after all, it is his name: I was just making sure it is his name and not that we have transliterated it badly. I don't like it when people spell my name "True" for example, especially when I have one of the easiest surnames in the world to type on a QWERTY (look backwards). Si Trew (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hafsa Sultan[edit]

The situation is completely similar with my previous request below. These women were also sisters and two separate historical figures. They weren't a person who had two names. They also had different mothers. One of these sultanas was the wife of a minister (Şehzade) and the other one died at a very young age (Hafsa). A user moved Hafsa Sultan to Şehzade Sultan and changed the whole material except creating a new article for Şehzade Sultan and caused this problem. I think this redirect should also become deleted. Keivan.fTalk 13:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

What's with the cedilla on the S (if that is the right name for it)? That's not English. So if you are going to move it, do it properly. I'd be inclined just to Revert it back to where it was. Sezhade Sultan, without the cedilla, is red: but if we keep it should be created as an {{R from title without diacritics}}. Si Trew (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: The cedilla on the S is completely normal. It's a Turkish name and it should be written in that way. Even the names of Turkish actors and political figures are written like this in English Wikipedia. However, I'm not here to discuss about Turkish alphabet. Actually I see no reason for keeping Hafsa Sultan, but if you think it should be kept, then it should redirect to one of her parents' pages. Unfortunately there's nothing about her in Selim I and Ayşe Hafsa Sultan's article. So keeping this redirect page has no meaning. Keivan.fTalk 06:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@Keivan.f: thanks for explaining that. As far as I remember, and I am just going off the top of my head, Attaturk changed the Turkish Alphabet from Arabic to the Latin Alphabet in 1922, which must have been a bit of a surprise, but it is useful to remember that: I had never seen this little lodge before. I agree with you it should go Delete per WP:RFD#D5, makes no sense, and perhaps WP:NOTENGLISH but that is more the target than the redirect. I doubt an English-speaing user on an English keyboard could possibly type the target, but the redirect itself doesn't have any diacritics. Si Trew (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: About the target, I don't see that much problem. When I search "Sehzade Sultan", I get the result. Try and you'll see. Actually, I don't agree with changing the formats and ways of writing Turkish names. Many Turkish names have such Latin letters. For example Kıvanç Karakaş, Bülent İplikçioğlu, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan,..... For more examples see Turkish people's category. Almost all of their names have such Latin letters. But when you search these names without those letters, you'll get the result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keivan.f (talkcontribs) 14:03, 15 April 2015‎ (UTC)
Yes, I agree in principle. Our job here at RfD is to help people get to where they want to go. Sometimes that means a delete because the redirect gets in the way of the search engine and people end up in the wrong place. But if not, it tends to be kept as harmless, however few hits it gets. Kivanc Karakas exists but not Recep Tayyyip Erdogan nor Bulent Iplikcioglue. I think that it is pretty standard procedure to create the {{R from title without diacritics}} (I do it if I create a translation from French which has an accent, for example), but don't want to do so before we get consensus here about what we do with these, as that's just making more work for each other. Si Trew (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I did try searching, by the way. I am nothing if not thorough, as most here will tell you, and yes, i got that result. The problem is there are lots of different ways of searching and we don't want an R to "block" the search, that is a difficult call to make because we don't know what the search would do without it but have to guess. Fun, isn't it! Si Trew (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III)[edit]

Recently, I realized that Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) redirects to Fatma Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III). Actually they were sisters and two separate historical figures. They weren't a person who had two names. Even their mothers were two different persons One of these princesses was the wife of a prime minister (Fatma) and the other one died at a very young age (Hatice). A user moved Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) to Fatma Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) and changed the whole material except creating a new article for Fatma Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III). I think this redirect should become deleted. Keivan.fTalk 13:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem with that, thanks for it. I was unaware of that template, but the more specific the better. Si Trew (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
But I think it's harmful. Imagine Prince John of the United Kingdom redirected to Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester. It really makes people confused. When I searched Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) and except that I found an article about Fatma Sultan I got confused. Hatice Sultan should redirect to one of her parents' page not her sister's. I was thinking about creating a new article for Hatice and for doing that, these two pages should become separated. Keivan.fTalk 06:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
If you create the page, presumably as a {{bio-stub}}, it will soon be closed here as a procedural close as an R converted to an article, and I very much encourage you to do so. I haven't the knowledge to do it myself, but have done so in the past on engineering topics, and I think one was closed yesterday in the same way. That's just making the encyclopaedia better. If I can help with any copy editing etc please let me know. Si Trew (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Thanks. If I need your help, I'll tell you. But the problem about Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) is that she was only one year old when she died. Thus no special and important information can be found for her. I think like Hafsa Sultan, we should delete this one too. Keivan.fTalk 13:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Well then surely this goes Delete under WP:N, not notable, I would have thought. Just because you are the daughter of someone does not mean in your own right you are notable. Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is not notable because she is the daughter of King George VI of the United Kingdom: She is notable in her own right. Peaches Geldof similarly is notable not because she is the daughter of Bob Geldof but because she hit the press for various naughties. I think we have a policy on this but struggling to find it: WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay but well-established. Si Trew (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not that simple. You cannot overlook the Paula Yates syndrome. 176.92.183.71 (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. That is exactly what we must do. Paula Yates is notable in her own right, not because she was the sometime wife of Bob Geldof (perhaps I picked the worst example possible). These daughters are not notable in their own right. Any woman except Eve is the daughter of someone, but we don't have articles for every celebrity's daughter (partly because they are entitled to their privacy): if they choose to put themselves in the public eye, that's a different matter, but we don't have an article on Kathryn Blair], for example, the daughter of Tony Blair and Cherie Blair, because she is not in the public eye and not notable in herself. (She is in Cherie Blair's infobox: actually it Rs to the DAB at Katherine Blair, but she hasn't an article: as gnoming I'll check if that is tagged properly.) Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I marked the R at Kathryn Blair as {{R from incorrect name}}. I am not sure it even belongs on that DAB because it just says "daughter of former prime minister Tony Blair" so I am not sure that is very useful. We don't have Paula Yates Syndrome. Si Trew (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Oddly, in Tony Blair's infobox the children are not linked, and are listed only by first name: In Cherie Blair's, they have surnames ("Blair"). I think my point is proved, though, and I don't want to fix that while this discussion is open (and not sure which way I would fix it: children of famous people are entitled to their privacy; but the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages is a matter of public record which anyone can look up, and genealogy websites generally do). Si Trew (talk) 07:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

XHICG-TV[edit]

RfD'd on October 4, 2014. Pageviews have fallen off 90% since then and the article is no longer linked from article space. Misspelling of intended callsign XHIGG-TV (redirects to same location). There is no XHICG-TV in Mexico. Raymie (tc) 02:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Not at all. If you touch type G and C are on the same finger, index finger of the left hand, depending on your keyboard layout. C should be on your ring finger, but if that's busy doing Wikipedia makup etc I can quite see that a slip from G to C is possible. Also when people are on small mobile devices they can't always use the correct fingers (I hate my BlackBerry).
Worth noting: Mexican television stations have assigned calls often based on their location. XHHES, XHHMS, XHHSS, XHHMA and XHHO are all television stations in the same city. A difference of one letter is a bigger difference than you might think. Raymie (tc) 03:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. It does no harm. It doesn't get as many as the one below but still averages a hit every two days or so. The only reason to delete – and I am arguing against myself – is if you think people are typoing it for some other station/callsign and get a WP:SURPRISE. If so, what would that station be? Si Trew (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - misleading, apples-to-oranges. There is no station at callsign XHICG-TV and the callsign has no relation to the target - it's not a former name, it's not a station with the same ownership, it's not commonly known by this name, etc., and generally I think that redirects from unusual misspellings of this sort of identifier should not be kept as they're not dictionary words and they serve no real purpose. G to C is indeed an extraordinary typo, considering that the very next keystroke is another G, so the typo is I-C-G instead of I-G-G, which is extremely unlikely no matter your keyboard layout. Ivanvector (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm being persuaded by Ivanvector, but not very much, I am not sure about that because one does not kinda think ahead in that way (I am on a QWERTZ layout by the way). The fingers kinda follow the thought, as if I ever thought before I typed something! So I rule myself out of this one and struck my !vote above, but I think it is quite marginal. Si Trew (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

XHSS-TV[edit]

RfD'd on August 15, 2014 and retargeted given that it was getting some daily stats. Since then pageviews have fallen off by half and nothing links here. The intended callsign was XHHSS-TV which redirects to the same location. There is no XHSS-TV in Mexico. Raymie (tc) 02:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. By your own statement, you are hoist with your own petard: this gets hits: in fact it gets about one a day, the max being four a day from grok.se on 26 March, but consistently gets a couple of hits a day on average. Deleting it would be harmful. Correct and useful are different things: were everyone to type things perfectly redirects would not need to exist. Si Trew (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - no station is identified by this callsign; redirecting it to a specific television network is nonsense. Ivanvector (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I can see your reasoning (presumably WP:RFD#D2 confusing) but the fact is it gets hits, and above noise level, so presumably there is an external website that links to it somehow. I don't know how we'd be able to redirect it sensibly, but I see no harm in it being where it stands, marking as {{R from incorrect name}} in them meantime, per User:Raymie, but without prejudice to this dicussion of course. Si Trew (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Awolf58/The Catalyst[edit]

Redirect from userspace to mainspace. Not appropriate or useful. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Retarget per Ivanvector. I did search but didn't find that. WP:CNR but a valid one in this case. Si Trew (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Head strong (Linkin Park song)[edit]

It doesn't appear that Linkin Park ever did a song by this name. In particular, it seems that an early demo version by the band Trapt is mistaken for a Linkin Park recording since it apparently seems that Chester Bennington sings it, when in fact he does not. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete to avoid confusion. --Lenticel (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I found the same information as the nominator: the version that many think is a Linkin Park cover of Headstrong (Trapt song) is actually Trapt's original demo of the song. So, it's time to delete this WP:HOAX-y redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Si Trew (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Awolf58/Rob Bourdon[edit]

Redirect from userspace to mainspace. Not appropriate or useful. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D5, makes no sense, and the consensus here is to disfavour WP:CNRs in general, I think, although we make exceptions in, er, exceptional cases. This isn't one of them. Si Trew (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as a page created in userspace and later moved to main space, then redirected to an appropriate section of the current target. Unless Awolf58 wants to delete it under WP:G7, this is a valid case for a cross-namespace redirect. NOTE: this is a redirect to section, Twinkle didn't pick it up. Ivanvector (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ivanvector. I think my argument is valid but wrong. WP:CNRs should generally be discouraged, but if an editor has the gumption to create an article, that should be encouraged. I tend to do that in Draft namespace these days, but I think that is kinda new (I think actually the Wikimedia software allows you to create a namespace off the top of your hat, but it was not well recognised) so we cannot expect all editors to know that, and creating it in user space and moving it is perfectly normal procedure. Si Trew (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The Sword (2005 demo)[edit]

They don't appear to have had a demo of that name released that year. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Steven Brazile[edit]

I can't find evidence that anyone with this name is important regarding Richard Simmons. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. As far as I can tell, Stephen (or Steven) Brazile is a notorious criminal from St Louis that briefly hit the headlines for committing a crime so cack-handedly that he was immediately caught. If he is notable for that he should have his own article, but none of my searches indicated any connexion with Richard Simmons. I am not sure if WP:BLP comes into play here? Si Trew (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Leroy, artist[edit]

There are many artists named Leroy. This refers to only one of them. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep but maybe hatnote. We don't have Leroy (artist) to DAB it to. WP:NOTFINISHED. We do have the artist LeRoy Neiman as an article, but I think that is all we have. It could possibly go to the DAB at Leroi which includes both spellings (the Y and the I) on its brief list of entries. Si Trew (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to DAB it but not sure quite how yet. Si Trew (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. which bot? User:Smackbot i think got smacked for this kind of thing, causes more trouble than what it is worth. Si Trew (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Xqbot, in this case. These things usually happen as a result of WP:BOLD moves (seems to be the case here) or vandalism, not actually the bot malfunctioning. I wonder if maybe the bot should be programmed to notify someone and/or populate a maintenance category rather than fixing the redirects itself? Ivanvector (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I support the maintenance category idea. RFC maybe? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 16:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Striking my Keep, but still not sure the retarget is the best solution... but Weak retarget as above, unless I can think of anything better. I'm still inclined to DAB it but not sure quite what that would look like yet. Si Trew (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

To Devour a Predator[edit]

Not another name for the show; not a reasonably-similar name by which people might search for it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed Barry Hines. A liar should have a good memory. Si Trew (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The Mysteries of the Banjo-Kazooie Series[edit]

The way it's capitalized made me think it might have been a mini-documentary or something, but I searched it verbatim on Google and came back empty-handed. Other than that, not a likely search term and not mentioned in the target article. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Weak Delete. In I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue, one popular game is Swannee Whistle and Kazoo, where too entirely unmusical contestants attempt a popular song on, er, a swannee whistle and a kazoo, for humourous effect at how bad it is. I doubt that is a good target but just throw it out in case someone else can think of something closer. We have Duelling Banjos, and could retaret it there, as there are many versions and I suppose in a sense that is a series: but I think that is stretching it. I'll try to think of a better target. Si Trew (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Banzai any better? That's a DAB, but in particular Banzai (TV series)? Si Trew (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Shanghai Dawn (2010 film)[edit]

Nonexistent movie. It's not known when or even if Shanghai Dawn will come out. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually I didn't check Shanghai Dawn (2003 film), but that is red also. Si Trew (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Thefierydutch1212/Nike quickstrike[edit]

Cross namespace redirect that doesn't qualify as WP:R2. Redirects from userspace to articles are inappropriate regardless of target. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • i think it does, it is more WP:RFD#D5. makes no sense, and WP:CNR as you say. I have managed somehow to make my font incredibly small so I have to fix that. Si Trew (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - it's a redirect left from a userspace draft which was moved to mainspace and then merged into a better article. If Thefierydutch1212 has some use for it that's fine, if not then they should request WP:G7 deletion. Redirects from main space to user space are inappropriate regardless of target, but going the other way is generally fine. Ivanvector (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I could understand this point of view if a page move didn't take the contribution history with it. However, a page move does take the edit history of the former page and moves it to the page history under the new name, so retaining important edit history isn't an issue here. What it leaves is a redirect that is not at all likely to be used and serves no real purpose. (This applies to all the redirects I've listed on this page that follow this pattern, but I didn't want to put the same response in too many different places; I would just merge them all but discussion has occurred under each of them and I'm not sure what to do about that.) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Well I agree these discussions shouldn't be merged. What I'm saying is that it's normal for a page to be drafted in user space, and when it gets moved to main space a redirect is left behind. The resulting redirect is harmless (casual readers will never see them) and is in user space (users can do what they want with their user space, mostly). There is a remote possibility that the user has some use for it, and absent a better reason to delete my preference is to just leave users' spaces alone. I am interested in what people who have been around RfD longer than I have think about these cases though. Ivanvector (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I have tended to draft DABs etc for RfD in Draft namespace, but that is kinda new (at least to me, which probably means a couple of years) and I don't think every editor would know about it. Even so, if it is accepted here i move it but it leaves the trace with a redirect, which I tend to take to WP:CSD as WP:G7 author requests deletion, with a brief explanation referring back to the discussion here and why I made it in draft (as if I was noted for brevity!). But it seems entirely reasonable to me to create drafts in user space because that is what we were always told (though I forget which exact guideline that would be). Si Trew (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

April 13[edit]

EyePhone[edit]

My search for "EyePhone" brought up a few Futurama references, which is great, but probably more important is references to new technologies combining phones with something eye related. Examples include [5], [6], [7], [8], etc. My point is that people searching for "EyePhone" probably aren't wanting the plot of a Futurama episode. Tavix |  Talk  19:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - the concept of a mobile device which interfaces directly with the eye does not seem like it's going to become notable enough in the short term for WP:REDLINK to apply, and there's little reason to believe that it would (or that Apple Inc. would allow it to) be called "EyePhone", thus at the moment, the current target is neither misleading nor harmful. Ivanvector (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Barracks Obomba[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL: non-neutral redirects that are not established terms are unlikely to be useful. This compares Barack Obama to barracks and a bomb. There are only ~200 Ghits and nothing worth noting. Tavix |  Talk  19:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per above. Not useful. Ivanvector (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible misspelling. --Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Note - have speedy deleted this as an entirely implausible typo, per WP:R3. While "recently created" has no defined period, I appreciate it is a bit of a stretch in this case. However, a) the redirect has no meaningful history despite its age, and b) I'd argue the deletion remains firmly in the spirit of R3 in removing nonsense redirects via an expedited process, especially where they are designed to be offensive (as this one mildly is). In passing the redirect may also qualify for speedy deletion under WP:G5, its creator having been promptly blocked as a sockpuppet of a previously blocked user. As always, if anyone trenchantly disagrees with this deletion please ping me and I'll immediately restore it so further debate can ensue. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:43, 14 April 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.

TBA (Janet Jackson album)[edit]

Delete as it implies that Janet Jackson has an album called "TBA." See also: WP:HAMMER. Tavix |  Talk  19:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - assuming that Jackson can always be expected eventually to be putting out another album, the proper target of this redirect will constantly need to be updated, or to put it another way the target is indeterminate, so it should be deleted. Ivanvector (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ivanvector and the principle behind WP:CRYSTAL. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Assuming that Janet Jackson released an album called "TBA", why would it move? That would be the name of the album. So the logic above essentially is predicting the name of the album, but it is still WP:CRYSTAL until that album, and its title, is announced. Si Trew (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, I just added all the rest of the redirects that have the same problem. Tavix |  Talk  01:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:HAMMER, WP:CRYSTAL. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ARC[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the correct venue for this, but I'd like to propose changing this redirect to a redirect to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case. (this was discussed slightly on the mail:clerks-l list.) --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong keep - the article rescue contest has been the target of this redirect for ten years. Usual naming convention for subpage shortcuts is to append to the shortcut of the parent page. The Arbitration shortcut is WP:ARB, how about WP:ARB/C? There's also already WP:A/R/C and WP:ARBCOMCASE. Ivanvector (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support retargetting. There are no incoming links that use (rather than mention) the redirect internally other than a 2005 AfD (the person leavining the user page link expected the shortcut to lead to Help:Archiving at talk page). While traffic stats are surprisingly high for a shortcut to a historical contest I suspect that this is in part people expecting it to go to the proposed target in line with WP:ARCA and WP:AE. A hatnote on the present target will cater for any who are looking for the old contest. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support retargetting -- given the Article Rescue Contest has been entirely inactive for some considerable time. The concept of Article Rescue is more important than a convenience redirect to an Arbcom page, but the reality of this current redirect is that it leads nowhere useful. Better it be a pointer to an active internal page than one of solely historical interest. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support retargetting. If the page/project is dead, there is no point keeping it there, and this would seem a useful shortcut. As if I ever want to see an admin. Quisque custodiet custodes and all that. Si Trew (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support retarget per above but add a hatnote to the old target just in case.Lenticel (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom/per above/per WP:SNOW. I used WP:POPUPS to review the page, probably hastily; it was last edited less than a month ago so I assumed the contest was still active, but actually the contest only seems to have run for one cycle way back in 2005, and there have been no other significant edits to the page. It's even marked historical. There is no good reason to oppose nom's retarget suggestion. Ivanvector (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Waadi Animations[edit]

This redirect is senseless. Waadi Animations is an animation film making company, and the user redirected it to a film distributor? Delete this page so I may create it properly. UBStalk 12:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment The redirect does not have to be deleted for you to create an article. You can just overwrite it.--The Theosophist (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah, you can just go ahead and edit over top of the redirect, it doesn't need to be deleted first. Ivanvector (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Overwriting a redirect dont give you credit here. Does it? UBStalk 04:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Is it that important? Plenty of people have adopted articles/redirects, overhauled them beyond recognition, and not gotten recognized as the creators of these articles through what amounts to a mere technicality. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment if the nom wishes credit then they might be interested in creating the article and then submitting it to WP:DYK --Lenticel (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

WWE 2K (Mobile Game)[edit]

This is an unnecessary disambiguation which serves no useful purpose. In addition, the recent AfD on an article which used to be here was closed as Delete, not Redirect (despite Redirect being a considered alternative). RichardOSmith (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I created the redirect due to this entry on WP:TOPRED:
Rank Article Views  %-Mobi  %-Zero
167 WWE 2K (Mobile Game) 1,658 43.24% 0.00%
This statistics suggested that humans (as opposed to some automated process) were looking for an article regarding WWE 2K (Mobile Game). As for the AfD results, that the original article (created some time ago, as I recall - I was uninvolved but did look at the results) being Delete, that doesn't preclude creating a redirect now. Cheers, JoeSperrazza (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - having this redirect suggests that a mobile game for this title exists when it does not, and the target article contains no information about it. Also, not that it's a reason for deletion, the redirect is misspelled: G in Game should not be capitalized. Ivanvector (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
A WWE 2K mobile game has just been released [ https://wwe.2k.com/index.php/news/single/wwe-2k-now-available-for-download-on-ios-and-android-devices] so there should be enough info about it to place on the series page making the redirect useful enough to be kept.--67.68.209.200 (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Baron Strasburger of Langridge[edit]

"of Langridge" is part of the territorial designation, not the title. Practice is to have a redirect for the title itself, without the territorial designation. The Theosophist (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I thought the purpose of redirects was to help find an article more easily, even given mis-spellings or variants of a name. I must have come across the of Langridge in the text of a news article and thus added the redirect. However I have no strong feelings on this.   Oosoom Talk  13:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
      • comment, I can see how "langridge" is a common mispronuncation and thus misspelling of "language", which after all is from french "langue", tongue, but I think with the Baron at the front this is pushing it a bit far. closer to Chinese pronunciation I should say, but the "Barob" is the nigger in the woodpile, probably get banned for a common english express9ion again now by the Politically Correct Police Of Wikipedia. WP:NOTCENSORED and I am not racist. Words are only racist when they are thrown to hurt, I don't. 13:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)ű
  • Comment, Considering the proximity of Longbridge and Clapton, are these synonymous? Still rubbish. Si Trew (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment. Why did I write "Barob"? Was that just my fault or was it listed that way? It would seem preposterous that I would have made that error, I can imagine making that typing mistake, but not then replying to it. "Baron etc" seems entirely reasonable, but we have a DAB at Langridge and a redirect at Langridge, Somerset]] (not sure a DAB should go through a redirect). I don't remember how it works but in the Honours System (for which oddly we seem to lack redirects) sometimes one is named for a place and sometimes for a family, it depends on how posh you are. Si Trew (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not see how we "lack redirects" for the Honours System. Also, your last sentence is - no offence, please - slightly ignorant and I fail to take it seriously.--The Theosophist (talk) 09:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
And how would you call someone ignorant without them taking offence at it? Ambrose Bierce defines in the Devil's Dictionary ignorance that is which reveals to the wise, and disguises rom the foolish, their lack of understanding. Now I can recall that off the top of my head. How ignorant am I? Just because I have a different opinion from you does not make me ignorant. I regard that as a personal attack, frankly, and WP.NPA comes in here. We had a long and hard discussion below, both intelligently, and then you say I am ignorant? You can't turn round and then say no offence: it was offensive. Si Trew (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: If you check the hours, you will see that I had made this comment before our discussion below had started and I am very sorry for it. However, I still believe that your assertion that one's title is decided on the basis of "how posh one is" is slightly unorthodox and rather indefensible.--The Theosophist (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Baron Sugar of Clapton[edit]

"of Clapton" is part of the territorial designation, not the title. Practice is to have a redirect for the title itself, without the territorial designation. The Theosophist (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. My mother grew up in Clapton but you might as well make it Lord Mayor of London. This is WP:RFD#D5 misleading. There is no Baron of Clapton. It could possibly go to Alan Sugar, who is a Lord, but not of Clapton. Si Trew (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec) Retarget. He is in fact Baron Sugar of Clapton, as it says at the article in section 3. So that would seem the obvious retarget. Si Trew (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, it already does. So a redirect goes to exactly where it should. And your point was.... ? Strong keep'. 13:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - entirely logical search term that goes to the article people are looking for when using it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Without prejudice, I created an anchor at the target for Baron Sugar of Clapton#Baronetcy, in section 6. Si Trew (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Which Baronetcy are you referring to?--The Theosophist (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that his title is "Baron Sugar". "of Clapton" is part of the territorial designation, not the title. --The Theosophist (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see your point. His title is "Baron Sugar of Clapton" to distinguish him from (made up) "Baron Sugar of Mortlake". It is, is it not, part of his title? Even if not it is a useful search term, so it does no harm to keep it. The fact that I think he is an arsehole is irrelevant, that is his ennobled title. I appreciate we don't list people by their titles here, but this is a redirect and a useful one, the article does not say "Sir Alan Sugar" and never has, even before he was ennobled or knighted. Do you want to delete Sir Alan Sugar as well? Si Trew (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: No, you did not understand. His title is not "Baron Sugar of Clapton". His title is "Baron Sugar". As much as Quentin Davies' title is Baron Davies of Stamford and not "Baron Davies", Alan Sugar's title is "Baron Sugar". Note that the first person of the surname "Davies" who was created a Baron, David Davies, took the title "Baron Davies", without an "of". When the second person called Davies was created a Baron he took an "of" for distinguishment, and so did the third and the fourth and all others afterwards. By the very same logic, the first person whose surname was Sugar, took the title "Baron Sugar", without an "of". If another Sugar becomes a Baron, then there will be an "of".--The Theosophist (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: See also the Sainsbury's. The first Sainsbury who became a peer, Alan Sainsbury, took the simple title "Baron Sainsbury", without an "of", while the two others, John and David Sainsbury took "of's". Also, the Wolfson's: Leonard Wolfson, was just "Baron Wolfson", no "of" because he was the first of his surname to become a Baron. David and Simon Wolfson, on the other hand, took titles with "of's".--The Theosophist (talk) 09:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The "of" actually is an important part of the title. If you are "Lord Finchley" you can pass it on to your son, if you are "Lord of Finchley" you cannot. It's the difference between an honorary title and a hereditary title. Si Trew (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: (I just noticed this one) It seems to me that you have an unclear view of the subject. What you mean by "honorary title" is what we actually call a life peerage, to begin with. The "of" plays absolutely no role concerning whether a title is a life peerage or an hereditary peerage. For example both Baron Widdrington (no "of") and Baron Willoughby of Parham (with "of") are hereditary peerages and both Baron Warner (no "of") and Baron Wilson of Rievaulx (with "of") are life peerages. The "of" is a bit irrelevant.--The Theosophist (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Patently it is an Honorary title and he does not own all of Clapton. He essentially chose his ownn title and being a "common bloke" called himself that. Nevertheless he is the Baron of Clapton and therefore Clapton is his Baronetcy. It is not even a borough let alone a baronetcy, but useful and correct are different things. Our raison d'etre here is to make things useful, not correct. Si Trew (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: First of all, it is not a "Baronetcy" it is a Barony, because we talk of a Baron, not a Baronet. Secondly, I do not know what is the purpose of all these feudal references. I do not see how it is relevant to our discussion either whether Alan Sugar owns Clapton or whether Clapton is a borough. And still you have not addressed my main argument. I am going to say it again: "of Clapton" is NOT part of the title.--The Theosophist (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not do titles anyway, so in a sense it is irrelevant. Sir John Major for example is a redirect to John Major. I don't call myself Simon Trew PhD and not just because I don't have one. But it is reasonable, I think, for redirects to direct in that matter. So the question is whether it's the correct title. If it is, it stays, if not, it goes. Si Trew (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Any way to get Burke's Peerage online to check? 09:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Yes, but it requires subscription. Would the site of the House of Lords be as fine as Burke's?--The Theosophist (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • (ec) whacking this in before I read yours. I just thought of something. In the East of England, Anglia, there is a lot of good sugar grown by Tate & Lyle and the other one. Tbey are known as sugar barons, because they own so much land to plant sugar beet. Should we hatnote it? 09:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I do not have the slightest thought concerning how is this helpful in our discussion. "Sugar" is just his surname and even if it had to do with actual sugar, that was generations ago and there is no real connection.--The Theosophist (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah well it was just a thought, Sugar baron is a fairly common phrase. It might be on Wikt, I check. Si Trew (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Bizarelly, we actually have Category:Sugar barons but no article on it. Si Trew (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Again, would the site of the House of Lords be (as a source) as fine as Burke's Peerage?--The Theosophist (talk) 10:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: So, what is a better source, the House of Lords (no "of"), Leigh Rayment (no "of"), the Letters Patent themselves (no "of") or the Telegraph (with "of"). Answer that, please.--The Theosophist (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
here at parliament.uk Si Trew (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: I consider this one the best source, too. Do you see any "of Clapton" there?--The Theosophist (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: Leigh Rayment, Letters Patent (from Hansard), Darryl Lundy, Debrett's --The Theosophist (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

His official title is The Lord Sugar. We have to check how he was ennobled I guess, cos this could simply be wrong. A lord beats a baron any time, especially at poker. Baron is the lowest rank really so we better check that. It could be simply wrong. Si Trew (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: No, Baron and Lord are a bit synonymous. We never say "the Baron Smith" when he is a Baron. We say "the Lord Smith".--The Theűosophist (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)ű
He is actually Baron Sugar of Clapton in the London Borough of Hackney.
What more do you want? Si Trew (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Oh my God, have you ever read Letters Patent before? The title is what comes before the comma. What comes after the comma is the territorial designation. Look here for example. If the title has an "of", the title's "of" comes before the comma and there are TWO "of's" in the Letters Patent, that of the title and that of the territorial designation. If the title does not have an "of", then there is only one "of" in the Letters Patent, that of the territorial designation, as the comma comes after the name.--The Theosophist (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

..thanks. in the Hansard ref you gave it is "Baron Sugar, of Clapton" (I am not sure how important the comma is, but I think it is the sticking point on this one).

@SimonTrew: Indeed, it is. As you see, in the example I posted above it says: "Baron Stevenson of Balmacara, of Little Missenden in the County of Buckinghamshire" which means that his title is "Baron Stevenson of Balmacara" and he is from Little Missenden in the County of Buckinghamshire. On the other hand, "Baron Shipley, of Gosforth in the County of Tyne and Wear" means that the title is "Baron Shipley" and he is from Gosforth in the County of Tyne and Wear. So, in our case, his title is "Baron Sugar" and he is from Clapton in the London Borough of Hackney. Also, look here: "Baron Green of Deddington, of Deddington in the County of Oxfordshire". In this case, Deddington is referred to twice because it is part of both the title and the territorial designation. Thus, the title is "Baron Green of Deddington" and he is from Deddington in the County of Oxfordshire.
Don't insult me, of course I have read legal documents, how do you think I own my own house outright and have half a million quid in a pension fund without ever reading a legal document? The fact of the matter is not what is correct but what is useful. I have done my best research to make it useful. Si Trew (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I am sorry for any offence.--The Theosophist (talk) 11:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Still, although it is not my custom, I would bet that it was the first time you read Letters Patent for creations of Peerages.--The Theosophist (talk) 11:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right on that one but I have read many legal documents in English, French and Hungarian: I usually speak at least three languages a day, so please don't insult my intelligence. I take it as an apology, although sorry is the usual word in English, je me trompe in French or bocsanat in Hungarian. I still don't know what to do with this, tending to keep, is the comma important or not? If the comma makes a difference we should delete it, but if it is not, we should keep it. Si Trew (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: I certainly did not want to insult your intelligence and I said I am sorry at the Strasburger section. By the way, what I said about Lord Sugar and the comma also applies to Lord Strasburger (the comma is before Langridge).--The Theosophist (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (edit conflict) All this arguing is irrelevant here and were I not involved I would hat it as such. All that matters is whether "Baron Sugar of Clapton" is not a useful search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: I am sorry, but I would not call it irrelevant, at all. I believe that it was a healthy discussion and it will largely contribute to the eventual consensus.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@The Theosophist: it doesn't matter what his title is, what other people's titles are, why he has a title, whether his surname is relevant, what type of title it is, etc, for the purposes of determining whether this is a good redirect or not. These might be relevant questions elsewhere, but we are concerned here only with whether this specific redirect is useful. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Well, I have to agree. Still, I believe that this dicussion had to take place, whether this was the right place or not. And I believe that had I suggested to take the discussion somewhere else, it would have died out.--The Theosophist (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: Hmm, I would not call it "alternate punctuation" but I do not think that it would look bad.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Alternate punctuation because of the missing comma. But maybe {{R from alternate title}} is better. Also, redirects don't have to be categorized. Ivanvector (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: I believe that redirects that are even mildly controversial do have to be categorised. And you can certainly say that for this redirect.--The Theosophist (talk) 15:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Jacqueline Collen (Phil Collen's spouse)[edit]

Procedural nomination of a WP:PRODded redirect by Vhann. The rationale was: "The actress and the spouse are the same person. Jacqueline Collen should be enough. Plus, nothing links here anymore." Tavix |  Talk  05:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Jacqueline Collen (Phil Collen's spouse), that has been around since 2007. Delete Jacqueline Collen (actress) per Tavix, procedural delete, that was created on 3 April 2015. Maybe that's the wrong way to do it and we should move one redirect over the other since patently that long disambiguation is WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense, but there is WP:RFD#D2 recently created redirect (though @Thryduulf: has a tighter margin than I do on what "recently created" means). Si Trew (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I also note that Jacqueline CollenPhil Collen, so these seem a bit excessive. We don't have anyone else called Jackie Collin or Jaqueline Collin without the c, so the disambiguation is over the top. Si Trew (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all. They are all harmless, and while I'm surprised the long redirect exists someone has obviously found it useful enough to create and "(actress)" is clearly a very plausible search term for someone who is an actress even if it isn't necessary (but we keep and tag redirects from unnecessary disambiguation as a rule). Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll go with that and struck my delete above. Keep all. Seems unlikely but does no harm. Si Trew (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead crystal battery[edit]

I'm taking this redirect here to get another look at it. Lead crystal batteries exist, however I'm not seeing anything about them in the targeted article. Unless there's a better solution, it might be best to make it a WP:REDLINK. Tavix |  Talk  04:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete it seems that there's a line of batteries called "Lead Crystal®". I think this might be a advertising issue. --Lenticel (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I'll check that. I think "Lead Crystal" is also used in the UK to mean a cheap form of costume jewellery and also as a general term to mean glass crystal though I doubt there is actually any lead in them these days. We do have Lead crystal. Si Trew (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm well aware of lead crystals. This is about lead crystal BATTERIES, which is something completely different. Tavix |  Talk  05:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, and Lead-acid battery would seem somewhat misleading. All lead-acid batteries crystalize their contents, at least the kind impurities in them tend to crystalise, as we all know from seing the crap on a leaky Duracell. But just because that is correct does not make it useful. Si Trew (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Delete per Lenticel and Tavix, WP:PROMO. It's at leadcrystalbatteries dot com (deliberately not linking). I checked the history and it was created on 28 November 2014 by @Biscuittin:, nothing else until Tavix listed it here. I am going to look into what other creations this user has made... 05:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment from a Wikipedian point of view would someone be looking for a crystal in the chemical sense or in the jewellery sense? I presume they are using it in kinda the cosmetic, jewellery sense as crystal being something valuable, rather than the chemical sense of a particular organisation of atoms. Crystal actually has a hatnote to lead glass. The plot thins. Si Trew (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Again, this has nothing to do with lead crystals... Tavix |  Talk  05:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I know that. seems like a blatant promo, but I am searching around in case there is some technical term that we could usefuly retarget it to. I doubt my search shall succeed, but that gives us kinda more evidence for the delete. Si Trew (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, looking at their website, I am leaning towards a retarget to lead-acid battery. But not so sure about that. Si Trew (talk) 06:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. The creator, @Biscuittin:, judging by their contribution history does a lot of work on engineering and power articles, so I don't think this is any doubt it is a good-faith contribution and not by the organisation itself. So I think we can rule this out as self-promotion, but is therefore WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense. Si Trew (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Lead–acid battery noting the whatever kind of em or en dash this is so as to avoid double redirecting. Lead Crystal is a brand name for a proprietary battery technology (which is closely guarded as a company secret of course) which is simply a lead-acid battery where the liquid electrolyte crystallizes at some point in its life cycle. It doesn't seem to be notable on its own. Ivanvector (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete is what I should have said, per WP:PROMO, per our usual treatment of redirects from non-notable brand names. Ivanvector (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment: It was in the 28 Nov 2014 version of Rechargeable battery but somebody removed it. I put it in for information, not promotion. Does the fact that "Lead crystal" is a trademark automatically condemn it? We have a page entitled Sellotape and that is a registered trademark. Biscuittin (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
No, not automatically. We have articles on many trademarks like Sellotape which have become genericized, i.e. the name has entered general English usage to refer to any similar product (e.g. Kleenex for facial tissue), or those which are very well known or notable for other reasons (e.g. Duracell), or if they represent a fairly unique (and notable) product/technology then we might keep an appropriate redirect. You are probably in a better spot to comment on this than I am, but it seems to me that Lead Crystal is not significantly different from a generic lead-acid battery. By significant, I mean that while there are some enhancements and design differences, the battery itself is essentially lead electrodes with a sulfuric acid electrolyte, and thus not all that different from a typical lead-acid battery. If it were significantly different, then I think there would be technical reviews or analysis in reliable third-party sources, and then we could write an article about it. Ivanvector (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the electrolyte may be silicic acid rather than sulfuric acid. The web page [9] refers vaguely to "a variety of inorganic salts and organic substances" but I think the formulation is a commercial secret. Biscuittin (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems that some form of silica is used as a gelling agent in a gel battery. Whether the lead crystal battery is significantly different, I do not know. Biscuittin (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Not much more technical information but I have found a couple more websites [10][11]. Biscuittin (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Youth Lacrosse[edit]

Since the article does not specifically discuss youth lacrosse, and it appears we don't have one that does, it's best not to mislead our readers into thinking we have something we don't. A red link is better in this case. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete to encourage article creation. --Lenticel (talk) 05:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per Lenticel, to encourage its creation, but I see no harm in it as it stands if someone searched for this term, it gets them where it is best put. Were it to be deleted, where would they get? If the search engine, then certainly delete. But the search engine has changed and it is hard to guess what it would do. I notice the idea for its creation was discussed here at Talk:Lacrosse#youth_lacrosse some months ago, not particularly civilly. A case of WP:BRD, I think. Si Trew (talk) 06:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per the above. I'm puzzling about whether this could target to either College lacrosse or Intercrosse but neither mentions a youth aspect to this sport in any kind of detail. The discussion Si mentions is actually six years old, but seems to have been a genuine suggestion. I'm just not sure what exactly the IPs wanted us to write about. Ivanvector (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: I never said how many months, I just said "some". If it's seventy, so be it, but you can't get me on tha facts with that one. :) Si Trew (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
True, but my measurement is more precise. I could have said "some centuries ago" and been as accurate. Ivanvector (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete This redirect "fixes" a redlink in a single article which could just have well been dealt with by linking the two words separately (or not at all: none of the other youth sport entries in the article have any linking on "youth"). WP:R#DELETE reason 10 obviously applies here. Mangoe (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but deletion is not a mirror of creation. Once it stands, more harm can be done by deleting it (with incoming external links etc) than by letting it stand. In this case though I think we are better off without it. Si Trew (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

April 12[edit]

功率重量比[edit]

Delete. These are not Chinese topics. Gorobay (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete since the Wiki isn't a translation dictionary. --Lenticel (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lenticel, WP:NOTDICT, and moreso, not a translation dictionary. I think this is Japanese not Chinese but I try to find out, as the Unicode symbols are much the same for kanji and not distinguished in that way. Si Trew (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    This is Chinese, the simplified version to be specific. Suffice it to say all three characters of "发动机" (engine) would not be written like this in Japanese ("発動機"). Still it wouldn't affect the decision here much as there is no specific affinity with either language. Delete 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. These topics have no particular affinity for any language -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

శ్రీ లంక మాతా[edit]

Delete. Sri Lanka’s languages do not include Telugu. Gorobay (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep it seems that a population of Sri Lankan Gypsy people do speak Sri Lankan Gypsy Telugu. However, I don't know if said variant is close to the main Telugu language. --Lenticel (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, it's not so much the language as the alphabet, they may not use that alphabet, so it may not make sense. I try to find out but Wikipedia kinda blocks these things cos all roads lead to Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
We have it at te.wikipedia.org after it jumps through a redirect. Perhaps we should do a cross-namespace redirect? Si Trew (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Gangsta Bitch Barbie[edit]

This was a band which changed its name to Nullset. It was moved in 2009, then Nullset went through AfD with a result to merge to the mathematics term, which of course doesn't mention the band under either name (see discussion here). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense. I note that empty set is also an article, and perhaps the two should be combined, but that's not our business. Si Trew (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete "nullset" the band was already deleted -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete following consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nullset that the band is not notable. Ivanvector (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sometimes, when a bot corrects a double redirect, the WP:ASTONISH-ment factor is hilarious. Yes, I laughed a bit when I saw this. Steel1943 (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Where did it go before the bot "fixed" it? You've piqued my interest. Si Trew (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Per the nominator's link to the related AfD discussion, a deleted article about a band that was determined to be non-notable. Steel1943 (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
We do not have other caps variants Gangsta Bitch barbie, Gangsta bitch Barbie. I imagine Tavix checked too. Sure, the caps variant should be deleted too. I also checked Gangster Bitch Barbie, Gangster bitch Barbie, Gangster Bitch barbie all of which are red. Si Trew (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Johnni[edit]

Looking at the sources, I don't see any indication that Johnni Black goes by "Johnni". So this redirect seems implausible to me. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 00:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - I would think that anyone's first name is likely to be used when searching for that person, especially if the spelling is unique, as in this case. Neelix (talk) 02:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The first name is an unusal spelling of the name, and so it is unlikely that someone would be looking for something else. Therefore keep as helpful. Si Trew (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep for now per above. I've found other "Johnni's" during my search but they don't have their own articles yet. --Lenticel (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as a valid {{R from given name}}. I've tagged it as such. Tavix |  Talk  05:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Johnny as a {{R from alternate spelling}} -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
There aren't any entries on the Johnny disambiguation page that refer to people named Johnni. Neelix (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:SEALION[edit]

This is an offensive neologism used to disparage one side in a "culture war." It has no place on a policy page. 169.57.0.216 (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: The issue is not the term's notability but that it's derogatory, as explained in EurekaLott's link. If this were a standard redirect, no problem, we have for example a disambiguation page for "faggot." But we would never consider redirecting WP:FAGGOT to a policy page, regardless of suitability. Interestingly enough Jimbo himself has some thoughts on the term. 169.57.0.216 (talk) 05:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as WP:POVPUSH. Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Offensive? Offensive to whom? It seems like an accurate place to point the shortcut. I don't see what we'd gain by deleting it. - Eureka Lott 20:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Can someone provide a story or history behind this redirect? "Sea lion" isn't mentioned in the targeted page and I can't seem to figure out the connection between the two. Tavix |  Talk  00:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The term comes from a Wondermark comic. Know Your Meme has a good overview. - Eureka Lott 02:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete It might be a bit confusing to our non-meme savvy readers. I'm inclined to change my vote to keep if the keep proponents can show in the article that this is a valid synonym to "civil" POV-pushing. That comic is kind of cute although I have no evidence to support that claim ;) .--Lenticel (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep. EurekaLott's source made the whole "sealioning" thing clear to me, and I definitely think there should be a place for this redirect because it's something that happens on Wikipedia. However, I think there should be a section in Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing (or a new essay?) that fully explains the term so people like me know what you memers are talking about. So I'm leaning to keep it if/when that happens, otherwise I'm neutral. Tavix |  Talk  04:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's that crazy of a suggestion. I actually think that solution makes the most sense. Now we just need someone to make it... Tavix |  Talk  16:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Excuse me for being 43 yesterday but I have no idea what this "meme" is supposed to mean. Could someone give me a clue? Do you all know it and I am not in the club? If so, it is useless. If not, not. Si Trew (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Lenticel makes a valid point, a little tangentially. WP namespace is shared between Wikipedia itself and WikiProjects, somewhat unfortunately. We could take it to WP:MAMMALS which redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals. 08:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
OK I checked EurekaLott's links (thank you for those) and it was invented in Septmber 2014. That is a neologism and does not belong in an encyclopaedia until it becomes established term. I think we should at least wait until it is in a printed dictionary. (WP:RS). sealion at Wiktionary does not have it in this sense, in fact that is a DAB to saying "less common spelling for sea lion" although I would spell it as one word, so I am less common, apparently (woo hoo!). I am not sure we have an article on word fusing, over time words tend to jump together and lose their spaces. I wouldn't be able to RS that now but it is a well known linguistic trend. Nevertheless, (or "Never the less") this is misleading. Si Trew (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I'll try to draft a new essay for your consideration. Need to go on the big computer so I have room to move. Report back in an hour or so but will be at Draft:Sealion (obviously we then decide where to move it). Si Trew (talk) 08:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is cute and useful- as a redirect, it's not going to confuse anybody as the regular title will still be in place (unless I guess they're trying to get our policies on the aquatic mammal?) I'm sorry to hear that some people find it offensive. Humour is like that, I guess. Fully in support with expanding civil POV pushing with more info, though. I will note that the notice seems to have broken the redirect. Would somebody be able to fix that? PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh I totally agree with you about WP:NOTCENSORED and so on, I just disagree whether this is actually useful. If you think people will search for it I should certainly change my !vote to a keep, but I am not sure it is useful. 09:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Delete. Not even going to bother with the draft, that I have done many times before. This is a neologism that appears in a cartoon. It has not, as far as I can find out, been used before or since. New words come into use every day and I used to contribute, on paper slips, to the Longman Dictionary of New Words especisally to get the first use registered. But it has been, now, and we have the history and it is time for it to be deleted, no good comes of it, it is a nonce word and WP:NOTDICT. Si Trew (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)−
Forgive me if I'm mistaken- I believe you may have accidentally voted twice. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right I did. But I still go with Delete. Thanks sincerely for pointing that out. Si Trew (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. To declare an interest, you are talking to the man who made, with another editor, {{etymology}}. That does not give me any more right than you to have an opinion, but I do know what I am talking about sometimes (not very often). Just declaring the interest. Si Trew (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I wasn't familiar with this term either until I read through the links above, but it has a definite meaning as indicated by internet usage, and that meaning is accurately reflected by the current target. Being a neologism (it most certainly is) does not preclude its usage as an essay shortcut here, and as I seem to keep having to say to people, pages existing in project space do not imply endorsement of any concept by Wikipedia. I do wonder if Wikipedia:Wikihounding might be a better target, but I don't think so. I'm confused as to who this is alleged to be insulting to, but I think that WP:SPADE may apply. It's also not clear to me what Jimbo's opinion of this is, from the linked thread. Also support Lenticel's idea to add a new WikiFauna entry. Ivanvector (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment with regards to creating a wikifauna page To anyone considering making a wikifauna page for the sealion, and redirecting WP:SEALION to it, please please PLEASE don't do that. Anything related to gamergate breeds drama like mad, and while sealion is meant as an insult gamergate supporters have taken it as a mascot too. The inevitable and highly depressing result of such a page existing, would be edit warring and POV pushing on what is meant to be a humorous page, followed by a nasty MFD.Bosstopher (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete This page is nothing more than an "Epic may-may" that somebody wanted to put on Wikipedia. Pepsiwithcoke (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Bosstopher really provided the key information there. The "mascot of gamergate supporters" in question, as far as I can tell, was chosen ironically, in response to detractors using the term. It is a term very specific to those detractors and to like-minded individuals; that is, it is particular to a very specific POV. I say it is neither "humour" as User:PeterTheFourth posits, nor inherently "offensive" as the proposer argues; rather, it is in-group identification - a shibboleth, in other words. IMO this is harmful for two reasons:
it draws undue attention towards a not-very-noteworthy essay (POV-pushing is bad regardless of civility; incivility is a separate problem; and the observation that "pov-pushing isn't always incivil" doesn't really add anything to a rational Wikipedian's ability to detect either);
it encourages the formation of editor blocs by highlighting that like-mindedness (an issue I would also have with any other shibboleth).
Incidentally, I have seen the argument made that, per the moral principles of the same people lauding it, the Wondermark cartoon in question ought to have pretty much the opposite meaning to that which has been ascribed. That is (I don't do the argument justice here, but you get the gist), it rather clearly depicts a wealthy and thus "privileged" couple exhibiting prejudice towards a presumably "oppressed" sea lion, whose attempts at self-justification are dismissed as a need to dominate the conversation. Malki apparently disagrees. (So much for "death of the author", I guess.) 70.24.4.51 (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The meaning of the comic more closely matches WP:HOUNDING. Rhoark (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


  • Delete This whole thing breeds too much drama. There are better labels for this. 72.92.42.4 (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is plainly WP:NOTFINISHED, we do not chuck in an article or redirect simply for a neologism, we need WP:RS of which there are none, since the only reference to the article is the article itself. Falls on WP:PRIMARY as well. I have listed here about five of Wikipedia's core policies and yet it still doesn't go WP:SPEEDY. Do you want me to take it to WP:CSD? They would probably just bash it back so no point. I appreciate cartoons, I draw them, but I am not notable. This is patently a nonce word that will never be used again and was invented for a joke in a cartoon, and not a very funny one, he is no Gary Larson or Bill Watterson. Si Trew (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete In my view, one editor, or a small group of editors, does not get to claim ownership of a loaded term in the WP namespace and redirect it to a mere essay. If it was a guideline or policy there'd be room for argument, but this subtly lends a spurious sense of authority to the essay and in the long term could create (by inertia) a resistance to replacing the redirect with something more balanced. We'd soon have editors saying "stop WP:SEALIONing" and some editors would assume it to be a policy or guideline without checking. Not good.--greenrd (talk) 09:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. WP:RfD tends to be an exclusive club for the simple reason that not very many people hang out here... which is no fault of the regulars heree but just how it happens. But the telling thing I think is that Bustopher Jones is a cat named in T. S. Eliot's Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats, 1922 I think, and so this is obviously an in.joke. I can check that as I have it in original from Faber & Faber, for whom Eliot was an editor for many years, so it is from the horse's mouth, so to speak. The difference with the WP:RFD club is that anyone is welcome to enter without charge. Si Trew (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Despite being asked to whom it is offensive, OP has failed to reply. I think getting touchy over something as small as this is a bit absurd. — Richard BB 16:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • OP here. Well, it's likely offensive to the group it's intended to disparage. What an odd question. 169.57.0.213 (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Which group is it intended to disparage? People who engage in this behaviour, the people harassed by it, or some other group? Ivanvector (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Why, are there groups whose disparagement wikipedia encourages? That seems contrary to WP:NPOV. A link was provided above and referenced in my opening comment. I could repeat it here but I'd rather encourage you to read this discussion fully if you're casting a vote. 169.57.0.217 (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I've read the links provided as I noted above in my actual !vote, but what I'm saying to you here is that I don't understand who you're implying is offended by this term. Other comments here suggest I'm not alone in missing the offense. If you think that the links you provided are clear, maybe you could try to paraphrase? Ivanvector (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Does me asking again for you to provide insight to further this discussion make me a sealion? If so, should I be offended if someone were to point that out? For the record, were someone to point that out (and having not already been pointed out by me) then I would not be offended, because it is a simple and accurate description of my behaviour. I mean, I might be offended by the implication that my behaviour is disruptive, but not by the simple fact that someone accurately described what I am doing. Or, on the contrary, should you be offended because I am sealioning, if that's what I'm doing? Ivanvector (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Offensive"? It may be negative, but to say that it's offensive seems to be backed up by nothing. Who, precisely, is being offended by this? It's not some kind of slur, after all. — Richard BB 19:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. It doesn't seem to pertain to Civil POV pushing at all. The comic itself is extremely ambiguous too, both parties are in the wrong. In fact, this only seems to apply to situations in a public place. The idea isn't applicable to WP where consensus building is necessary. I can think of no reasons to keep this. TyTyMang (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a vivid metaphor, like climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man or dropping the stick and backing slowly away from the horse carcass. And while the term sea lion was initially associated with GamerGate, on Wikipedia it really refers to relentless wikilawyering and combativeness that is independent of any specific cause or political background. Sea lions are commonly encountered on Wikipedia but they usually don't have long careers as they normally get blocked because of their pushiness and self-righteousness. Liz Read! Talk! 20:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete This isn't wikipedia lore. It's a relatively unknown meme from an insignificant twitter fight. Importing it and the associated drama here is not in our interests. No thanks. José Antonio Zapato (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep No policy-based reason has been proposed for deletion. The influx of SPAs shows this nomination is part of some off-wiki campaign, but redirects should not be deleted unless reasons related to improving the encyclopedia are produced. The SEALION term is not inherently offensive. Johnuniq (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment For reasons unknown, the editor who created the redirect was not notified of this discussion (I, strangely, was)- this has now been remedied. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

April 11[edit]

Kopecz[edit]

This appears to be a fairly minor Star Wars expanded universe character who mainly appeared in a few comic books. Not mentioned at either of the above targets. The character was covered at List of minor Star Wars Sith characters, but that was deleted years ago. The only remaining mention is in the Darth Bane article, but it's a mere passing mention. Delete. - Eureka Lott 23:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I was actually going to make this same nomination yesterday when I created the Kopec disambiguation page but ended up forgetting about it. It's weird how that works sometime. Tavix |  Talk  23:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget' to the DAB you just created – that would seem the obvious thing to do.Si Trew (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No, that's not the obvious thing to do. There is nothing at Kopec by the name of Kopecz except for this redirect. If you retarget it to the disambiguation, you would create an uphelpful loop right back to the disambiguation page if someone were to click on Kopecz. I'm also going to assume good faith by saying that you didn't see Lord Kopecz as part of the nomination? Tavix |  Talk 
  • Delete "Lord Kopecz" as a minor character from a deleted list article -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment "Kopecz" would have made a good redirect to a surname article for Kopeć, which no longer exists, as it is an alternate spelling of the surname -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Bartho Smit[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 as the article has now been created. (non-admin closure) Tavix |  Talk  00:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a South African writer. Currently it redirects to a stub article about a group of writers of which he was a part. Isn't it better to put make it a red link? Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - he's probably not independently notable but a likely search term, hence the redirect is valid. GiantSnowman 21:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D10: "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." Tavix |  Talk  21:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: - but it couldn't be expanded into an article, he doesn't appear to be independently notable... GiantSnowman 09:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll look at it a little bit more. I feel like there's at least enough information and sources to qualify for a stub that meets WP:GNG. I think I'm going to (try) to make one when I have more time over the next couple of days. If not, I'll change my !vote. Tavix |  Talk  00:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • If he is notable, please make a stub - if not then the redirect is valid. GiantSnowman 17:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not much, but it's made. I'll probably go back and add more when I'm not so busy. Since it's no longer a redirect, any further issues should be brought up at AfD. Tavix |  Talk  00:58, 17 April 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.

Vaginal looseness[edit]

Not sure it's necessary. Jerodlycett (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Since you indicated these as a group, I've converted this into a multi-nomination for you. --BDD (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I !vote for someone to, hopefully, add something about tightness and looseness to vagina, and then for these to redirect there. Siuenti (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Jerodlycett, BDD and Siuenti, these were redirects created by a WP:Banned editor; see here. I spot non-new editors easily (as noted on my user page), and it was no different spotting that editor. The Vagina article addresses vaginal tightness and looseness in its appropriate sections: Vaginal opening and hymen, Sexual activity and Infections and disorders. More, of course, can be added to those sections on the matter if needed. During the WP:Banned editor matter, I mentioned at WP:Med that the Vaginal tightening article is a mess and needs significant fixing up. But it is the main article for vaginal tightness/looseness. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I came across this while doing new page patrolling for banned editors actually. I am just not sure if these are necessary, they're definitely not typos, so don't qualify for that. I brought them here for others to comment on, but I say delete. Jerodlycett (talk) 03:06, 4 April 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) 20:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm going with Delete probably by WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense. Your vagina cannot be tight and loose at the same time, that is a contradiction in terms. Si Trew (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
While I am here I will tell a long story. Man walks into a pub with an ostrich and a cat. Every time he goes to the bar he pays for an orange juice for the ostrich and half a pint for the cat. At the end of the evening the cat has never bought a drink. The barman asks him "why do you come here with this ostritch and this cat"? Well, I was granted three wishes. The first was to own my own home. Granted. The second, to have a fast car. Granted. The third, to have a great bird with long legs and a tight pussy. Si Trew (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The reason I proposed this is I'm not sure it's necessary. Can we show these being used? I still say I don't think there's a use for them so delete. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Oneindia Tamil[edit]

I'm not sure that this is correct. Jerodlycett (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep. Seems to be correct ([12] and may be a frequent search term. --Rayukk (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • There's definitely a version of Oneindia in Tamil. I don't know if it's called "Oneindia Tamil", but if we had a page on the Tamil version, this would definitely be an acceptable search term for it. My concern here is that anyone searching for this term is probably looking for specific information on the Tamil-language Oneindia. And all we really say about that at Oneindia is that it exists. Someone searching for "Oneindia Tamil" probably knows about Oneindia and would otherwise think to search for it, so I'm concerned that this redirect could be misleading. --BDD (talk) 13:10, 11 April 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) 20:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. At RfD, it does not have to be correct, it has to be useful or at least not harmful. This seems useful. Milldy, cos it is a TV Channel stub at the target, but I see no harm in it. Si Trew (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Guitar Hero PS3[edit]

Was not the only PS3 Guitar Hero game. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 21:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Guitar_Hero#List_of_games. --Rayukk (talk) 22:57, 3 April 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) 20:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Rayukk. This provides a good place to start for anyone wanting to find any "Guitar Hero PS3" games. Tavix |  Talk  16:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Option-Shift-K[edit]

Generic computing command. I don't see how this is relevant to Apple Inc. specifically. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

  • On an Apple keyboard, Option-Shift-K generates the Apple logo. Since the Option key is unique to Apple keyboards, there's no ambiguity here. Refine target to Apple Inc.#Logo. - Eureka Lott 00:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Hm, I don't know. The command isn't mentioned there. That would make this amount to an Easter egg. Though I sort of think the same of the Unicode redirects, and they're almost always kept. --BDD (talk) 13:40, 11 April 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) 20:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Broken Cydes[edit]

Not likely typos for target name. S doesn't appear to be a likely mistake that would be made after typing in the final E. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:58, 4 April 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) 21:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural delete: "The default result of any RfD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete." It's been a week. Let this die. Tavix |  Talk  22:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely redirects. I think the most plausible of the bunch is "Broke ncydes" but I can sleep at night if it gets deleted.--Lenticel (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

April 10[edit]

1-800-OOPS-JEW[edit]

This is a trivial joke from the Colbert Report. If it isn't notable enough to be mentioned in the article, it shouldn't be notable enough to have a redirect. Tavix |  Talk  15:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • It actually looks like the phone number is 1-888-OOPS-JEW and not 1-800-OOPS JEW... Tavix |  Talk  14:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Kopec[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 as the dab is now created. (non-admin closure) Tavix |  Talk  19:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguate convert the hatnote at Kopeć into a dab page at Kopec ; "Kopec" and variants is a common name in Slavic 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Dabify with [Kopeć]], Danny Kopec and Ben Kopec. Note that there may be more articles with "Kopec" in it but at least we can start the dab. --Lenticel (talk) 09:55, 10 April 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.

Holotable[edit]

Retarget to holography. A holotable is a type of holographic projector / holographic display / holographic screen so should redirect to holography, and not Star Wars. 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Victory Cruiser[edit]

Disambiguate "cruiser" is a type of motorcycle, as well as several type of ships. We have a Star Wars topic Victory Star Destroyer, several motorcycles from Victory Motorcycles, cruiseliner Carnival Victory, Star Trek light cruiser USS Victory (NCC-9754) 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

N49 (astronomy)[edit]

This title about a specific remnant should redirect to an article about a generic concept. There doesn't appear to be a list page on these, so unless a better target is found, I suggest deletion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep. That makes no sense. Even though it would be better redirected to a list of these (and best have an actual article), it is still better to redirect it to the page on the generic concept than to have no redirect at all. At least it still informs readers about what it is. --JorisvS (talk) 07:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Stubify. See the redirect in a few minutes. Ivanvector (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Delicious Pie[edit]

This was created as a joke. Is pie really that delicious?? Tavix |  Talk  02:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, yes, indeed it is. But delete. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • mouthwatering delete as vague.--Lenticel (talk) 09:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Mmmm. Delete. *drool* Ivanvector (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • As I drool upon my keyboard, I slur through the torrential downpour of saliva delete, since it's a non-neutral redirect (not everyone likes pie in general). Now excuse me while I go buy a new keyboard and stay away from scrumptious redirects like this one. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEUTRAL ... and the fact that I don't like pie. Steel1943 (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Raging kegger[edit]

WP:NOTURBANDICTIONARY Tavix |  Talk  02:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

होलोकस्ट[edit]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN: no affinity to Nepal Bhasa. Tavix |  Talk  02:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary, language has no relationship to the topic -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Elvetia[edit]

WP:RFOREIGN: The Romanian language isn't significant in Switzerland. Tavix |  Talk  02:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Jagung[edit]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Tavix |  Talk  01:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not atranslation dictionary -- Maize is a Americas topic unrelated to Malaya/Indonesia -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete maize has no particular affinity with Southeast Asia. --Lenticel (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Futurama, another show on FOX[edit]

implausible search term, non-neutral, etc. Tavix |  Talk  00:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Futurama hasn't been on FOX in over a decade. Ivanvector (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

April 9[edit]

The recent unpleasantness with the North[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) 13:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent? The civil war ended (exactly) 150 years ago! Joking aside, I've seen variations of this as minor historical names of the Civil War, but I'm not too sure about this one. Tavix |  Talk  21:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - I think this might be another joke from Futurama, but not suitable for a redirect. Google brings up that this phrase has been used in a book about the American Civil War, but certainly not in notably wide use. Probably unlikely as a search. Ivanvector (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete; while amusing, definitely not a plausible redirect Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I was thinking North Korea, and various incidents... or North Vietnam -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Send to WP:DAFT while you're at it. --NYKevin 23:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. I think "recent" is pushing it.--Lenticel (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Uh, folks? "The recent unpleasantness" is a genuine term for the US Civil War. I don't know if the nominated term is worth keeping, but it's not outlandish. - Eureka Lott 21:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I shared EurekaLott's concerns when I read this nomination, so I looked up the term via search engines. Turns out that the phrase "the recent unpleasantness" refers to either a war or an upcoming war in general, and is not a term exclusive to the American Civil War. In fact, when looking up the redirect on search engines, the results vary from the civil war, World War I, and a conflict in India. Steel1943 (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above, since "recent" is a relative term. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:36, 14 April 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 ([[14]], 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to 2012 Major League Baseball season as per EurekaLott's rationale. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per EurekaLott/Snuggums. Ivanvector (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. A reader searching for this term is clearly looking for some level of detail, and likely knows how to find the general article on the 2012 MLB season. Since that article says nothing but that a couple of games were played in Japan. Again, almost certainly already known to someone searching for this term. Whether or not this could ever be its own article, I'm presently convinced that the redirect is most likely to confuse and mislead readers. --BDD (talk) 19:58, 9 April 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)
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, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply - Templates {{1r}} and {{Lr}} [{{Lr}} does the same thing as {{lr}}] do not look similar to each other (nor do {{1R}} and {{LR}}). Regrettably in this case, Wikipedia does not acknowledge the case of the first letter of an article or template name. If these three redirects are only confusing to one person, then that is not such a good reason to delete these redirects. ASSUMING that we need to eliminate confusion in this case (which I do NOT think is necessary), we would only need to delete one of the lower case redirects ("lr" and "1r"), not both. AFAIK, there is no 1-2 character redirect for these targets. Additionally, WP:1R redirects to Wikipedia:Articles with a single source. Lastly, if a bot is changing {{lr}} to {{Cleanup-bare URLs}}, this does even more to eliminate confusion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP #5 (someone finds them useful). I had to look through this thread to figure out what the templates mean, but that doesn't mean that they aren't stunningly obvious to other users, and I'm not convinced that they're sufficiently harmful for that reason to warrant deletion. Ivanvector (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, confusing, since there are many meanings for LR. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete all, as mentioned, not an obvious shortcut due to multiple meanings for LR, with the most obvious listed in LR. Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply - There are a lot of template redirects with ambiguous names on Wikipedia, and there have been no higher uses mentioned for these redirects. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This Heart[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) 13:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

[ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Not officially confirmed (yet) as the title for Hilary Duff's fifth album. The source used in Hilary Duff discography (which I removed) actually states it is the name of a song from her album about her son Luca. No prejudice against future recreation if Duff later confirms this to be the album's title, but these redirects should be deleted for now as a misinterpretation of a source. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • If anything, it would be better to retarget to other articles containing "This Heart" within the title. Not worth retargeting in this case. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:50, 11 April 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.

Wiitarded[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) 13:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Borderline attack redirect, but its been around a while, and I guess it's possible that this is a legitimate term somehow, so using RFD instead of CSD to see if there is any reason to save this. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as an implausible and potentially offensive redirect Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. According to WP:RNEUTRAL, non-neutral redirects are allowed if they are "established terms." This is not the case, so we can safely delete this one. Tavix |  Talk  18:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as unlikely synonym --Lenticel (talk) 06:27, 11 April 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.

Адвентизм[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) 13:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN: Adventism doesn't have any particular affinity for any language or culture besides English. Tavix |  Talk  14:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. These are originally English language topics originated in the U.S.A. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 00:45, 12 April 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.

Mechanical hardware[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. Well, there's something I don't see every day. --BDD (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a test; please disregard. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Huh? this redirect should be deleted as it makes no sense. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    As opposed to electronic hardware. I think this redirect is harmless, but if there's a desire to delete it, I won't object. Pageview traffic is almost nonexistent. I was just testing {{Rfd2/sandbox}}. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • How is this not harmful? Mechanical hardware exists in places that are not houses -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:HOAX, per the moving admin's edit summaries here and here. Pinging Anthony Appleyard just in case. It does seem like an apples-to-oranges redirect in any case. Ivanvector (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, if you look at my edit summary here, "This is just a test of the new sandbox template.", it was not my intention to pass off a hoax on anyone. I was intending to revert my request, and was surprised to see it honored a mere three minutes after I submitted it, which was one minute before I removed it from that page. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so a good-faith test, then, rather than a hoax. But I still think as a redirect it's misleading; there could be a lot of other definitions for "mechanical hardware". I thought that you meant that this Rfd was a test. Ivanvector (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
This RfD is a test, per the request here. Typically, if the term "mechanical hardware" is ambiguous, and we have other articles about it, then we convert it to a disambiguation page. But, again, given the negligible pageview count, it's OK with me to delete it. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Well ok, I'm confused about the requested move being a test and the RfD also being a test, but it doesn't really matter. We're discussing the redirect as though nothing here was a test, yeah? ;) Ivanvector (talk) 03:01, 10 April 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.

April 8[edit]

BS Monopoly[edit]

This doesn't appear to be a variant that actually exists. I can't find it on Google and not even the section it links to exists in the article anymore. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 20:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - the best I can come up with is a player team name in Defense of the Ancients, or an article about Blue Shield having a monopoly. Appears to have nothing to do with the board game in any case. Ivanvector (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Switching to neutral per the comments below. Ivanvector (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is the translated title of BSモノポリー (BS Monoporī?), a Satellaview-exclusive adaptation of the classic Parker Brothers board game. It definitely did exist at one time. In fact it was broadcast December 1995 through February 1996. And it has nothing to do with DotA. It's a little-known title but there are records of it in Satellaview broadcast schedules published in contemporary Famitsu magazines (Japan's best-known video game magazine and definitely considered an RS here). -Thibbs (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

B L A C K I 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 retarget to Blackie (rapper). --BDD (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No need for a redirect like this. According to the page history it once referred to a rapper, but any recording artist or celebrity in general can be referred to by a moniker like this, even if it is a popular means of referring to them... and it would just be easier to remove all the spaces and enter it in that way, which I'm pretty sure is not too much to ask. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 20:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Blackie (rapper) (or weak keep). The amount of spaces in between the letters are so unlikely of a typo that they sufficiently serve as disambiguation from the other subjects listed on Blackie (a disambiguation page). Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • My rationale was actually that spacing the letters out adds no significance and literally any popular moniker could be treated this way. There's no need for redirects like these. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 20:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I understood the purpose of your nomination. Even if the stylization did not refer to any specific topic, I would have said "Keep as harmless". Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • My point was that I didn't say it was a typo and it being a typo has nothing to do with my nomination rationale. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:52, 10 April 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.

100-watt head[edit]

Cursory skim on Amazon.com proves what should be very obvious: Marshall is not the only company that manufactrues 100-watt amplifier heads. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • You don't have to skim Amazon for that. But just to indicate that I wasn't a total idiot (though I don't remember why I made the redirect), most Google Books hits are for Marshall. I don't object to deletion, but maybe a better target is Guitar amplifier. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • No one said you were an idiot to any degree. All I said was it's obvious that more companies than Marshall make or have made 100-watt amp heads. And after all, this is Templates for Discussion, so if alternatives to deletion exist, well, let's talk about 'em. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 20:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
@Zeke, the Mad Horrorist: Umm, do you mean "Redirects for discussion"? Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea where I got "Templates". Yes, I meant "redirects". Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 20:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about you saying anything, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Guitar amplifier per Drmies, although I question this redirect's utility as a search term. This actually targets to a section that seems to have been expanded, broken up, and later branched off into the articles Marshall Bluesbreaker and Marshall 1959, however as Zeke points out, Marshall is hardly the sole manufacturer of 100W amps. Ivanvector (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and keep it pointing to Marshall.
This isn't about Amazon. It's about 1960s music, and the development of stage backlines. It was Marshall who created this, Marshall who made the original canonical 100 Watt head. The rest are merely modern copies and un-notable. The topic is about the history of rock, not about a shopping guide. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
It should target to Marshall 1959 then, which discusses the development of the 100W head? Ivanvector (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I could grant that Marshall may have made the first of its kind, but the rest being "merely modern copies and un-notable" is a bit broad of a statement that can't easily be supported (and shifts the onus of proving it onto anyone saying so). I did not say Marshall's endeavors were not notable, I said they were not the only ones to do what they did. In my view, to say it should redirect to them solely is a bit like saying because Sega were apparently the first to use keep cases for their cartridge-based games, Sega should have a redirect for Video game keep cases (that might not even be true, but it would apply regardless of which company was truly the first). Anyone could have done this; the capability of doing so is not and never has been exclusive to one company, even if they were pioneers at it. All that being said, if and only if we cannot find other notable 100-watt models, I would support retarget to Marshall 1959 (which should probably be amended to include that it is historically significant in this regard) per Ivanvector. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Unless you have Amazon's back catalogue from the '60s, why does what they sell today have any significance?
My stage PA today has four 100W channels in a case made from an old disk drive. Tiny thing. So why would any guitarist want to hump around a mere 100W amp the size of a suitcase? Why would any of Amazon's suppliers be making them today? The reason is that in the 1960s this was a new, modern Marshall product and it was the coolest thing on stage. Marshall created this, Marshall made it cool. Imitators in the day were imitators, modern ones are skeumorphs. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, any attempt to generalize that other products aren't notable and/or derivative come with the requirement to prove it. My point regarding Amazon.com was only that a cursory skim of the 100-watt amplifiers they have to offer is sufficient proof that this is not exclusive to Marshall and probably never has been. Marshall might have been the first to pioneer this field of guitar amplification, but again, nothing has yet demonstrated that Marshall alone is worthy of having this redirect go directly to their page alone, and leaving it as such seems a bit like misplaced or excessive loyalty, especially absent any attempt to confirm your claim that in essence all other 100-watt amplifiers followed in the company's wake and are just imitations of what Marshall did first. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 16:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
"any attempt to generalize that other products aren't notable and/or derivative come with the requirement to prove it"
No it doesn't. There is though a general requirement to prove the claims being made (that Marshall's use of the innovative amplifier stack was particularly significant), and that could benefit from a source. Those in the UK could hardly do better than BBC4's recent documentary biography on Marshall, where this was gone into in quite some detail. Play it Loud: The Story of the Marshall Amp Andy Dingley (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom's rationale. There are many of these things. If there should be a target it should be a general amplifier article, where Marshall can be indicated in the text of the article. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Blood mama[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) 13:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't actually find evidence that this is in use to describe a blood blister. Google failed to return anything to suggest this term actually exists that couldn't have reasonably been caused by Wikipedia having this term on record (in fact, it returned six results, half of which were simply coincidental occurrences of the three words in specific sequences). This redirect was created with the rationale that it's an "old-time name" for the target condition, but I've not found any evidence supporting that notion. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - I also can't find any evidence of this connection. Google suggested "bloody mama" but that was no better, and I tried adding "blister" to my search as well but with no luck, other than a miracle cure for herpes simplex. Google says "Blood Mama" is a monster encountered in Silent Hill: Book of Memories but this is not explained in our article. Ivanvector (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Bloody Mama as plausible misspelling.--Lenticel (talk) 11:27, 9 April 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.

BART[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:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Tavix |  Talk  16:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Retarget - to Bart (disambiguation). Acronym is not widely used outside of the Bay Area. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Leave as is "BART" is what everyone calls it, and if someone searches for it in all caps in Wikipedia, that's probably what they're looking for. I can't think of any other name people have for it. The Bay Area Rapid Transit article already has a hatnote for those people who really were looking for something else. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. No other subjects on the disambiguation page are known by the acronym. Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC) (Turns out that I didn't see the others. Steel1943 (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC))
    • There appear to be several that are listed that would be abbreviated to BART (else they would not be on the dab page) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
      • The San Francisco train system is overwhelmingly the one people know about and that is written about. The current approach is appropriate. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. As someone not from the Bay-area, Bay Area Rapid Transit is really the only use of the acronym I think of when I hear it. A cursory skim of the DAB page brings up no others that would be any more primary a topic than the rapid transit system.--kelapstick(bainuu) 20:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - it most certainly is widely used. My results could possibly be skewed by transit fandom, but I am certainly not from the Bay Area and it is a well known acronym here. The hatnote at the target page deals with other uses adequately. Ivanvector (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - agree that this is a well-known acronym in the US, outside of the Bay Area. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - it is definitely a well-known acronym outside the Bay Area. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm an international visitor to San Francisco from the UK and this is where I went to find out about the BART system Adw2000 (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • keep likewise SLUT Andy Dingley (talk) 14:15, 14 April 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.

Will Goodhand[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) 13:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete: Goodhand is mentioned in at least 3 Wikipedia articles and there is no particular reason to send readers directly to this one. He is currently standing for Parliament in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, which would seem to be at least as relevant as the fact that he briefly appeared on television a decade ago. Stevvers (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Question: based on this revision and his standing for UK Parliament, could we write an article about him? From my quick search it seems that independent coverage is lacking (I'm counting clearly pro-Tory publications as primary for this purpose). Ivanvector (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I know Will personally, so I may not be well placed to judge, but it seems to me that he doesn't (quite) meet the notability criteria. (Obviously this changes if he wins the seat.) Stevvers (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of ETI posting styles[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete by GB fan per speedy deletion criterion R3. Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Nominating mostly out of not knowing what an "ETI posting style" is, and not able to find any useful sources telling me so. In addition to List of fallacies, an IP briefly retargets it to List of mental disorders which Spergerlord reverted. Both target does not contain (part of) the redirect. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 12:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Created as a joke or prank, most likely to insult a person whose initials are ETI who the author of this redirect believes posts many false statements on some social media outlet. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete based on WikiDan61's hypothesis, which seems likely to me. On the chance that it's true, meaning that the page is basically an attack, I just submitted it for speedy deletion, WP:CSD R3. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:47, 8 April 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.

חתול[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) 13:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:RFOREIGN; WP:NOTDICT; Cats aren't necessarily Hebrew, they exist pretty much worldwide. Tavix |  Talk  10:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary; general topic with no particular affinity for any language -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC, and for good reason. No special relationship between cats and Hebrew: it isn't as though this were an article on matzah. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Cats are distributed worldwide --Lenticel (talk) 11:26, 9 April 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.

Magic land clouds[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) 13:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete as a joke redirect and/or vandalism. Tavix |  Talk  10:29, 8 April 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.

Land seal[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. Reminds me of the "Land Sea Lion" discussion. --BDD (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This was probably created as a joke redirect, because dogs aren't known as "land seals." Tavix |  Talk  10:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - could perhaps refer to the "land sea lion" (which was not a dog) from The Deep South (Futurama) but too far off for a redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm sure it's a joke, a pun. A slang term for seals is "sea dogs", so someone thought it would be funny to imply that dogs are called "land seals". —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • We could theoretically keep it on those grounds, assuming we had the sources to back it up, but since we apparently don't, delete per everyone else so far. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 21:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Harbor Seal, it seems that it's a synonym per [15] and [16] Lenticel (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • According to your first source, the only mention of "land seal" is the fact that the Icelandic word for "Harbor seal" means "land-seal". I'm not so sure that they are "synonyms" but it's a good find though. Tavix |  Talk  14:37, 9 April 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.

Little India,Ipoh[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) 13:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

No space between the coma and 'I'. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 02:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I've marked the R as {{R from incorrect punctuation}}, but as always without prejudice to this discussion, would seem just a helpful thing to do do in the interim. Si Trew (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Bulleted for you Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 16:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per SimonTrew. Skipping a keystroke is a common mistake to make, and skipping the spacebar is no exception. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 16:37, 12 April 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.

Ayesha Khan[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. Such requests should indeed be made at RMTR, but I'll do this one anyway. --BDD (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't make any sense for moving it to Ayesha Khan (junior) as there is no disambiguation with this name and moving it to "junior" for no valid reason is baseless. Please revert back this move. UBStalk 02:15, 8 April 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.

Unsound mind[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 16#Unsound mind

The Superman/Madman Hullabaloo![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 Madman (Image Comics). --BDD (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:SURPRISE. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Madman (Image Comics) as a redirect that broke since the moved of its former target failed to repoint the redirects after their former target ended up becoming a redirect to a different target. Steel1943 (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Steel1943. Identified at target. Ivanvector (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Madman (Image Comics) per Steel1943. I think it's part of the bot issue found in the other related Rfd's --Lenticel (talk) 11:30, 9 April 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.

Madman Adventure[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 Madman (Image Comics). --BDD (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:SURPRISE. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:04, 8 April 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.

Creatures of the Id[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) 12:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

What!? No sense. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. It seems to be a comic according to Madman (Image Comics).--Lenticel (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation, probably. Ivanvector (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Redirects aren't meant to be poetic, they're meant to be practical. The more poetic they are, the less likely it is they're plausible search queries. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: it seems that all of these redirects targeting Insanity are due to the Madman comics article originally living at madman with no disambiguator, and the redirects pointing there. When madman became Madman (Image Comics), madman was redirected to insanity, in good faith, and then the bot "fixed" all the resulting double redirects into the nonsense you see above. Ivanvector (talk) 21:28, 8 April 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.

April 5[edit]

Hippocite[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 14#Hippocite

Ice Age 4: Continental Drift 4[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) 18:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Redundant. Name implies it's the fourth movie in a bizarre offshoot series. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Ice Age Movies[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 14#The Ice Age Movies

Yartzee[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) 18:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

R & H are a bit too far apart on the QWERTY keyboard to make this a plausible typo. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Yes indeed, but I was probably going on pronunciation. R and H in that respect can sound very similar. This is Paul (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, plausible guess at the spelling for anyone with a non-rhotic accent. Siuenti (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Siuenti, plausible mispelling. Keep in mind that bad spellings are not only based on keyboards, they are also based on pronunciation. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 01:00, 6 April 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.

Yatsee[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) 18:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

A few too many typos. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep all Similar pronunciations. --Mr. Guye (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Guye -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 01:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Donald[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'll expand the hatnote to incorporate this. --BDD (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Trump is not the only person named "Donald". Mr. Guye (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. On that note, there should be a WP:CSD criterion for redirects that can't be made to apply to just one subject because there could be many many of them. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Donald" can refer to any number of notable figures, but "The Donald" refers to only one. See Donald Trump#Personal life. Keep. - Eureka Lott 18:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Donald (disambiguation) and add Trump there. IIRC, the head of a clan can be referred to as The CLANNAME and there is a Clan Donald. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Donald because that's where people with that given name are listed. Tavix |  Talk  05:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and hatnote target to the dab page and/or the given name dab. Trump is not the only person named "Donald", however "The Donald" fairly unambiguously refers to him. Ivanvector (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • keep and hatnote per Ivanvector. If someone else gets to be well-enough-known as The Donald we can reconsider, but if they're looking for that phrase, they are almost certainly looking for him. Mangoe (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep the name does seem to be specific. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 7 April 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.

Peavey electronics eorporation[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, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Unlikely typo. On the QWERTY scheme, C & E are pretty far apart. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like I originally created this, to fix a typo of my own, so unlikely or not, it seems we have at least one example of somebody doing it. But, whatever. I can't argue with any conviction either way. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely ≠ impossible. It's just not a possibility Wikipedia feels a need to account for. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Looks like the result of an OCR error -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep 9-year-old {{R from page move}}; harmless. Ivanvector (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sure, it's old, but it has no incoming links in the article space. If I had seen a considerable amount, I would have been on the opposite side of the fence since it is 9-years old. This is a very unlikely misspelling, given the length of the title. Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as implausible per Steel1943. Tavix |  Talk  03:04, 8 April 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.

Ennialation[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 Annihilation. --BDD (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me see how these are relevant to My Little Pony. More confusingly, these are apparently typos for annihilation - which again seems to have nothing to do with the franchise. They were all targeted to annihilation but apparently that caused a double redirect which a bot came by to fix... and retargeted all of them to My Little Pony. More generally, I believe these fall under WP:RTYPO as they are badly-misspelled words. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Was the result of a vandal doing this. --Mr. Guye (talk) 18:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't surprise me in the slightest. I figured it was because of some kind of MLP hate. That's part of why I'm doing what I'm doing - looking for obnoxious redirects like these. In any case, I still stand by my WP:RTYPO argument. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
I actually ‹See TfD› Disagree with your RTYPO argument. Someone who has only heard the word and has no idea how to spell it may spell it like this. The redirect would then redirect them to the correct place (annihilation). --Mr. Guye (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Annihilation per my above arguments. --Mr. Guye (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:RTYPO. I feel like these are spelled a little too poorly to be plausible. Also note that all versions of that list with an a instead of e are red (which IMO would be more likely): Annialation, Annialate, Anielation, Anielate, Anialation, Anialate. We shouldn't create any misspelling we can think of just because there's a remote possibility that someone might spell it that way. Tavix |  Talk  05:17, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Annihilation (the pre-vandalism target): these are all very old, harmless redirects. Ivanvector (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to original target. ""Annihilate" is a hard word and these are reasonable guesses. Reach Out to the Truth 00:23, 8 April 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.

WaPo[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'll expand the target page's hatnote to incorporate WAPO, though. --BDD (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about this one. Google does treat WaPo as synonymous with Washington Post, but that might have been influenced by the existence of this redirect. Newspapers have referred to themselves with shortened names. HuffPost comes to mind. But WashPost already redirects to The Washington Post. This rediirect was created in 2005 as a very short article that read:

Short hand for The Washington Post. The term is typically used by political bloggers.

It was then redirected to its current target by another user. I have no evidence to suggest that the short article was true. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • This redirect likely has very little to do with Google's rankings. Quick searches on Twitter and Google News show how commonly it's used. Keep as a blatantly obvious nickname. - Eureka Lott 18:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to WAPO since it is a variant of its spelling AND The Washington Post is also linked there. --Lenticel (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, I like the retarget idea, but the Washington Post is the only one of those to use "WaPo." Therefore it's not ambiguous in my opinion. Tavix |  Talk  05:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm okay with Keep as well.--Lenticel (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep; I'm with Tavix. I've seen this usage very often on Twitter; wapo.st is a shortlink for www.washingtonpost.com. Ivanvector (talk) 14:52, 6 April 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.

^ω^[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) 13:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This redirect was somewhat recently created (March 26, 2015). The creator's edit summary was "Happy Emoji redirects to happiness". Implausible. Mr. Guye (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete for now. I can't find a mention of it in both the emoji and the emoticon articles. --Lenticel (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this is a Japanese emoticon. It looks like one, with the use of the omega, which you can find in Japanese emoticons. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Move to wiktionary (convert the redirect to a direct statement ^ω^ is happieness or something), and transwiki that) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Emoticon, which is the target of a long list of emoticon redirects including (-:, 😈, ^-^, and so on. Note that emoticons that start with a colon can't be linked for technical reasons, or they would be in this list too. Ivanvector (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete due to the fact that it isn't mentioned anywhere. We could retarget, but it wouldn't help because someone is probably looking for details about that specific emoticon, not about emoticons in general. Tavix |  Talk  16:33, 10 April 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.

Bangladesh Islami Chhatra Shibir(Islamic Students Forum)[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) 13:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Redirect from unlikely search phrase Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as this is all kinds of implausible. Tavix |  Talk  05:20, 6 April 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.

Sam etic[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 and retarget, respectively. With a sensible, unambiguous place to retarget, that argument is stronger. --BDD (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete: It doesn't make any sense to have two redirects of the same term to different articles (Lisa's Substitute and Dustin Hoffman). Also, the two letters ("S" and "E") will appear in capitals regardless of which case is typed. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Retargeting has easily been done here by editing. However, I still agree with deletion. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 21:03, 11 April 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.

Untitled Batman Project (2012)[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) 13:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Not untitled anymore (obviously). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, unlikely redirect, given that it is not unnamed anymore -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 02:34, 7 April 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.

IBlow[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) 13:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems to refer to a lewd decal that can be applied to any Mac laptop (and no, retargeting it to Macbook is just as silly an idea - one, it's just a lewd joke, and two, sticking "i" in front of something parodies Apple products in general, not just their laptops). Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete While Wikipedia is not censored, the redirect seems to not serve a reasonable usage. It's not a synonym for a MacBook Air, it's unlikely to be internally linked to, it only seems to be linked to on pages related to deletion discussion, and per WP:RFP#Delete, it's offensive and disparaging to the subject matter it targets and doesn't seem to have any encyclopedic value. Wugapodes (talk) 14:33, 5 April 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.

MacBook touch[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) 13:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Not an actual model that exists; other than that, intended meaning of the term "touch" is vague and useless. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • DELETE - RADERA per above + WP:CBALL (This product is not announced and not leaked by any Apple officers) + This redirect misleads readers. The article do not have any information. Let them go to another sites to search for rumors by showing them a "Page does not exist" page. User:Andra Datormolnet Talk
    CloudTracker
    14:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete this does not exist and the redirect can easily be recreated if Apple ever announces such a product.--67.68.161.242 (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as a misleading redirect. --Lenticel (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Apparently, even Apple admits in the press that they will never release such a product as the one titled in this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:54, 7 April 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.

BillyG[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) 13:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence that he actually goes by this name. This was created at the same time as StevieJ to Steve Jobs... Also note that Billy G is red. Tavix |  Talk  03:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as a joke redirect. Its creator doesn't seem to take Wikipedia seriously if you look at their talk page. Useless redirect. --Mr. Guye (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as possible vandalism/joke. --Lenticel (talk) 23:59, 7 April 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.

Template:Harvrefcol[edit]

Per the discussion at Cite LSA, I'm proposing undoing the result of the TFD which was to rename {{harvrefcol}} to {{Cite LSA}}. I hope to put this revision back on the {{harvrefcol}} page with a notice that it is deprecated. The reason is that historic uses of harvrefcol are being broken by updates to Cite LSA which is problematic because those historic uses used it to cite in the Harvard style while the template at Cite LSA cites in the style of the Linguistic Society of America (which is substantially different from Harvard style). The {{harvrefcol}} used many non-standard arguments and had complex logic that makes it difficult verging on impossible to make backwards compatible. and current and future editors of {{Cite LSA}} shouldn't have to worry about how updates to the template will affect historic usages of an unrelated style that is connected because of a confusing name choice a few years ago. I am proposing this here because the previous TFD discussion makes me feel that an attempt at larger consensus should be gained before undoing it. Notifying users from previous discussions: Gadget850 started previous TFD, Ling.Nut3 created template, Jonesey95 discussed this with, Plastikspork closed previous TFD. Wugapodes (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Support. {{harvrefcol}} was at some point repurposed to support LSA-style citation, but development was abandoned before that work was complete. The template was then renamed to {{Cite LSA}}, as nobody appeared to be using harvrefcol for whatever its original purpose was. Wugapodes has done good work to finish this Cite LSA development work, but maintaining backwards compatibility with the half-built {{harvrefcol}} is neither reasonable nor sensible. {{harvrefcol}} should be restored to the state recommended above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
(I would also support restoring {{harvrefcol}} as described above, then substing its twenty or so existing transclusions, and then deleting it completely, but that may be a second discussion.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that this should be a TFD discussion, but no matter. You should be able to fix this without changing around the redirects. Just restore an old working version of the template from the history at {{Cite LSA}}, substitute the transclusions you want to substitute, then revert your edit to the template. Make sure you leave good notes in your edit summaries to the template so that everyone else knows what you're up to. Ivanvector (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the input. I'll consider putting it on TFD, I was originally unsure where to post because while it's a template, it's also a redirect. Anyway, the problem I have is that most (all?) of the transclusions of {{harvrefcol}} are talk page posts and archives. I'm a rather new editor so correct me if I'm wrong, but I always assumed that editing others talk page posts and archives was generally bad, which is why I brought this up in the first place. Would this be the kind of situation where ignore all rules would be applicable? Wugapodes (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
In general, editing other people's talk pages and archives is considered impolite, but in this case, the edits to the template have broken people's talk pages, so in effect, we have already edited those talk pages. What we're talking about here is fixing those edits. I think the suggestion above could work. We could move the current code to the sandbox, change any existing intentional transclusions of the template to use the sandbox (so that those article don't break while the substing is happening), change the template code to the old code, subst the old usages, and then restore the updated (new) Cite LSA template code. Then fix the articles to use the regular template instead of the sandbox. At that point, harvrefcol will be unused and should be deleted, along with all references and links to it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, this is a rename request? That indeed should've been brought up at TfD, though we can try to resolve it here. --BDD (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm unsure. It's not renaming, it's removing a redirect which was created because of a TfD rename decision, and TfD says that template redirects should be listed here. In terms of resolving this issue, I'm agreeable to Jonesey95's suggestion above where we subst existing legacy versions and then delete the old template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wugapodes (talkcontribs) 06:02, 14 April 2015‎ (UTC)
So you want {{Cite LSA}} to remain and {{harvrefcol}} to be deleted? Is everyone else clear on that? --BDD (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Not exactly. Not to take up too much time but to be clear with the issue here's the backstory and what we're trying to decide:
There was a template, {{harvrefcol}}, that was used in a number of articles and talk pages to cite in the Harvard style. It was removed from a lot of pages then moved to {{Cite LSA}} per a TfD discussion creating a redirect to {{Cite LSA}}. The template was very non-standard in its parameters and difficult to maintain backward compatibility due to how it was written. I have been developing it to cite in the LSA style, per its name, however it breaks previous transclusions of {{harvrefcol}} because of the redirect. So we are trying to find the best way to make old transclusions work while also allowing for Cite LSA to cite in the LSA style.
So the reason it is posted here is because it is a redirect. I would like it to no longer point to {{Cite LSA}} and have it restored to the state it was before it became a redirect. After that happens, there can be a separate discussion as to whether we ought to delete it, but that's not a discussion for here. Wugapodes (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the narrative immediately above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright, I think I'm clear on that point now, but I'm not sure how to bring it about. Cite LSA has all the history of harvrefcol, so we can't simply restore an earlier version of the latter. It has been three years since the renaming at TfD, which didn't really have any more participation that this discussion. So... I could reverse the move and leave it to someone else to independently develop a new Cite LSA? --BDD (talk) 13:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that Wugapodes and I can carry out the steps above by ourselves. We just came here for a consensus. I believe that we have found it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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[17] 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.[18][19][20] 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)
The examples I provided in the previous discussion were purely elucidative and thus had nothing to do with WP:OSE. I don't doubt that, as you say, "[t]here are a great many redirects that readers would not likely type as a first guess that are nonetheless kept by consensus," but it's irrelevant because, as you just aptly said, each redirect "needs to be evaluated on its own." I believe I should remind you that as per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#The guiding principles of RfD, the default outcome of an RfD discussion is not to keep—it's to delete, and that the question to be answered in an RfD discussion is not whether the redirect is unambiguous or whether it was created in good faith—it's whether the redirect is likely to be helpful to our readers or not. Plowback retained earnings, as has been at length explained, is not by any stretch of imagination helpful to our readers. Thus, in the absence of a compelling reason to keep it, it ought to be deleted. Iaritmioawp (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
That's the default outcome for a "nomination which receives no other discussion". That's a pretty large omission, or oversight. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
It's neither an omission nor an oversight; it's quite clear to me that "discussion" here refers to more than a mere one-sided exchange of words. Iaritmioawp (talk) 20:06, 1 April 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.