Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.)


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]


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 "" anywhere on the internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) "WhatLinksHere" for "Attorneygate"—since those links might come from somewhere outside Wikipedia.

Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.


Reasons for deleting[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.

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. 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]


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]

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.
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|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 26[edit]

Man of the Philippines[edit]

Delete as an implausible search term and confusing: I originally thought this was an award or a competition. Tavix  Talk  18:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete I to would havr thought this would have been about a person or award, not about anyone who is citizen of the country.-- (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


Delete. Vandalism is not Korea-specific. Gorobay (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete while there is vandalism in Korea the term does not have a strong enough connection to that country to make it a useful redirect for the English Wikipedia.-- (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Untitled-Vijay-Prabhudeva Project[edit]

This project is no longer untitled... Tavix  Talk  03:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete with Tavix. Patently it has a title. We don't have Vijay-Prabhudeva Project fortunatelyl, so it seem an odd creation in the first place, but its time is up. Si Trew (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Adam Orth Twitter incident[edit]

Unhelpful redirect because the subject isn't mentioned at the targeted article. Tavix  Talk  02:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


There is no significant connection between this term and Metallica. Tavix  Talk  02:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Late Quaternary[edit]

The article does not say anything about Late Quaternary A8v (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep unless anyone can come up with a better target. I don't think we have much to say about the Late Quaternary period; readers will find relevant information at the Quaternary article. — This, that and the other (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as above: every boy is fascinated with dinosaurs and some of the best were in this period, I think it is a likely search term. It's a pity we don't have a separate article, but what we have is as good as it gets right now untill some paleaontologist decides to edit Wikipedia. WP:NOTFINISHED, WP:NOTPERFECT. It ususally gets a couple of hits a day lately though in march there was a bit of a rise peaking on 10 March it got 12, then falling off in the days after, perhaps something on the telly? But this definitely gets hits above noise level so to delete it would be harmful. Si Trew (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep; Quaternary is a broader topic, which includes Late Quaternary, even though it doesn't specifically mention it. This redirect isn't misleading anyone, and creating eight redlinks wouldn't help anyone. Perhaps someone with knowledge in the field can advise whether "Late Quaternary" is a recognised term, or if the linking articles would be better coded as "late Quaternary". I've raised this question at WT:WikiProject_Geology#Terminology. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete not mentioned at target. If WP doesn't have anything to say about a topic it should be upfront about it. Siuenti (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag as {{R from subtopic}} per Colonies Chris. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Extinct bird dodo[edit]

A redirect that is not of much use A8v (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as harmless. It gets hits, sometimes as many as four a day. That is four people in the entire world who found this a useful search term on that day. We're kinda defeated a little by the WP search engine plugin in that they may have just selected it that way, but it's harmless. It's not a great number, but I think four is better than zero. Si Trew (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It's accurate enough. Plausible search term as kind of a reversed dab "Dodo (extinct bird)". 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Former Turkish Province Of Yunanistan[edit]

Delete. "Yunanistan" is the Turkish for "Greece" (cf. tr:Yunanistan) but Greece has never been a Turkish province. It was (excluding the Ionian Islands) part of the Ottoman Empire (of which Turkey is the modern successor state) - see Ottoman Greece for the main article on this period of Greek history. The Administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire fluctuated but based on our articles, there was no single province covering the modern concept of Greece. Those parts of the territory now forming Greece that were part of the Ottoman Empire were included in at least the following divisions: Pashalik of Yanina, Morea Eyalet, Salonica Eyalet, Ottoman Crete and Eyalet of Adrianople, most of which also covered land not in contemporary Greece. This, along with Google results, suggests that "Former Turkish Province of Yunanistan" is not a term used outside of a few discussions concerning Turkish Irredentism and/or suggestions to sell Greece to Turkey to pay off the former's debt (nothing even approaching a reliable source that I've found). There exists also the FTPOY acronym, a redirect that has been separately nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 24#FTPOY and that was how I discovered this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Note I will advise the Greece and Turkey wikiprojects about this discussion. As this has the potential to a lively debate, commenters should be aware that this discussion is within the purview of the discretionary sanctions authorised for "Topics related to the Balkans, broadly interpreted" at WP:ARBMAC. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Instead of deleting, redirecting to Ottoman Greece is a better choise. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

April 25[edit]

Destiny's Child World Tour 2010[edit]

This should have been deleted as WP:TOOSOON back in 2009... Tavix  Talk  20:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


I'm not seeing any connection between this redirect and Beyonce. Tavix  Talk  20:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as implausible synonym or Retarget to Beyond as a possible typo.--Lenticel (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

2020s (Timeline of Montreal history)[edit]

Delete as unhelpful because the Timeline of Montreal history has no events listed in the 2020s. It's also implausible as a search term. Tavix  Talk  20:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Does this User even exist? JZCL 12:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Colorado Springs Crusaders[edit]

Delete as unhelpful, because it's not mentioned in the target article at all, and per WP:REDLINK to show that the article does not exist. Natg 19 (talk) 01:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Restore articles and take to AFD. I don't think any of these teams are notable, but I feel like you're skirting the process by redirecting them and then nominating for RFD a few months later. If the articles should be deleted, let's do it the normal way. Tavix  Talk  04:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

John Madden (baseball)[edit]

Delete: No longer listed on this page (or any page for that matter). Tavix  Talk  00:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Also fails WP:MLB/N, so we shouldn't have an article. - Eureka Lott 01:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • This redirect contains important history and should probably be retained. It was initially submitted as an AfC request and accepted by User:Empire3131. User:Fabrictramp declined a speed delete request on it before it was merged and redirected by User:Spanneraol. Had the merged content seems to have been removed without comment in April 2010 by User:, the redirect would still be valid. - TB (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The redirect would not still be valid because the player is not currently in the Mets organization and hasnt been for several years. Spanneraol (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Amendment 1-10 of the Constitution of India[edit]

Not at all useful. Ninney (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

25th Amendment of the Constitution of India[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy retarget per WP:BRD. I'm being bold here, so feel free to revert/discuss if you think there should be a different result. (non-admin closure) Tavix  Talk  00:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

An article exist, refer Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution of India. Redirecting the current target page is not useful. Ninney (talk) 00:12, 25 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.

Eighty-Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India[edit]

The target article is List of all amendments, no specific topic related to the 86th amendment is discussed. Also, no potentially useful page history, or edit history. Ninney (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I merged the two discussions as they both have the exact same rationale. Tavix  Talk  00:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Eighty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution of India was created by myself in January 2014 as a redirect. At the time it had incoming links, although it no longer does. Given that the target contains the most complete information we have on this topic (a shockingly scant 30 words), I'd say keep with the aim to re-target to a more comprehensive article as and when such is written. - TB (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Forty-Forth Amendment of the Constitution of India[edit]

The target article is List of all amendments, no specific topic related to the 44th amendment is discussed. Also, no potentially useful page history, or edit history Ninney (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I merged the discussions as all three of them have the exact same rationale. Tavix  Talk  00:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per the discussion of the 86th amendment above, the target of these redirects contains the best information we have on the topic. It's far from comprehensive, but better than nothing. When a better article is added, re-target to that. - TB (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

April 24[edit]

List of Microsoft Project Viewers[edit]

Does not lead to anything. It was originally a standalone list of red links; then a redirect to a list of red links and now a redirect to nothing. Euthanize it? Codename Lisa (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


Not sure why this redirect should redirect here much more than any other film/TV series with this New York dialect. JZCL 16:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

What's happening to my body[edit]

Meh. JZCL 16:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete looks like this is a book series about puberty. Maybe better off as a redlink to encourage article creation --Lenticel (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, with @Lenticel:. Not sure what the difference is between puberty and adolescence in this sense, but I am not a doctor. Si Trew (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete the term is not mentioned in the article and there are othet possible things people could be searching for such as sickness.-- (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Islam means[edit]

This is not only a highly unlikely search term, but also redirects to the wrong place (if it should redirect at all). If anything, it should probably go to Islam#Etymology_and_meaning but I say delete. JZCL 16:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. I agree that it could be retargeted, but "Islam" means "peace" doesn't it (roughly speaking, to an audience that does not speak Arabic). I am with User:JZCL here (and to declare an interest I lived in Cairo and went to school in a mix of Arabic and English for two years when I was in my teens and know a bit of Arabic, but not much). Si Trew (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague. "Means" may refer to "method" or "meaning" --Lenticel (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you thinking in the sense of The means justify the ends? We don't have that I think it is in Shakeseare somewhere but certainly in Orwell and he didn't invent it and didn't pretend he did. It's in a paper he wrote for in 1954–43, Tribune. I have all of Orwell here but I kinda know it word for word and am just throwing it out as a sugggestion. Si Trew (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weal delete. Not an unlikely search term but one that is not catering a search method, but rather, a searching peculiarity. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Particularly the caps lock on this redirect leads me to believe this is a bit NPOV JZCL 16:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


Not mentioned once in the target article, all I could find was that it seems to be Hebrew for "to breathe". Type it into Google and you'll find a whole load of unrelated pages. JZCL 16:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • WP:NOTGOOGLE but I couldn't find anything on it, what I got most was chihauha. Howevever, others are more talented for searching than I am. it appears somehow to be the name for Eve, Adam's missus in the Book of Genesis, but this is blocking the search so I am having trouble finding it. A Jewish scholar I am sure would know instantly, I will search around for WP:Judaism or something and drop them a note. Si Trew (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I left a note at WP:WikiProject Judaism, which seems quite active, referring back to this section. Si Trew (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of the Boy Scouts of America[edit]

In my mind there is a fine line between a "criticism" and a "controversy". JZCL 16:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Nominator is completely right: There is indeed such a fine line. However, in Wikipedia, redirects are allowed to traverse that fine line. Still, the visit stats is poor. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, pace @Codename Lisa:. Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said "the English cannot draw a line in the sand without blurring it"? Articles should be accurate but redirects are here to help people find them, however "wrong" they are, so in principle I am with Codename Lisa, but the stats show there are so few hits for this one, less than one a day (excluding the peak when this discussion opened where it hit 6), that it's not worth keeping. WP:CHEAP, I know, but this seems harmful because people search in different ways and so they can't find what they're looking for if a redirect is in the way. Si Trew (talk) 08:35, 26 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)
  • As with below, this should be reverted to the status quo ante. --BDD (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@BDD: I think this article's situation is different from the one below. When this one was moved from Hafsa to Sehzade its material also changed. But Hatice Sultan was moved to Fatma Sultan without any changes in the article. I think Hafsa's page should become restored if she was notable and if she wasn't it should become deleted. I also think we should keep Sehzade Sultan's article. Keivan.fTalk 13:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
That would probably call for a histmerge then... --BDD (talk) 15:04, 22 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) 14:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am not sure the status quo ante is much good, though, (you mean, "what it was before", I presume: we have an article status quo ante bellum which i have not checked but what I would translate as "what it was like before the war"). The thing is we need to set an obiter dictaobiter dictum on these things so they are not created unnecessaily. R's are cheap, sure, but the problem is they hurt people trying to search for information: that's our job isn't it? Et in arcadia ego. Si Trew (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It's translated at that article as "The state existing before the war", but I think mine is more colloquial. Si Trew (talk) 21:48, 24 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. (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)
@SimonTrew: Unfortunately I discovered a new problem. User:Retrieverlove is the person who moved Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) to Fatma Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) and changed the whole material of this article. Actually Hatice Sultan didn't die as a one-year-old girl (that was my mistake). Actually she had a political marriage and was influential. Take a look at the history of the page. I don't know what to do now. Should we make two separate articles for these two individuals? All of these happened because of that user. He always move pages and changes their material without discussion. Then I'll report the situation to an administrator to make those articles separated. There are warnings on his user page telling him to start a new article for a new individual except moving the pages and destroying their material. Of course he hasn't made this kind of problem since a few months ago. Anyway we have to decide what to do with this redirect page. Keivan.fTalk 18:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: I'm really confused. When I read the page's history before moving I understood that he just moved the page and changed the name from Hatice to Fatma. I think we have to ask him why he did this? Maybe the correct title for this article is Fatma Sultan and she was married to Ibrahim Pashsa not her sister Hatice. It's really confusing. Someone has to ask him why he moved the page. Keivan.fTalk 19:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Keivan.f:} we can work together on this. My Arabic is not very good, but Wikipedia is kinda "blocking" the search engines so that every time you try to look this up you go round the houses to end up where you started. We'll sort it out by working together, yes? Si Trew (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment making a start, "Sultan" is not a name you ever have as a first name in English but Zoltan is a very popular name in Hungarian. Excuse me for doing the working-out here but we'll get there. Si Trew (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Right, so what you're saying is Hatice and Fatma are two different people. In that case, there is no point linking one to the other, that is just misleading. I think that is what you are saying. Si Trew (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: I have checked the sources. They're two different individuals. They're sisters. The things that I don't know is that was Hatice married to Ibrahim Pasha or Fatma? Was Hatice and influential figure during his father's reign or Fatma? I don't why that user moved this page. We have to ask him. I don't want to make false statements about two historical figures. We have to make sure. Keivan.fTalk 13:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It sounds like the simplest solution for now would be to undo the move and change of article scope. That never should've happened, regardless of the notability of either of these figures. From there, we could AfD Hatice or write a new article on Fatma as necessary. --BDD (talk) 19:22, 21 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) 14:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Query @Keivan.f: is it at all possible they were both married to Ahmed III? That seems rather incestuous but it happens. I believe, and I may very well be mistaken, in Islam one is allowed to have four wives, but he was Christian surely, although no mention of his religion is at the target. According to he did seem to like to collect wives. God only knows why, one is enough trouble.Si Trew (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    • @Si Trew: No they're his daughters and I'm sure that he was a Muslim, not a Christian. But you're right. Under the Islamic law you can just have four "wed" wives. Ottoman's harem system seems to be confusing at first but I can explain it now. Above the all women of the harem was valide sultan, mother of the sultan. After her, four wed wives of the sultan had the highest positions. They were called haseki sultan or kadınefendi. Then came daughters and sisters of the sultan and finally there were many concubines who were called hatun or hanımefendi. Women were called hatun (instead of sultan) and valide hatun (instead of valide sultan) before Suleiman the Magnificent's reign. He created the titles valide sultan and haseki sultan for his mother, Ayşe Hafsa Sultan, and his principal wives, Hürrem Sultan and Mahidevran Sultan, and the title hatun remained for lower ranked wives and concubines. After 1650s kadınefendi and hanımefendi were used instead of haseki sultan and hatun. Keivan.fTalk 06:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
      • thanks for that. This is all useful information and I learned a lot, we should probably link into the article, which doesn't even mention Harem except in a reference. The reason I assumed he was Christian was just the picture on the external link I gave appears to show (in my eyes) him wearing a mitre but I guess it is some other kind of titfer. I think poor old Ahmed needs quite a tidy up then, but don't like to do so when it's related to an open discussion. Si Trew (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
This screen keeps moving things around. Fed up with it. My question to @Keivan.f:, who is obviously the expert on this one and am inclined to go on that expertise: My question is, do you think that Hurrem Sultan and the Harem of the Sultan could possibly be confused (to an English-language audience): and if so how would we disambiguate that? Si Trew (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
We do have Imperial Harem and I suppose the Sultan was the Emperor of the Ottoman Empire, it is not about what is right but what is useful. Si Trew (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Actually Hürrem Sultan won't be confused with the Harem of the Sultan, that's because she's known to the west by her nickname, Roxelana, and is known to the east by her royal name, Hürrem Sultan. Keivan.fTalk 08:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@Keivan.f: Thank you once again for your expertise, a true credit to Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: You're welcome ;) Keivan.fTalk 08:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, still not sure on that. Because in my southern British accent we tend to use elision a lot, which seems lazy to others but is not laziness it is part of my accent or dialect, so a "hat" becomes a "a" with glottal stop each side which actually is harder, if you think about it, than just saying "hat", but there's loads of H dropping and whatever, and our vowels are all over the place. I have trouble living in hungary because the vowels are very precise and I can never hit them right cos in English they are dipthongs whereas in Hungarian they are pure vowels. Si Trew (talk) 09:01, 26 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. -- (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. (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. -- (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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I Am (Leona Lewis album)[edit]

A draft already exists: Draft:I Am (Leona Lewis album). Someone else last week created this redirect and it got deleted. Something needs to be done to stop people from creating this redirect all the time.  — ₳aron 12:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Is the draft ready for the mainspace? If yes, then this discussion is meaningless. If no, then the redirect is harmless and should remain in place until the draft is ready to go. - Eureka Lott 16:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment albums are not ready for mainspace until a title, release date, and full tracklist are confirmed per WP:NALBUMS. If this redirect is kept, I feel it should at least be fully protected until article is ready for mainspace. I'm currently on the fence as to whether or not it should be kept. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:46, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't see why it should be fully protected or even semi protected. Oxygen isn't, as a counter-example, (an I delibertaly edited it and reverted my edit to prove the point, if you check its history) even though we'd be hard up without it but can manage without a singer. We only protect things in cases of WP:VANDALISM, and that hasn't happened here, WP:AGF someone simply has slightly the wrong target and that's what we're here for, to discuss it. Si Trew (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Protection is performed for more than vandalism; other reasons include content disputes and unsourced/poorly sourced changes. I recommend full protection to prevent users from prematurely transferring information to mainspace. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
That's premature. Protection happens after WP:VANDALISM, not before. This sounds like a case of WP:OWNERSHIP to me. Si Trew (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Really more of a WP:TOOSOON case. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right, I'd forgotten WP:TOOSOON. Si Trew (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd also recommend that @Calvin999: ("Aaron") does a WP:RM because to my mind, having looked at it, it is perfectly fine to go into mainspace. WP:NOTPEFECT, WP:NOTFINISHED, but it is far better than what we have there at the moment. Si Trew (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Not yet; it needs a confirmed release date AND full tracklist first in addition to confirmed title before it is ready for mainspace per WP:NALBUMS. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


Appears to be Hungarian for "rotate". I feel like there is more to this than I can clearly perceive, mainly looking at the redirect creator and a human rights org on Facebook about Macedonia and others. I just don't know. It doesn't make much sense to me. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment It seems to be about a certain "Former Ottoman Republic Of Greece" or FOROG. I'm not that familiar with Greek history and politics to add a Keep or Delete vote. Perhaps a more knowledgeable editor can shed light to this?--Lenticel (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I checked my Hungarian dictionaries (the kinda equivalent of the Oxford English Dictionary published by Akademia Kiadó, kinda the equivalent of Oxford University Press, the absolute bible which my missus is very proud to own). In the Hungarian to English volume it lists "forog" as turn, revolve, go around and there are derivative terms for "my head"s spinning" and so on. In the English to Hungarian "rotate" is listed as "forgat" as a verb and "forog" as a noun (amongst other alternatives). I don't know how useful that is to this discussion. In English there is no noun that cannot be verbed. Si Trew (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


There are other things that have this acronym. Looking at the history, this title appears to stand for Former Macedonian Republic of Greece (maybe in another language?). I am open to deletion, redirection, or disambiguation. But clearly the redirect as it is is inappropriate. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. could it have been a transliteration from Greek where gamma has been transliterated as Y (badly) because it kinda looks similar although obviously is a different literal, G? But that's just me playing detectivve: patently nobody wanting to find the article on Greece is going to type this. But it's had 54 hits in the last 90 days according to the stats, so something must be linking to it, but there's no internal links (except to this discussion). Thryduulf is more conservative about this than me, and I would say that's below the threshold for a keep, but @Thryduulf: may well disagree. Si Trew (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Defer It seems to be an acronym for "Former Turkish Province Of Yunanistan". "Yunanistan" is the Turkish for "Greece" (cf. tr:Yunanistan), as testified in Muslim minority of Greece, there is an official recognised Turkish minority in Greece so that redirect is good and need concern us no more (I've tagged it as {{R from other language}}). Greece has never been a Turkish province, although it was (excluding the Ionian Islands) part of the Ottoman Empire (of which Turkey is the modern successor state) - see Ottoman Greece for the main article on this period of Greek history. The Administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire fluctuated but based on our articles, there was no single province covering the modern concept of Greece. Those parts of the territory now forming Greece that were part of the Ottoman Empire were included in at least the following divisions: Pashalik of Yanina, Morea Eyalet, Salonica Eyalet, Ottoman Crete and Eyalet of Adrianople, most of which also covered land not in contemporary Greece. This, along with Google results, suggests that "Former Turkish Province of Yunanistan" is not a term used outside of a few discussions concerning Turkish Irredentism and/or suggestions to sell Greece to Turkey to pay off the former's debt (nothing even approaching a reliable source), and so I will nominate that redirect on today's page (incidentally, the term seems to have been inspired by Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)). If that is deleted then this acronym should be too, unless we have an article it could be retargetted to (I've not found one, but I haven't looked hard). If people do see value in the long-form then the acronym is should be kept (unless something else is the primary topic), so I suggest dererring this discussion until the one I'm about to start completes. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

April 23[edit]

Randi Mossige-Norheim[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedied G7. [Additional comments.] Peridon (talk) 20:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete as confusing. Tavix  Talk  19:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete - I must have made this by accident. Djbclark (talk) 02:58, 24 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.

Baja Canada[edit]

I propose that this redirect be deleted. Firstly, "Baja Canada" is a colloquialism of trivial importance that is better suited for such sites as Urban Dictionary, not encyclopedias. Secondly, the term refers more commonly to the contiguous United States rather than the Pacific Northwest and is therefore incorrect anyway. - SweetNightmares 17:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - meaningless colloquialism. Also, frankly, as a Canadian it offends me somewhat that Wikipedia just outright states via this redirect that British Columbia or any part of the Canadian west coast is or could be part of the United States. Ivanvector (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ivanvector, meaningless. As a British person, it is patently obvious that British Columbia belongs to Britain: says so in the name, can we have it back please? But joking aside, if this is WP:OFFENSIVE it should go. I don't see it as offensive myself, but useless and WP:HARMFUL as a mix of Spanish and English. gtrans translates it as Lower Canada but not in those caps: I don't think that's a very good translation, if anything Hudson Bay would seem like a better target. Si Trew (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
No, you can't have it back. Ivanvector (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Damn. You don't happen to know the Queen's phone number do you? We could do a three way call to sort this outm or maybe have a game of poker or something like that. she's fond of the horse racing and I think Goodwood must be coming up soon, so perhaps stick a lump on a nag there, all or nothing and we get British Columbia back. (You can keep Vancouver, awful place). Si Trew (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Wait, your queen or my queen? Ivanvector (talk) 17:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm assuming that this either a play on Baja California or a Jesusland reference. If it's offensive and isn't mentioned in the targeted article, it should definitely be deleted. As an aside, the redirect is mentioned in Baja Oklahoma but I have no idea why. Tavix  Talk  18:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, and not done very well there. Without prejudice, I'll make a See also section for now with that article, but I think that's a bit ridiculous, someone's just been too keen on whacking in references without checking. By the way it never occurred to me is Bayou cognate with Baja? Its article (the first-named) says it is Franco-English, but I might doubt that, the Spanish were not far away and in French the word is baie so I guess they are cognate, but it would seem more likely to me to come from Spanish than French. Si Trew (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


Per WP:RFD#DELETE 3, 8; per WP:LABEL. "The suffix ‑gate suggests the existence of a scandal. Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate), with in-text attribution if in doubt. Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies." I was only able to find the use of the neologism 'macacagate' in [1] [2] [3]. The 3rd is a brief mention in a list of terms ending in 'gate' discussing the impact of the watergate scandal.

Reasons WP:RFD#KEEP criteria don't apply (by number):

  1. Was previously an article, redirected per AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MacacaGate). Most policy-based votes in the AfD were easily supportive of outright deletion, but the closer decided to compromise towards a redirect. (To be clear, I am not contesting the closing) The afd was over 8 years ago, but the last time the target article even briefly mentioned the macaca incident was in 2008. +States+Senate+election+in+Virginia%2C+2006&text=macaca. The only WP articles describing the incident appear to be macaca (term) and George Allen.
  2. The term is rarely used for the brief controversy in non-self-published sources. The only links to it are in the above mentioned AfD and another AfD occurring at the same time Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macaca (slur). The redirect has only 75 views in the last 90 days ([4]), 2-3 of which were me. Disclaimer: Before making this RfD I did remove one of the links (I changed the link in Sepia Mutiny per WP:LABEL), this is also likely where a decent amount of the traffic came from.
  3. See #2.
  4. This might be what kills this RfD. But, as I explained in 2, the only links to this redirect are 2 AfDs 8 years ago and logs where they're transcluded, and a brief mention in the talk page archive here Talk:George_Felix_Allen/Archive_2 by a confirmed sockpuppet blocked indefinitely (with the username Maca and Macaca, suggesting single-purpose account). (also note the disclaimer listed in 2).
  5. Based on the traffic stats I listed in 2, it's difficult to believe this is found useful by any significant population.
  6. Doesn't apply. ― Padenton|   16:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Weak keep'. @Padenton: I think reason 4 is what kills your RFD, that it has been around for a long time (8 years) and we don't know what incoming links might be to this, but it does no harm. My first two ghits actually have Macaca-gate with the hyphen, which we don't have. However, extremely well reasoned and I take my hat off to you for that and will happily change my vote if others agree. Si Trew (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Nah, soddit, Padenton done all the work, Padenton knows what (s)he's talking about, Padenton has gone through every means to try to get it deleted, so I think this should be Deleted on trust. Padenton has put a lot of effort into this. Si Trew (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete due to the fact that it isn't even mentioned at the target article and the fact that it is potentially harmful. Tavix  Talk  02:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Rakesh Jain CEO Reliance General Insurance[edit]

Words fail me. Just "NO!" Surely that is sufficient? Fiddle Faddle 15:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete per nom, but isn't there a speedy for unlikely redirects? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not exactly a typo. Your mileage may vary Fiddle Faddle 16:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete. WP:PROMO and unnecessary disambiguation. Rakesh Jain, a different fellow, hatnotes over to the target at the top of its article, so there is no need for this. You can try taking it to WP:CSD but I do that sometimes and rarely succeed. I'm assuming (just from the point of view of RfD) that it's established which one is WP:PRIMARY, but that would be an argument for their two talk pages, and something beyond our jurisdiction here. Si Trew (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete no one would think to type that.-- (talk) 04:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Intentional Flooding in Manitoba[edit]

Unlikely typo, possible negative connotation. I'm not claiming to be too familiar with the event, but everything I read (and the current revision of the target article) indicate that it was a necessary call to prevent more catastrophic damage. Maybe it's just me, but the redirect seems more likely to imply some conspiracy where the government did it for no justifiable reason. The redirect's been viewed 6 times in the last 30 days [5] (12 in the last 90). 1 of those was me. So it's unlikely to actually be linked from anywhere or useful. I found it through the autocomplete in the search bar, which also indicated that there were few pages beginning with 'intentional', and these types of decisions are made often in disasters, so there also doesn't seem to be precedent for a redirect as such. ― Padenton|   15:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong delete - conspiracy nutter nonsense. This was a 300-year rainfall event; at some point a decision was made for a controlled breach to direct flow into another river's watershed so as to prevent an uncontrolled breech in a more densely populated area downstream. That is a pretty normal disaster scenario: mitigating damage in a planned and controlled fashion in order to prevent much greater damage. Saying that the river was "intentionally flooded" implies a conspiracy to destroy property by the government or some other shadow organization for no apparent reason, and such implication has no place on Wikipedia. Ivanvector (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, with Ivanvector. Never heard of it myself but where I lived in Cambridgeshire, in The Fens, there was lots of intentional flooding (blame Cornelius Vermuyden bloody foreigner, even South Cambridgeshire District Council's motto is in Dutch, Niet zonder arbeit, Nothing without work, his family's slogan). He came over to England in the 17th century and drained the Fens like they did in the Netherlands, but that "intentional flooding" was to protect land and make it useful, not to destroy it. Where I lived in St Neots there was a nice big area of land that I am sure builders would have loved to grab, next to the River Great Ouse, you'd make a fortune with houses overlooking the river, but was done because that is a tidal river at that point (I know, I have fallen into it!) and all the canals and drains pour into it, and it floods that land, that is intentional flooding (mind your feet), but not harmful. Si Trew (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Kapilavastu (Shakya capital)[edit]

Scholars discuss both, Tilaurakot (Nepal) and Piprahwa (India) as possible locations of the ancient Kapilavastu (Shakya capital). Please see Gautama Buddha/Note 1 and Wikipedia:Gautama Buddha Birthplace sources and quotes for details.

The redirect to Kapilvastu District (Nepal) should be deleted because it violates WP:NPOV. JimRenge (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)/supplemented: JimRenge (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Trivia and Pop Culture References in Family Guy[edit]

Delete as an unhelpful redirect and an implausible search term. Per WP:HTRIVIA, this wouldn't make a good article, so why should it be a redirect? Tavix  Talk  05:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete This is fallout from a "merge into oblivion" a long time back (see here for the last unmerged version if one's tolerance for extreme fancruft is high). There's no trace of the merged material and we don't need to support a long-winded search name for stuff we won't supply anyway. Seyasirt (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tavix makes a good argument, a redirect should be a potential article (of course misspellings/typos excepted) and this won't ever be: it doesn't meet WP:TITLE for example. Si Trew (talk) 03:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete While redirects are not required to meet article's notability standards, I don't see any usefulness of having this redirect. And if Wikipedia policy were to allow this redirect, I'm not sure how we wouldn't allow similar redirects for any TV series that makes frequent pop culture references, and it clutters up the autocomplete list preventing people from finding pages they're looking for. If someone's looking for 'pop culture references in Family Guy', I really feel no remorse about them having to re-enter their search query to go to the Family Guy article ― Padenton|   20:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Polarize People[edit]

This has nothing to do with Linkin Park. It looks like someone tried guessing at an album title in 2011. Tavix  Talk  05:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all I got are news where the band said that their future album will polarize people. As for the redirect itself, I thought that it would be a good redirect (as antonym) to Peacemaking but that might a bit of a stretch. --Lenticel (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I said initially Weak retarget to Polish people but I don't really know how likely that is. The expression "to polarize people", I hear quite a lot, i.e. to try to swing their opinion, but I am not sure that would be helpful. We do have Attitude polarization, though, and that might be better. From my point of view as an engineer polarization (a DAB, to which we could also retarget) is to do with electromagnetism, but obviously is not being used in that sense here but a metaphorical sense. This is obviously used differently in the Hard Sciences and the Faculty of Arty Farty Stuff Human Sciences, so perhaps best to take it to the DAB? Si Trew (talk) 03:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • See WP:PTM. Unless something is actually called "Polarize People," it shouldn't be in a disambiguation. Tavix  Talk  18:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Acid Rap (Chance the Rapper album)[edit]

Retarget from 2013 album. Page itself has substantive edit history dating back to 2007, so there is definitely a possible copyright/trademark issue here. I moved the article from its original title Acid rap, which is trademarked by Esham and is linked to from Mastamind, therefore it has more than one encyclopedic use, requiring disambiguation at the very least. Content in its entirety may be subject to copyright investigation to figure out if Chance the Rapper ever received permission to use this title. ITfan1990 (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

"Betray us"[edit]

Delete per the precedent set at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 7#"Richard Rossiter". It's an implausible redirect because it's enclosed in quotes. Tavix |  Talk  04:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per precedent.--Lenticel (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as a confusing generic redirect. Quotation marks might also cause searching issues.--Lenticel (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Augh, I just argued at WP:VPP that we don't make "precedent" arguments here, now you've made a fool of me. :( Delete because this phrase is an overly-generic partial title match for the topic (should be "General Betray Us", "betray us" could have multiple targets), and also because the quotes are irrelevant. Ivanvector (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay I deleted my original reason. I don't want other editors to look down on you just because of me :) --Lenticel (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete oooo I remember this controversy...absolutely disgraceful. Anyways: yeah, I find it hard to believe any significant number would be searching for it that way. And if they did, how many more redirects do we need for that? Other redirects to consider: "Betray Us", 2007 General Betray Us Controversy, Betray Us, Betray us. First 2 are equally unlikely search queries, last 2 might be worth keeping. ― Padenton|   04:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That was a good find. I added the first one because it is enclosed in quotes just like the one I nominated. I think any of the others would/should have to be nominated separately because the rationale would be different (enough). Tavix  Talk  18:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


Implausible. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete the article has nothing to do with Wikipedia, so it's not useful as a WP:CNR. Tavix |  Talk  04:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't keep - inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. However, I think this probably does have a good project-side target, since we do occasionally IP-block based on geography, I just can't think of what that page is at the moment. Ivanvector (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking more like WP:RANGE but I see now that that's not what the topic of the article is. Probably best to delete. Ivanvector (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

April 22[edit]

¡Oh, Mi Diosa![edit]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. This anime is Japanese, not Spanish. Tavix |  Talk  20:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete other than the fact the show aired in the Spain there is no significant connection between Oh My Goddess and Spain to make adding the Spanish name to the English Wikipeida relevant.-- (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete original language is Japanese, not Spanish, and therefore no affinity for the language as the fiction covers Norse goddesses in Japan, neither of which involve Spanish. -- (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete'. Whatever the original language (and I totally believe 65.94) the upside down exclamation mark would be extremely difficult to type on an English keyboard layout, so it seems a very unlikely search term in English WP. Had I would say one hit a week, accrding to the stats, before this discussion opened where it peaked at 4, but that's just cos we all are looking at it. Si Trew (talk) 04:43, 24 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)
  • Keep Right now, we have one article on a person named Şehzade Abdullah. He really was a son of Suleiman I, so the redirect isn't misleading. Once we have an article on another Şehzade Abdullah, it may be appropriate for the base title to be a disambiguation page. --BDD (talk) 19:25, 21 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) 15:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD. If we get an article on another person of this name, then the current target can be moved over this redirect and the plain title converted to a dab page. Until we have such an article though, the status quo is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, but I think if we do, we should create Sehzade Abdullah as an {{R from title without diacritics}}. Si Trew (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Didn't a bot used to do that? Maybe it started screwing up. --BDD (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


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 (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Not WP:RS and neither are any of the others I found. 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)
  • It's now mentioned at the target article, though just once and obliquely. --BDD (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That's an outbound mention, not inbound mention, i.e. it is the place where one would either links to somewhere containing info on HGFS or adds a footnote explaining what it is. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:49, 23 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) 15:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Lisa, in fact, there IS another (small) part of information when searched anywhere in the right way: MINIX 3. That's the information I found before I did this edit. -- Juergen (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Congratulations, you found another outbound mention! Still worthless. Outbound mentions beckon information; they don't give. The more you haggle, the more it is obvious that there is no info whatsoever on this subject in Wikipedia. Hence, there should be no redirect. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a bit weird, whenever I try to edit this section I get the previous section, has something gone wrong with the back end? Anyway, I would say Retarget to Ubuntu. Not entirely happy with that as it seems a bit WP:PROMO (but not very), but that seems what the most likely search term is. Si Trew (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
@Si Trew: Please double check your link's target. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:05, 24 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. (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. (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not just one example. It's on every coin, so there are millions of examples: D. G. REG ELZ II F. D. By the grace of god, Elizabeth the second, defiender of the faith. It is the same roughly speaking in Canada (by the way you can use in a Toronto parking meter a British tenpenny for a Canadian quarter but whether it is worth it depends on the exchange rate). Si Trew (talk) 19:31, 22 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete The variety of suggested targets demonstrates that no matter where this is pointed, someone is going to get a surprise. Seyasirt (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Seyasirt. This seems like it is more harmful than it's worth, and it looks like an unlikely search term as well... Tavix  Talk  17:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. Let the search engine do it. I'm not striking my !vote before the relisting because that seems like cheating to me, to alter the past, but take it as struck. Si Trew (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Kinky boots (boot)[edit]

Redirect that was created over a year ago due to a move that was made against consensus. Don't see any possible value in having a disambiguation term identical to the term in the page title. Safiel (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment. It makes no sense at all. "Kinky Boots (boot)", sure, for footwear Kinky boots is fine and is WP:PRIMARY but not for the disambiguation. For the disambiguation, the parentheses, Retarget it to Kinky boots (disambiguation). No point deleting it as it might have incoming links, but no point ending it there either. Si Trew (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment: It doesn't have any incoming links. Boot Blues (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
And how do you know that? It may not have any internal link, but could have external links that aren't recorded. Stats show it had about 40 hits a day until the start of April, which is quite good for a redirect, though they are tailing of now. Si Trew (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Do an anchor search on your favourite search engine. Boot Blues (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
As for the hits, they were likely because many links were piped through this redirect, but they are cleared out since then. Boot Blues (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as typical {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Were the target article ever to lose primary topic status, it would have this title or Kinky boots (footwear), judging by current disambiguators used in Category:Boots. --BDD (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per BDD. If I were looking for the article on the footwear I would probably look for it at this title (or Kinky boots (boots)) as even without looking at the dab page I know there is at least one song by this title and I don't know which is primary. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
But wouldn't you look at the DAB page I wear steel toecaps every day so I am good at winning an argument, but are we going to add every kind of footwear to a DAB? WP:IRL, never kicked anyone with them, I don't add insult to injury. I am probably the most gentle person in the world: my three rules of living are don't hit, don't lie, dont cheat.But being nearly 2 metres tall and built like a brick shithouse probably also helps me to avoid confrontation in that way. Si Trew (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
My point is that if I am searching for a topic I know or suspect to be both ambiguous and not the primary topic I will attempt to find it using a disambiguator so I don't have to go via the dab page - in this case "(boot)" or "(boots)" are the ones I'd likely try first. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I see your point and I do the same, but I think that very much depends on what search engine you use and whether you have the Wikipedia search plugins installed in your browser. Surely one of the aims of redirects is that people do not have to guess. You and I can do it because we are old hands and know the conventions: others wouldn't. Even so, I would never think of disambiguating by sticking in "(boot)" and we don't have (I haven't checked yet) Kinky boots (footwear) which would seem the more encyclopaedic disambiguation. Si Trew (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm a liar, as you see, we do have Kinky boots (footwear)Kinky boots (same target) . Will cast around for others, Kinky boots (shoes) is red, but Kinky bootKinky boots? which kinda makes sense as {{R from singular}} but who ever buys one boot, except my aunt who had a leg amputated (fortunately it was her right one, and in the UK the shoe shops leave the left boot outside so you can try it on before buying the pair, so she never had to pay for a pair of boots again, God bless her). Si Trew (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Kink boots (footwear) makes sense, even kinky boots (boots) could make some sense, but I couldn't imagine anyone would seach for kinky boots (boot). Boot Blues (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, there is already a redirect at Kinky boots (footwear), this (boot) disambiguation term is unnecessary and illogical. Noone will search for it that way.
  • Delete It is an amalgamation of natural disambiguation and parenthetical disambiguation. I did read comments by BDD and Thryduulf but they seemed like strained pretexts as opposed to actual arguments. It isn't the first time I see people trying to save a redirect at all costs. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
It's silly looking, and I wouldn't try to save this "at all costs". But there are good, solid reasons for redirects from unnecessary disambiguation. There are certain topics which will reasonably never lose WP:PRIMARYTOPIC—George Washington, say. But with many subjects, those lines can shift over time, and the ability to link to current primary topics with unnecessary disambiguation saves the hassle of cleanup if the topics move in the future. I see no such timelessness to "kinky boots". --BDD (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with everything between "there are good, solid reasons from [...]" to "[...] topics move in the future". But I cannot conceive a plausibly out-of-ordinary prospect of usurpation for this title. Can you? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, very easily. If the song, or a cover version of it, is (re)released, used in a blockbuster movie, etc. and becomes a significant hit then it is distinctly possible for it to become the primary topic here. This is not about saving a redirect at all costs, it's about requiring a positive reason to delete something - i.e. the redirect stays unless it is harmful for some reason - and nobody has yet articulated any reason why it is. Thryduulf (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Maybe, but it's not likely, and if so, it's not likely this would be the disambiguation term. A disambiguation term should preferably be a more generic term, not a part of the word itself. This redirect has one of the steangest disambiguation terms ever and is estetically unpleasing, thus harmful IMHO. Boot Blues (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

April 21[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 for two reasons: 1. An article specifically about the given name "Randi" has been created here. 2. This discussion has devolved into a requested move of Randi (disambiguation)Randi, and those discussions should take place at WP:RM, not here. I have no prejudice against that discussion being created there. (non-admin closure) Tavix |  Talk  21:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

We may need to delete or modify this redirect in light of this development (Doesn't seem to be a hoax or joke). Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep unless the article for this "development" can be referenced during the course of this discussion. Doing anything preemptively without an article or subject in a section of an article is similar to WP:CRYSTALBALL. Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I wasn't proposing immediate deletion or other urgent action, I added this to the list because it may become a problem in the near future. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ceannlann gorm: I clearly understood your nomination. However, in practice, redirects are supposed to direct readers to what existing article they are trying to locate. Until something gets added to Wikipedia in "article form" about this subject, trying to change this redirect or start a discussion at the present time about the possible future need to change the redirect is a bit premature (since no new outcome would be able to be established in the usual 7-day period which RfDs run due to no new targets existing.) I'd say that this discussion would best be reinitiated once the article for the subject referenced in the nomination is created. (In the meantime, it may be advisable to check out WP:PRIMARYTOPIC prior to another discussion happening to see if the discussion is necessary.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep (Status Quo): In light of the points raised, I would like to withdraw the nomination for now, if possible. Thanks. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have taken WP:BOLD and done what 65.94 said, which seems like the obvious solution: just after I closed it. It was not technically an {{ec}} but I would not have closed it had I seen 65.94's comment before: so I just wanted to comee, as my usual clean hands doctrine, to let you know that. But it seems like the best solution. Si Trew (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I reopened the discussion. This is a good faith discussion that should not be speedily closed, per WP:WITHDRAWN. We should try to reach consensus on the correct target. - Eureka Lott 14:09, 22 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.

Wii arcade[edit]

Given that this is not an official term for its target (specifically the section at Virtual Console#Wii), and the fact that this redirect once targeted WiiCade, it may be best if this redirect is deleted so that readers can decide for themselves where they want to go if they look up this term. Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Vc games[edit]

Given that VC seems to be a bit of an ambiguous term, there's the potential that the reader could be WP:ASTONISH-ed when they arrive at this redirect's target. The phrase is not in the target article as an official name, and this could cause confusion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom -- (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Video console would seem equally likely, so we could DAB it somehow (or hatnote) but I am not sure that would be any better than letting the search engine do it. Si Trew (talk) 07:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Am I mistaken as that is red. Weren't thinks like the Atari 2600 called "video consoles"? Si Trew (talk) 07:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to DAB at VCS. I think I am mistaken but we do have VCS as a DAB, for which the first section is "In Gaming", and its first entry is for the Atari VCS and the second for Video Computer SystemAtari 2600. Declaration of interest: I programmed Atari 8-bits as a hobby for many years. Si Trew (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment Virtual Console is not at that DAB but I'll add it if we have consensus here. Si Trew (talk) 08:02, 22 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)
  • Convert to soft redirect I tried to describe treatment of pages like this the other day at WP:RFDO#From userspace. For my part, if Thefierydutch1212 showed up and said, "Yes, I want this to remain as is," I would agree to that. He or she hasn't edited in over five years, however, so that's unlikely. In the meantime, this redirect would confuse or mislead those who stumble across it, though I grant that that number might be rather low. Converting it to a soft redirect, IMO, preserves the user's intent at least somewhat without ASTONISHing others.
Regardless, if this is going to be a soft or hard redirect, Nike, Inc. should be the target rather than the current dab Nike. This page became an article, Nike Quickstrike, which was redirected (not merged) to the Nike page, which occupied the base title at the time. The Quickstrike isn't mentioned in the Nike article, and was thus brought up at RfD in 2012. It resulted in no consensus based on an editor's opinion that a merge should take place. That seems questionable to me, but perhaps we should resolve this case before looking at Quickstrike again in earnest. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 21 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) 19:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Who's Earnest, and why should we put it in him? Si Trew (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It's important that you stay on topic. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Hahaha, nicely done. That was just a joke of course, but I don't see the harm in sticking in a joke every now and again. I do try to stay on-topic, but sometimes I ramble because it gives others (and myself) kinda lateral thinking and every now and again, not often, we come up with a completely new but perfectly right retarget or something that will help our readers. I'm not saying in this case, of course, but every now and again, maybe 5% of the time. Si Trew (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
...You rang? Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:RFD#D2 nonsense: What would 1-800-00PS-JEW look like? I do appreciate this programme is satirical, and very funny, and no offence was actually meant to the Jewish community, but I think this harmful from the pont of view of an encylopaedia. It's not mentioned at the target. Si Trew (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not nonsense, it is a variant on the toll-free phone numbers used in North America, traditionally, 1-800, but lately 1-888 due to exhaustion of 1-800 numbers, therefore a very likely term. And as the segment prominently pronounces it as "OOPS" and not "zero-zero-PS", that's a likely spelling. The phone number 1-888-OOPS-JEW is covered in the Recurring_segments_on_The_Colbert_Report#Atone_Phone section. -- (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right, and stats (for the redirect) show it gets one hit a day at least, sometimes two or three, so Keep as useful. Wrong, but useful. Si Trew (talk) 07:41, 23 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)

    • I didn’t know about that language. Google does not reveal any non-Wikipedia results for “శ్రీ లంక మాతా” or “శ్రీలంక మాతా”, so I am not sure this even is valid Telugu. Gorobay (talk) 15:05, 20 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 after it jumps through a redirect. Perhaps we should do a cross-namespace redirect? Si Trew (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
You are forgetting the last word, “మాతా”. Gorobay (talk) 15:05, 20 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) 18:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Gorobay: yes but when I checked, it may have changed, the full title te:శ్రీ లంక మాతా was a redirect to the shorter title I gave above. I think it still is, but it Telegu Wikpedia does not say so. (and te:ప్రస్తుతం ఈ పేజీ ఖాళీగా ఉంది is even longer). Si Trew (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are getting at. Neither of those pages exists. Moreover, it doesn’t matter whether they exist if Telugu is not especially relevant to this topic. Gorobay (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Was just doing research. They exist at Telegu Wikipedia and appear blue to me, I am not saying that they exist at English Wikipedia (or should), just whether this is [[tlx|R from incorrect name}} as well as {{R from foreign}}? But without a Telegu speaker I don't know how we would discern that. Si Trew (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • delete as foreign script redirect. Seyasirt (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as potentially misleading since we can't verify if this is indeed an actual native name of the target article. --Lenticel (talk) 05:35, 26 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)
  • Waadi Animations is mentioned at the target page. Regardless of who "gets credit" for creating an article on it, the question we should be asking here is whether Waadi's connection to ARY is significant enough that this redirect is helpful. It may be replaced by an article at any point. I encourage you to think of readers first, your own recognition second. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 20 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) 18:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
What's the business about getting credit. I can quote from The Hangover in Question (a parody of Body in Question) by Alan Coren that it says in second para "Thenceforth shall thy mouth be as a wadi, and thine eyeballs as twin coals, and the fruits if thy loins go about on all fours, even unto the tenth generation". And I can do that without even looking it up. Wendy Cope] has a nice poem, "Ten Green Bottles, Put em in the bank, Ten green bottles, what a lot we drank, and with ten green bottles, then yesterday's a blank" I forget the rest. Si Trew (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


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 [7], [8], [9], [10], 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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Don Quijote Project[edit]

I can't figure out what this is supposed to refer to. No mention at the target page (now or when the redirects were created), no relevant history, no clear results from Google. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete I mainly found various school projects that students did about the book. They are NN and redirecting these titles to anywhere may generate WP:SURPRISE. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Depending on your teacher, in English you may pronounce it "key hot" or "quick sote", but you would never spell it with a J. WP:NOTENGLISH. quixotic is a DAB, and apparently we hace quixotism, a word I have never heard. Poor old Miguel de Cervantes must be turning in his grave. Si Trew (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above or Weak retarget to Don Quijote (spacecraft) which is technically speaking, a proposed project. --Lenticel (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to Don Quijote (spacecraft), per User:Lenticel who is right as always.Si Trew (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually I only read it in Catalan never read it in English. I have hidden shallows. Over at hu:Don Quijote we have it thus, and es:Don Quijote is a bluelink that is an R to es:Don Quijote de la Mancha. Can't find anything in Catalan, but we also have Don Quijote (store) in EN:WP, with apparently 160 stores in Japan and three in Hawaii (they're back again). Si Trew (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

John Kennely[edit]

Non-notable pervert from the To Catch a Predator series. The redirect should be deleted per WP:BLP as he isn't mentioned or sourced in the article. Tavix |  Talk  16:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • What a WP:SURPRISE! You search for a predator, and you get a president! (sarcasm) Tavix |  Talk  03:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
So you're suggeting the two are different things? (cynicism) Si Trew (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Heck, even I'm laughing at these comments. (But, I'll keep this vote here.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, he was by far one of the strangest cases on the show but unusual ≠ notable. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was leaning towards redirecting to JFK, but L and D are a hell of a long way away, so it seems a very unlikely typo. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • D and L are close by on Colemak and adjacent on JCUKEN and BÉPO keyboard layouts. In other news, Colemak, JCUKEN, and BÉPO keyboard layouts exist. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I bow to your better knowledge, was unaware of those layouts. ColemakKeyboard layout#Colemak, it still seems quite a distance to me but I touch type so would not be using the same fingers and would not miss in that way. JCUKEN I think is irrelevant as that's a Cyrillic layout. BÉPO also → Keyboard layout#BÉPO, and indeed on that one they are adjacent. So weak keep. Si Trew (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
So you want to weakly keep John Kennely at To Catch a Predator because it is a plausible typo to John Kennedy on a few obscure keyboard layouts? Tavix  Talk  17:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Giordano Orsini (Senatore 1241)[edit]

Procedural nomination of a WP:PRODded redirect by Alessandro57. The rationale was: "error in date." Tavix |  Talk  16:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Lisa Falkenberg[edit]

This redirect should be blanked because the target has no content about the redirect subject TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment. I'll take this to CSD as WP:BLP but with little hope of success. Si Trew (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Fusion–fission hybrid reactor[edit]

Appears to have a ndash, non-ndash version exists Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I do not understand your proposal. Are you saying the redirect should be deleted because the spelling with ndash is an "unlikely search term"? I do not find this sufficient reason to delete a redirect which is otherwise perfectly correct and does no harm. I even think "Fusion–fission hybrid reactor" would be the preferable title: it should either be "hybrid fusion-fission" or "Fusion-fission hybrid reactor", but "Fusion–fission hybrid" is nonsense (hybrid is an adjective and refers either to reactor or to fusion-fission. The expression "fusion-fission hybrid" makes hybrid a noun, but there is no such thing as "a fusion-fission hybrid"). --dab (𒁳) 13:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep differences in dashes are an excellent reason for redirects, which sort to use where is often either not known or not remembered. Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Mark as {{R from alternative punctuation}} if sensible to do so, but the WP:Manual of Style mandates en dashes so it does not seem unreasonable to use them in titles, to me. I don't know how one would type it, but others do frequently, in article I see all the time (I write – because that' just quicker for me) so I don't think it at all unreasonable. Si Trew (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep variations on dashes should all have redirects -- (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Just so I understand this: our policy is to include every possible variation of punctuation, spelling mistake, dashes, etc. because someone might type them in, no matter how unlikely (or impossible) and that the system will find the correct article anyway? We admonish editors to remove trivia from their articles, and then support useless cruft like this? I am flabbergasted. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  • @Maury Markowitz: No, that isn't correct. We only keep plausible variations because they are useful as a navigation aid and are generally harmless. This is different from articles because people aren't going to be reading the typos, but the can still make them when searching for the article. For more information, see WP:RTYPO (which isn't a policy, but it's more or less what we do.) Tavix |  Talk  15:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd back up what Tavix said. It's not that it is right but that it's written. Sometimes we get a WP:SURPRISE that an unlikely misnomer (coming as a virgin) actually gets a lot of hits: but this isn't one of them: the stats are 0 until this discussion started, but I found one the other day where to my surprise there were about 40 a day, even though initially I think I !voted to delete it (and changed my mind). Si Trew (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hybrid Nuclear Fusion[edit]

non camel cased version already exists, and I can find no reason to have two Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is not actually camelcase (that would be HybridNuclearFusion) but just a standard other capitalisation redirect. We keep those unless they are in the way of something else as many methods of searching and browsing Wikipedia are case sensitive. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Does no harm, sends people where they are likely to want to go. Si Trew (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep this uses standard title case ; what titles normally look like when it's not Wikipedia -- (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is such a thing as Standard title case (we do have Title case}, but not lettercase butletter case: we have majiscule and minuscule and i imagine but have not checked Miniscule as an {{R from misspelling}}). since I think it varies very much between publications, and their own editing style, but we have WP:STYLE to say how we write it here, and this is WP:SNOWBALL surely. 11:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Plausible title variant. --Lenticel (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Nessie the Dragon[edit]

redirect without mention in article or assertion of why/what. Seems a ringtone of no encyclopaedic merit. Widefox; talk 10:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


Apparently this is the Japanese Romanization of "American football." As such, it should be deleted per WP:RFOREIGN. Tavix |  Talk  04:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. No affinity for this language by this topic, which is a native English-language topic, therefore not having affinity for any language other than English -- (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RfD#D2 makes no sense: I explain why. Wiktionary has it and perhaps we could do something about that, but I think its definition, which is a stub, is all in katakana, which is used for foreign words. But since this is a word only in Japanese and not in English it is a native word, so should be in kanji not katakana, and this is a back translation: it don't exist in English, (yet). It says it is "Romanization" (Romaji) → Romanization of Japanese, but it is not, it is Katakana. Trust me learned a bit, not much, of Japanese at university. Nihon-go benykyo UMIST-daigaku shimasu'. Si Trew (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
@Tavix: That's true, this redirect patently is a romanization. THe odd thing is, at Wiktionary, it is not romanized(at the target) but in katakana, which is used for foreign words in Japan. My problem is that it's not a foreign word, but a Japanese neologism/translation, so it doesn't belong in English Wikipedia at all in my opInion. I'll mark it {{R from foreign}} if not already done, without prejudice to this discussion, of course. Si Trew (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Flood lyrics[edit]

Delete for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 19#Flood chords. Wikipedia can't be a lyrics site due to WP:COPYVIO which makes this redirect unhelpful. Tavix |  Talk  04:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • delete per nominator. Unlike the chord redirect, there is no ambiguity over what this is about and it is clear that we do not have any appropriate content for this search so it is misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTLYRICS. Ivanvector (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Proof that Nazis deliberately killed six million Jews[edit]

This was created as an essay, but was quickly redirected. I don't think this is a good target for this redirect as it is kind of the opposite of denying the Holocaust. Frankly, I don't think this is useful anywhere and should be deleted per WP:RFD#D5 as it makes no sense. Tavix |  Talk  04:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, WP:POV, not to mention that it's a pretty specific search term that isn't likely to be used. While it's pretty clear that the Nazis performed the Holocaust, this was probably created out of (understandable) spite for the target. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is an entirely inappropriate name for a redirect. It does not match any of the purposes of redirects. Zerotalk 10:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - horribly POV. Should have been deleted in the first place, not redirected. Ivanvector (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. A bit too specific and the target doesn't contain the proof anyways. --Lenticel (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. If someone wants to search this way, they can do so by using the search engine. Nuremberg Trials could just possibly be a retarget, but that is a legal proof and not an everyday what people believe proof. Si Trew (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Now I shall probably be told off for saying everyday instead of every day (i.e. diurnal), even though it is correct. I love it when people correct my English. I am English and learned to speak it from quite an early age. It's not my fault that on the front of shops it says "open everyday" when it should say "open every day", that is just reality. Si Trew (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Penn Leads the Vote[edit]

Delete for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 28#Lead the vote. This seems to be a student-run voting initiative at the University of Pennsylvania. There is no reference to it at that target, however, and therefore should be deleted as unhelpful and confusing. Tavix |  Talk  03:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete per Tavix and the previous discussion. I bet there are many others, an active campus it seems, which is good, but not Wikipedian. Si Trew (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per precedent. I think this is a case of WP:NOBLE --Lenticel (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think you have hit the nail on the thumb there, @Lenticel:. Si Trew (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hot ham water[edit]

Appears to be a joke. "Hot ham water" seems to be humorously associated with the target in a show called Arrested Development. Not mentioned in article. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment, Could this possibly be a lake or river in the UK or US for which this is blocking? My first thought it was kinda a jokey stereotype of a Chinese person trying to say Tottenham Water, but I don't think there's any rivercourse there they would say so (although I think the River Fleet does run through there). Si Trew (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete target is not about pork soup, pork broth, pork bouillon -- (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, I was wondering if it could go to Gammon (meat), which is often boiled (sometimes roasted of course). Si Trew (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as misleading. The closest target that I got is broth. --Lenticel (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Inclining to delete, but what about Pork butcherCharcuterie? Just casting around in my usual way. Si Trew (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

April 20[edit]


In honor of 4/20, I'm nominating this redirect. This is the binary form of the word and the only real use I've found for it is an Urban Dictionary reference. It's not mentioned in the article and I don't really think it's helpful. WP:NOTURBANDICTIONARY applies here (and maybe WP:RFOREIGN if you consider binary a foreign language??) Tavix |  Talk  21:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, anyone searching this probably already knows the slang number it means in base-10, and would be able to search using the simpler of the two numbers. This wouldn't reasonably help anyone locate the target; it has a low potential of actually being used. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. and MH. Jeh (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:RFD#D2 nonsense. Nobody will ever search this way. I checked, we don't have it in British date order (i.e. 10100:100). Si Trew (talk) 12:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Harsh, dude. Ivanvector (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


This R's to DAB don't know why, the top entry is for Electronic point of sale but on the DAB is piped to Point of Sale.(WP:DABPIPE: you don't pipe on a DAB). This is going round the houses rather. Si Trew (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep both as perfectly reasonable redirects. No valid rationale for deletion has been offered. - Eureka Lott 23:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep both, nothing wrong with them... Tavix |  Talk  03:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I didn't suggest it were deleted, but if you run through them, you find there are far too many redirects than necessary and I was asking for why that is. WP:DABPIPE for one. Perhaps I should just have been WP:BOLD and fixed it, but sometimes I am meek and ask for others' opinions. i am not suggesting they are deleted but that we re-route them in a more sensible way. Si Trew (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • keep "EPOS" is a variation on "epos" so is a perfectly valid redirect from shouting-out-loud form. "Electronic point of sale" are covered at "point of sale"; since the nomination is about deleting redirects and the nomination does not involve the page "epos" in particular, discussion of the dab page entries is outside the scope of this nomination as it is nominated. I would say that the page "epos" would itself need to be tagged and only that page, were we to be discussing its entries in particular. -- (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
But don't you think they should go to the same place? I think I know what you mean about WP:SHOUTING but acronyms typically are all caps and not regarded thus. Specifically I did not suggest they were deleted, only that they were discussed: This is "Redirects for Discussion'", not "Deletion". Show me where I said that they should be deleted. Si Trew (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Your nomination seems to be about a discussion on how to rewrite the dab page, thus my reply. As there are multiple EPOS abbreviations at epos, it's still a good target as an abbreviated form. -- (talk) 06:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Si's point about going to the same place would be valid if electronic point of sale were thought to be a primary topic for the acronym EPOS. I don't believe that it is, thus redirecting the acronym to the dab page is better. Ivanvector (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


Delete as implausible typo. Jeh (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it is plausible. Lauren at] seems to think so. Wrong but plausible. Without prejudice, I shall mark it in the meantime as {{R from incorrect spelling}}. Si Trew (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
(Yeah, there's a RS for you. Lauren also apparently thinks that "don't" does not need an apostrophe.) I think it is ridiculous. I think (based on other comments the creator has made) that it was created to fix an autocorrect error made by the creator's mobile device. Redirects are not supposed to exist for one user's convenience. Jeh (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate that sentiment, and at school I would have been slapped over the head with the Concise Oxford Dictionary if I misspelled a word, but the fact is it exists: what we have to decide, is what to do with it? Just because something is wrong does not mean it is not useful. Si Trew (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
And why should "Don't" need an apostrophe: I'm a big believer in banning the apostrophe, and I am not alone: I forget wheter it is the Independent or the Guardian that decided to abandon them. It was introduced in the 18th century essentially as a printer's mark, and at first only on plurals, to distinguish one St James from two St james's etc. You have picked the wrong man, I feel. Si Trew (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
(As bit by infinitesimal bit, we decide that accuracy and precision in language do not matter, because they're just "too hard" for some people. Or something. Have you seen the movie Idiocracy?) Because "dont" isn't a word. btw I find no evidence that either the Guardian or the Independent have "abandoned" apostrophes. Here is the Guardian's style guide, which says "Don't let anyone tell you that apostrophes don't matter and we would be better off without them." Got a ref for the Independent? (btw: "whether") Jeh (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I am a great respecter of the English language and have a bookshelf full of, er, books about it. But the fact is that people make mistakes and our job is to help them find what they are looking for not to act as a stern headmaster slapping on the wrist for misspelling something: the days of prescriptive grammar are long past, and most if not all lexicographers would call themselves descriptive grammarians in that the describe what people actually do rather than dictate to them like the Academie francaise (haven't the cedilla on this KB, sorry).
In any case, English is an extremely fluid language that is constantly evolving. Perhaps I am wrong about the Indie abandoning the appostrophe, but I think at least one editor mooted it. Perhaps I was thinking of this article about Birmingham City Council in that paper, that Brum abandoned the apostrophe on street signs:
If you think about it, we don't use apostrophes in speech (unless we are Victor Borge, so really they are unnecesasry. That's my stance, anyway. As you can see from the last sentence, I continue to use them (and correctly) but I am kinda a campaigner for their abolishment. How does "The cat's whiskers" differ from "That cat is yours", with no apostrophe? Why not "your's"?
Sorry for the misspellings, the keyboard on this little laptop is far too small for my fat fingers,and the one on the BlackBerry is even worse for me, but I do know how to spell. Everyone can make a typo. Or should I say "Yes" instead of "Yeah"? It depends how formally one is speaking, surely. Si Trew (talk)
  • Keep and tag {{R from misspelling}} - plausible, based on search results. This is not a commentary on the sanctity of the English language, it just aids search results for what people are actually likely to type. It is what it is. Si, have you considered buying a full-size USB keyboard to plug in to your laptop? I had to do that for an old 7" netbook I was handed down a few years back. Ivanvector (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete highly implausible. Wikipedia should not cater to people who don't know how to spell "without". BMK (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Olee Starstone[edit]

This Star Wars character isn't prominent, and thus would never reasonably be listed at the target article. The lowercase variant is the last junk redirect to Star Wars I came across. --BDD (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


I'm listing this batch of trivial Star Wars figures separately because each of them is mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia, so there are possibilities for retargeting. They're still trivial enough that I'd recommend deleting them.

Ottarious is mentioned at List of Star Wars species (F–J)#Gorith and Tallisibeth is mentioned at Yoda: Dark Rendezvous or Star Wars Imperial Commando: 501st. The Teljkon Vagabond is mentioned at C-3PO but apparently features in one of the novels in the Black Fleet Crisis trilogy. --`BDD (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • REtarget Ottarious to the species page. Vagabond should redirect to the novel trilogy, if we kept it. Undecided about Tallisberth. -- (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
We'd want to mention Vagabond at that page, then. Such a redirect could easily be deleted at RfD on its own. --BDD (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars: Databank[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. Easy retarget. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If we can demonstrate the notability of something like Memory Alpha, I suspect we could do it with this too. Delete per WP:REDLINK and/or because it isn't mentioned at the target article. BDD (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Not sure how I missed that in my searching. I was searching for a lot of terms and may have overlooked this one. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 20 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.

Star Wars Toys[edit]

Believe it or not, toys aren't mentioned at all on the target page. I would've thought this subject would be discussed somewhere, but it appears not to be. BDD (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It would probably be a better candidate for more of an overview-type article. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. --Lenticel (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Wow merchandising is such a big part of Star Wars and their profitability and the rise of George Lucas, it seems to be a big missing issue concerning our coverage of Star Wars. It is one of the most prominent business cases for Star Wars' viability. It would seem we need to slap a big {{incomplete}} on the Star Wars article. -- (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Lumas Etima[edit]

There are a good number lingering redirects from very minor figures in the Star Wars Expanded Universe that simply point to the Star Wars article. This batch of them aren't mentioned there or anywhere else, and are too specialized to probably ever merit coverage here. --BDD (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Del "Quantum Armor" that kind of stuff is spread throughout sci-fi
    • Del "(The) Dark Underlord" that kind of stuff is spread throughout fantasy fiction


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

  • Retarget to Star Wars Customizable Card Game where it is mentioned. This also happens to refer to the original meaning that was why the redirect was created. Holotable is not mentioned at Holography so the reader would be confused as to why they were taken there. Just Chilling (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
    • We don't list every single variant of the names for things on articles, and "holotable"s are types of holographic displays in real life. -- (talk) 04:52, 21 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) 15:26, 20 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) (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Victory Motorcycles; hatnotes unnecessary. All of the rest are partial title matches and disambiguation is not required. Ivanvector (talk) 18:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    • USS Victory is not a PTM, it's a full match, the ship is Victory carrying a prefix USS and a shipnumber NCC-9754. The Star Destroyer is not a PTM either, its a class of Star Destroyer called Victory. -- (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Right, but they're not cruisers. Not by title, at least. Ivanvector (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The USS Victory is a cruiser, the Star Destroyer Victory is a cruiser-class, so, "Victory cruiser" -- (talk) 05:50, 22 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) 15:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I haven't sourced this yet, but in World War II the British were constantly calling things "Victory" (which is why for example in Nineteen Eighty-Four Orwell has "Victory Gin and Victory Cigarettes"). I will try and source that, but it seems plausible for a Cruiser. We do have HMS Victory of course but that is not a cruiser. Si Trew (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Completely oddly, actually it's a charabanc and we have an article GM_PD-4103 where it is explicitly called the "Victory Cruiser". Si Trew (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that's right. I interpret the article as saying that the PD-4103 was redesigned using a front axle based on another kind of vehicle called a "Victory Cruiser", but doesn't actually say what that vehicle is. Ivanvector (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

100-watt head[edit]

Cursory skim on 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 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)
Proving Marshall's significance ≠ proving the competition's insignificance. And yes, it does. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
So you're claiming that this should be deleted, in the presence of a TV program specifically about Marshall's influence here, solely because there are no sources saying, "An unspecified list of modern amplifiers had no impact on rock & roll 50 years earlier"? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say that. I simply said evidence to support one argument does not equate to evidence against another. And if you'll notice, I said earlier I would support retargeting to the specific model that made history this way. At this point I am not arguing so much for deletion, only tha the current target is inappropriate. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I should also point out that I was unaware such a resource existed, but even then, we should try to gather more of them so that we don't risk pushing the POV of a particular source. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete or else redirect to Guitar amplifier. I disagree with the "It was Marshall who created this, Marshall who made the original canonical 100 Watt head" argument. That's like redirecting Immersion blender or Food processor to the first company that happens to have manufactured either of them on the grounds that the ones in my kitchen don't rate their own Wikipedia articles. At least the immersion blender is notable; a 100-watt head, as distinct from a head of any other wattage, is not. There's no point having it at all, but if it's going to be here it should redirect to the next higher topic in the taxonomy it belongs to, which I gather is Guitar amplifier, since someone searching on that term is more likely looking to find out what one is, not information about the company that first marketed one. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:54, 18 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. -- (talk) 03:15, 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) 15:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I wouldn't immediately think of this as being a guitar amp but something to do with a power supply. But I've no great objection to it going there. Si Trew (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Well all amps are power supplies in some sence, since they convert volts into amps or vice versa, that is what an amplifier is, but I am not sure that this very specific link is useful for that. Si Trew (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

United Kingdom leaders debates[edit]

Now that three of the four debates for this election have already taken place, it is a bit ridiculous to have this redirect leading to the old ones. It should either be retargeted to the current debates or converted into an article (i.e. about British election debates in general). The Theosophist (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep. I watched them all. The person who comes out of it worse, in my opinon, is David Cameron, by not being there. I complained to the BBC that they called him the Prime Minister when in fact since he offered his resignation to Her Majesty he is not the Prime Minister or any other minister, because it is the dissolution of parliament, so why they keep calling him the Prime Minister is beyond me.
I seem to recall that once someone put on the voting slip that he was a Literal Democrat and won the seat: it was a deliberate ploy about illiteracy. If you don't vote you cant complain, that's my opinion. Sometimes i make a spoiled vote, but i always vote. People died and fought wars to give us the suffrage, that is respect to them. I already have my postal vote. I'm sorry but it is something I care deeply about. Si Trew (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: I think that you have not understood the nature of my listing. I did not suggest the redirect′s deletion but its retargeting.--The Theosophist (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@The Theosophist: I am not sure where you should like it to be retargeted. It's probably better if we WP:TWODABS somehow or hatnote the two of them United Kingdom general election debates, 2015 and United Kingdom general election debates, 2010 Howecver for now, and I know WP:NOTNEWS but what people would likely search for, is the upcoming general election on May 7, not the one in 2010. What to do? Si Trew (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I could probably WP:RS that but since I don't live in the UK and just waatch TV from abroad, it would all be online RS. But most of the papers now have online versions. Si Trew (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
We do have parliamentary debate but that would seem to me exactly the wrong target. The thing is, even their broadcast is controversial in the UK whereas not in the US where it is customary, so I am not sure quite how I would cover that article. I'll make a draft, after my interview, for your consideration. Si Trew (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage creation of an article about the general topic. Someone looking for information on a particular election season's debates would be better served by search results. Leaving it as a redirect makes it an indeterminate redirect - it's never going to be clear, except possibly when the debates are actually happening, which article a reader is looking for. Ivanvector (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Delete per Ivanvector. Surely the correct title would be United Kingdom leaders' debates, with the apos, anyway. Si Trew (talk) 05:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Exselenc Georg General Waschingdon[edit]

This seems to be the name of a painting? In any case, a redirect from this mangled of a name to George Washington seems implausible to me. Tavix |  Talk 

Comment. The painting, apparently, is in Colonial Williamsburg so we could maybe retarget there, but not sure that is a good idea. I am not sure what language this is but I would guess something Slavic. Si Trew (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Americans don't do honorary titles, and we have His Excellency: George Washington, but that is a biography not the bloke himself. We also have General George WashingtonGeorge Washington., so perhaps this is {{R from other language}}, but I can't identify which language (I've tried hard). Si Trew (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - [11], but I don't know where to target this. Not where it currently targets. Painting is attributed to "The Sussel-Washington Artist" but we don't seem to have an article on that either. Intriguing. Ivanvector (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It's probably not relevant to this discussion, but the painting is an example of Fraktur (folk art). The odd spelling probably reflects its Pennsylvanian German origins, rather than being foreign. --BDD (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@BDD: sorry I had missed your comment when I wrote mine below, I was busy trying to establish the language but you kinda already had and the glory is yours not mine. These things are obvious in retrospect but none of the common identification tools know of it, so it baffled me until i thought of the bleeding obvious. Si Trew (talk) 07:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Nice find. Is it Pennsylvania Dutch(i.e. Pennsylvania German, which somewhat pointlessly is in the infobox but redirects back to itself), "Dutch" being a corruption of "Deutsch") then? That would make sense but doesn't say so at your external link. Si Trew (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
See this for the piece's full title. Another describes it as by an "unknown Pennsylvania artist", so Pennsylvania Dutch seems likely. BMK (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Without prejudice to this discussion, I've marked both as {{R from foreign language|pdc}} in the meantime: but if this is from a painting to a person it makes WP:RFD#D5 no sense doesn't it? Sure, it's a portrait (well a painting is of the person, can you call it a portrait?) but it is not the person, it's a painting. Si Trew (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Top 100 Highest Selling Albums[edit]

Seems an unlikely search term, just redirects to another article with no explanation why. Mdann52 (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Whatever the decision, I think this and the one below should go to the same place. If I remember correctly, it wasn't BARB but some other survey organisation, took the "Top 100" not from the actual retail sales but from the reported retail sails, so if record shops misreported it for whatever reason, fair means or foul, it would incredibly skew the figures: that doesn't happen any more, but note for example that the Advertising Standards Authority is constantly taking the big cosmetics companies to task for having incredibly small samples, they'll have Jennifer Aniston on, with 86% of 123 people agree, which has no statistical significance, especially as the sample is self-selected. Nowadays I think they do it through EPOS till receipts. Si Trew (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Top 100 Albums[edit]

Seems an unlikely search term, just redirects to another article with no explanation why Mdann52 (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to DAB at Top 100. Si Trew (talk) 18:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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, and refined. Incidentally, you could describe me the same way. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete. It is only mentioned in the article in essentially a hatnote so it is self-referential, there is no information about this character. Si Trew (talk) 03:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Nah, we need to make it an {{R to section}} then. Will log in again in a minute but having Internet problems today. (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC) (User:SimonTrew).
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 19[edit]

Template:Diocese oF Agra, Churh of North India[edit]

Please delete this redirect - no need for this cross-namespace redirect. Only used on a user sandbox page, which is incorrectly categorized in article categories. GoingBatty (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


Please delete this redirect - no need for this cross-namespace redirect. Only used on a user sandbox page, which is incorrectly categorized in article categories. GoingBatty (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong delete clearly a harmful redirect. Anyone transcluding this will not end up with a proper translcusion -- (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:CNR and unhelpful. Si Trew (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

List of featured articles[edit]

Unnecessary, hardly used cross-namespace redirect. There was some minimal discussion before creation, but I don't think enough reason was given to create this redirect. Relentlessly (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep The target page is clearly targeted towards readers, and with cross-space redirects, that is what really matters. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Harmless. Si Trew (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Since I created the page I can't comment, but I'll say that although I now use shortcuts (WP:FA) to navigate around the site, before I knew you could use them I would type in list of featured articles to try and reach the page. I feel others do too. Neuroxic (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Neuroxic: so your way of not commenting is by commenting then? :) Of course you are free to comment, but quite right to declare an interest. Si Trew (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Not used ≠ wrong. It's there in case we need it, and if someone's searching for this there is little else they could mean. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

List of Devil Survivor 2: The Animation chapters[edit]

Basic link cleanup. As shown in the page view history, barely anyone searches for this exact article. Most of the current views can probably be attributed to curiosity after it shows up in results when searching for Devil Survivor 2. At the same time, the manga section of Devil Survivor 2: The Animation will never be large (or notable enough to be moved to this page. KirtZJ (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Wallis and Fortuna[edit]

Per WP:R#DELETE criteria 2: it may cause confusion. The name of the place is "Wallis and Futuna" and "Wallis and Fortuna" is simply an error, and not a common one. The only page that linked to it (before I fixed the link) was List of butterflies of Wallis and Futuna, which mistakenly used Fortuna throughout the whole article. This is the problem with having an error like this redirect to the article: editors wont realise they have remembered the name wrong because the link will still work. Liam987 talk 15:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep, plausible error because of the similar pronunciation and the fact that "fortuna" sounds more familiar than "futuna". I see various Google Books and Google News hits for "Wallis and Fortuna". It can be marked as {{r from incorrect name}} so hopefully it can be checked for incoming links. Siuenti (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, I get 450,000 ghits searching for "Wallis and Fortuna." That shows me that it's a common error to make so we should keep it to aid navigation. PS: It should be tagged as an {{R from misspelling}}. Tavix |  Talk  23:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. @Tavix:, I've tagged it thus. I tend to do that as part of the discussion, and say so without prejudice, because if others decide to delete it, then it wasted me 20 seconds to tag it, and I can afford 20 seconds (except in a Taxi): but if we decide to keep it, once it's closed it tends to get forgotten. But your opinion may be different from mine. Si Trew (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Normally I'd just add it myself, but since Siuenti suggested a different one, there wasn't consensus for it (yet). 14:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. By Tavix' and Siuenti's statements, which I take on trust, it is a common error and therefore this is useful. Especially if it has been misspelled in a printed work which would probably be considered WP:RS. People make miksatkes: it's part of being human. Si Trew (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I used this redirect myself a few weeks ago. I'd say {{R from misspelling}} is the better tag as it's not a different name for the subject only a different (incorrect) spelling of the correct one. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm that's a close call @Thryduulf:: We have {{R from other name}} as well. I just thought better tagged as something rather than nothing, but you're the expert on these matters and I'll happily follow you. Si Trew (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thomas James Power[edit]

Delete redirect because the redirect name is incorrect and may cause confusion. Big_iron (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. Wrong and Useful are different things. I'll mark it as {{R from incorrect name}} if it has not been done already, without prejudice to this discussion, as always. Si Trew (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Done. The article was created quite recently (January 2014) and moved from the incorrect name on 17 April 2015, leaving this redirect. I guess the author, @YUL89YYZ:, just got the middle name wrong when writing it: and the edit history says it was moved). It was created by @Ruy costa:, and all in good faith, it is simply a mikstake. Well, we all make miksatkes: Show me a man who never made a mistake and I shall show you a liar. It's possible, since the redirect was only created three days ago, that it goes WP:RFD#D2 recently created redirects, not sure about that. Si Trew (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing. In contrast to Wallis and Fortuna, this one only gives me ~2000 ghits and it looks like most of them refer to other people (e.g. Facebook profiles, an obit of someone who died in 2012, etc.). There is a little correlation, but it looks to be (almost) entirely because of the faulty redirect. Tavix |  Talk  14:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)]] confusion, because the only
  • Delete. That makes sense. As I said, D2, Recently created redirect that has few hits: and also WPRFD#D5 (if I accept Tavix' argument, which I do) for it getting hits is that it was created and shows up on search engines &c. Si Trew (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. As a recently-created redirect that is an implausible misnomer (James and Joseph being completely different names) it's a reasonable case for a WP:CSD#R3 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

When is Christmas[edit]

Delete. I've been going through stackloads of these this morning of "who was" or "when was" and in good faith User:Siuenti created this as something of a test case (law) (as Siuenti politely said on my talk page). I say WP:RFD#D5 but actually it is a cunningly good test case, because it is actually useful and marked as R to section. Si Trew (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Just added the section link into the nom, @Siuenti: I am sure will not mind that. Si Trew (talk)
  • Keep: not sure how many people need telling when Christmas is, but it seems like a good page to have. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually, people do need telling when Christmas is. It is celebrated on different days in different countries and different forms of Christianity: In many European countries, the major celebration is either on 24 December (Christmas Eve) or on 5 December (St Nicholas Day). So it is useful. The reason I say delete is as part of the test case: WP:RFD#D2 recently created redirect with no incoming links. This is very much in the nature of a test case to establish consensus on what we do with this, but @Siuenti: has managed to outwit me by coming up with something useful (I take my hat of to Siuenti). It may have been better to invent something preposterous, like When did the last brontosaur die, I'm not sure: maybe by inventing something useful it muddies the waters. Si Trew (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTFAQ ; this is a FAQ access type redirection . -- (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as harmless and likely useful. WP:NOTFAQ is about article content, not about redirects. Redirects such as this also aid search engines to answer questions that people ask them as well as helping directly. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Tonie Chisholm[edit]

Repeated attempts to recreate this article and make more of this link than it is. Original article "Tonie Chisholm": deleted at AfD and speedily deleted 3 times. The Banner talk 12:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. No reason for it not to exist. Protect it if it keeps on being created as an article, but there's no reason not to have the page for a non-notable person redirect to a page partially about them. Liam987 talk 15:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Seeing the several recreations already, it is more likely to be a distraction: first a redirect, later an article. Buts that has no effect on the colour of the link. The Banner talk 18:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, mentioned at target but not notable enough for an article. Edit-protect to stop article recreation if appropriate. Siuenti (talk) 19:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. We don't delete redirects because we don't want articles, we delete redirects when we do want them (WP:REDLINK). As others have noted, the correct response to inappropriate conversion of a redirect to an article is protection, not deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Color-ish redirects[edit]

Delete all. I have to save it before fixing it because this little laptop its touchpad is very sensitive, and my fingers aren't.. Si Trew (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  • comment what is the reason for deleting them? They are not obviously problematic and you have not given a reason.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing because they're kind of redundant. Whatever they target to is the redirect itself minus a few letters at the very end. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep blackish because it isn't a redirect to black, its target is a song sitcom. Not sure about the others yet Siuenti (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oops yes, sorry about that. Siuenti (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
(Pinging Si Trew to let him know that his nomination moved here.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I am not sure about the other but we should keep the redirect to the sitcom since that is a pleasurable misspelling.-- (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, and thanks to whoever moved it. My rationale for deletion is that these are actually harmful, entries in an encylopaedia should be nouns not adjectives. I don't know if WP:TITLE covers it quite, but we don't want a precedent where anyone can put in "strangeish" or "oddish" and get a redirect: the aim is to countenance creation or maintenance of "-ish" words, which although used in vivid speech, are not very encylopaedic. We have ish as a DAB but does not really link to an article on the suffix, we do not have -ish. Si Trew (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep-ish seems like they're good enough as is. They should point to "variations of colorX" articles variations of orange etc preferentially though. -- (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Why? We're not Dulux and have to invent new names for paints each year. Let's have Magnolia pointing to Beige or something. Drab (color) is also a colour used in the military (my whole house was painted in Drab, "Borrowed" from the British Army, with Olive Drab on the outside) but we don't have Drabish or Drabbish. We don't have Magnoliaish or Beigeish. These are just invented words and WP:RFD#D2 makes no sense. If someone wants to find out what Pink is, they search for Pink, not Pinkish. They could be afer Pinking (a WP:TWODABS for Engine knocking and Pinking shears) if you want, but not Pinkish. You have to get into the mindset of how people search for stuff, and these are harmful. Si Trew (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I've got no problem with retargetting to the variations of articles per the anon (Si Trew's comments don't make sense to me as these are explicitly not inventing names for colours). Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Because we are going to end up with Yellow-brownish and Creamish and what have you, in a combinatorial explosion. We can't do that. I know WP:CHEAP but it actually makes it harder for peopele to find the information they want: That's my argument. Si Trew (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "-ish" in this sense means "approximately" or "close to." It is typically only used for common colors when you're talking about a color that is is not quite blue (for example), but is the the closest color that you can use to describe it. Because of this, you're never going to hear someone say "magnoliaish," because that's a specific color and someone will therefore describe it exactly. Keeping that in mind, I do think that we should keep them, but retarget to the specific "shades of ___" article where applicable (because that's what ___-ish is). Specifically:
  • Retarget/keep per Tavix. I could see how these are viable redirects and likely search queries, and this makes the most sense to me. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget WhiteishWhite for consistency; keep all of the rest. Not to discount Tavix' suggestion, but other than whiteish I don't see that there's a strong need to retarget any of these other than change for the sake of change. They're fine as-is. Ivanvector (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - WP:NOUN relates to article titles, not redirects. I don't see anything harmful about these redirects; they are valid words and potential search terms. I would be OK with the re-targeting that Tavix recommends, although I think keeping them as is would be most intuitive. Neelix (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget' per tavix, that is by far the best way to do it. I think I may have put a tilde or something in someone else's, but only minor, sorry about that. @Tavix: has hit the nail on the thumb with this one. Si Trew (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

What is a man?[edit]

Delete. Not mentioned at target. Si Trew (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Neutral This is an infamously corny line from one of the game's cutscenes, but the line itself is vague enough that perhaps someone searching this (if we need it at all) is looking for something else. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 16:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Retarget to What Is Man? (essay) as a plausible synonym. The target article needs some cleanup though. --Lenticel (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. It's also a line in the famous song, most notably sung by Frank Sinatra, I Did it My Way; "What is a man, what has he got, if not himself, then not a lot. the record shows, I took the blows, and did it my way". I would have thought we'd have an article on that song but with trying various capitalisations it seems not. We do have Sinatra Doctrine but that seems a stretch. Si Trew (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Dolf van Niekerk[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  13:56, 20 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. There is an article about him in the Afrikaans Wikipedia. It's better to make it a red link. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - the exact same situation as Bartho Smit - either keep the redirect, or turn it into a stub if he is notable. @Tavix: you might be able to work your magic here as well? GiantSnowman 09:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per GiantSnowman. Liam987 talk 15:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Create article for the same reasons as Bartho Smit. I noticed that this was a redirect when I created {{Sestigers}} and added it to my list of articles to create. I guess I'll get to it sooner rather than later now. Tavix |  Talk  19:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, if it is overwritten by the article then it will be a procedural close here, there is no need to list it here. @Amire80: can you give me the link to Afrikaans WP, I don't know it, but speak some Dutch so I can probably make a first stab at it. We don't have it at nl:Dolf van Niekerk (Dutch Wikipedia). Si Trew (talk) 03:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    SimonTrew: Here's Afrikaans: af:Dolf van Niekerk.
    All: Indeed, creating an article would be perfect if anybody is bale to do it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural close please, I have translated it and it is now an article (I narked {{translated page}} on its talk page). I am not saying it is perfect, only that it is better. Si Trew (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • That article is well done! I forgot about the ability to translate when I created Bartho Smit, so it's just a stub with a couple of English sources... Tavix |  Talk  13:56, 20 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.

Steve Russo[edit]

Delete. This was created in Oct 2008 when a Steve Russo was mentioned as CEO of Mstar (Internet service provider). He is no longer mentioned there. That Steve Russo may be Steve Russo, president of Indianapolis-based Russo Communications, who is mentioned in Novi Town Center and History of the Indian Americans in Metro Detroit. Another mention is in Indiana Public Retirement System which may be a different person. There are mentions elsewhere of others by that name, e.g. an Orange County Mayor at Sonny_Callahan#Steve_Russo_scandal, and an author of Christian books cited at Halloween. – Fayenatic London 07:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london: we could convert it to a DAB then maybe, with the entries you listed? I'm happy to create the draft. Si Trew (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Si Trew: I don't think any are sufficiently notable for that, not even the corrupt mayor. A search would find the heading for him anyway; and I don't think a redirect to a single article would be desirable, as there is no primary topic. – Fayenatic London 11:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
fair play,delete it then: that's what the search engine is for. Si Trew (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

County of Csesznek and Milvány[edit]

Deletion: the county never existed and no reliable source mentions it. Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary counties-2.svg
  • Weak delete. Not because it is wrong (@Borsoka:'s argument) but because I can't see this being helpful to most English speakers with the accent on Milvány, so they will never search that way. I can type that as I am on a Hungarian keyboard layout, that has a dedicated key for it, but I think you can get it on an English one with AltGr+A: but it seems a veryy unlikely search term. That being said, it does no harm. Si Trew (talk) 06:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
It's also misleading because Csesznek is now in Hungary and MilványHida, Sălaj in Romania (I presume after the Treaty of Trianon) so they could never possibly be a county. Si Trew (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed I am right, the article says it was in Doboka County but that was abolished in 1876, that article is very much a stub, so no point redirecting it there, I presume the counties were reorganised somehow. Under the Treaty of Trianon it was handed from the Kingdom of Hungary to Romania. I can't find it on the 1886 map here, for which I updated to make a four colour map some years ago(actually it's five if you are picky and say Lake Balaton is a fifth colour, but you can colour it lilac if you wanted). Anyway it's not on there. Si Trew (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Si Trew:, sorry, I do not understand the above remarks. What county was located where and when? Why do we speak of the Treaty of Trianon and Doboka County??? This county (the "County of Csesznek and Milvány") never existed - I may be stupid, but I thought that this fact is the proper argumentation for deleting it. Borsoka (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Borsoka: indeed, I think we're agreed that it is wrong. It is whether it is useful to an English-speaking audience'. I don't think it is, bot others might chime in with external references etc saying it is. There is a difference between wrong and useful: I would have thought the whole point of an encylopaedia is for someone who is intelligent but ignorant to look up and search something they didn't know, and learn something. When I don't know something I look in a reference book, what do you do? Si Trew (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Si Trew:, sorry, I still do not understand your approach. How could a redirect page about a never existing county be useful to anybody? Could I create a redirect page Budapest, Tolbuhin-körúti Vásárcsarnok (Viking god and Orthodox church), because I think it can be useful? Borsoka (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Borsoka: because people hear something and then search for it. As James Thurber said in Fables for Our Time, don't get it right, just get it written. Erroneous terms are fine, it is whether it is useful. I said so right at the top of this. But sometimes things are wrong but useful. I did my homework, I supplied a map of the counties of Hungary, explained why, looked up the articles, what more do you want? Si Trew (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
I have created this redirect page erroneously. Since the original article has been deleted there is no point in retaining the redirect page. I second deletion.--Csesznekgirl (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
@Csesznekgirl: you can take this as WP:CSD#G7, author requests deletion. I am not sure if you will succeed with that when this discussion is open, but I think we have consensus to delete it. Worth a try anyway. Si Trew (talk) 05:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I am quite busy in real life now, and not sure how to proceed with that, but if someone takes it there I will sign the request. --Csesznekgirl (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I took it there. Si Trew (talk) 10:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Armored Wankball[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 per WP:CSD#G3, WP:CSD#G10 and WP:SNOW. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Since I couldn't find any notable uses of this phrase, this should be deleted per WP:RNEUTRAL. Tavix |  Talk  03:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as vandalism/tasteless joke.--Lenticel (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lenticel. I imagine this was created by a UK person who dislikes American Football being called simply "Football" as opposed to soccer which is generally called "Football" in the UK. So, WP:POV and WP:WORLDWIDE come into play. Si Trew (talk) 03:15, 20 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.

When was the Berlin Wall built[edit]

Wikipedia is not Yahoo! Answers. Questions like these should be taken to the reference desk. Tavix |  Talk  02:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:NOTFAQ ; this is a FAQ access type redirect -- (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems more an Ask Jeeves request, as the first one that allowed natural-language questions (not very well in its early days) but we don't have WP:ASKJEEVES or WP:NOTASKJEEVES, or WP:JEEVES: perhaps we should. I'm going to be a quiz show pannellist and say 1961, without looking up the target. Si Trew (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Oooh I was right. Do I win a teddy bear or goldfish or something? Si Trew (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are other redirects like this, see Special:PrefixIndex/What_is. I would encourage someone with the time and inclination to nominate those that are not proper names of books, etc. – Fayenatic London 08:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Nice find. I'll do it, but it will take me a while. I have time on my hands. Si Trew (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, old, harmless. Siuenti (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I went through all the "Who was" not the "What was" or "When was", this is a bit of a Herculean task, but I'll get there. Si Trew (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. Liam987 talk 15:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as it takes people to the information they are looking for without harming anything. WP:NOTFAQ is about article content and so is not relevant here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Flood chords[edit]

This is confusing because there isn't anything at this disambiguation by the name of "Flood chords" and because you won't find the chords for any of the "Flood" songs due to fact that Wikipedia is not a chord website. Tavix |  Talk  02:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete. There's nothing wrong with sheet music, are you going WP:PROMO then? I don't know much about music but the first thing that popped into my mind is it was some kind of minor chord, but we don't have flood chord if that is some musical term, but doesn't seem to be. It was sung, it seems, by Take That, so that's a possible retarget, I've not checked yet if it's mentioned there. Si Trew (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
...except that Wikipedia cannot host but the barest of musical information on songs per WP:COPYVIO. Wikipedia is not a site that teaches people how to play songs. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
You're qute right with all that. I just tend to cast around and throw out suggestions because once in a blue moon I hit the nail right on the thumb and it snowballs to what I suggested. Not in this case, though, I think. Si Trew (talk) 04:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Another thing to think about when it comes to redirects is that Wikipedia does have a search feature that displays relevant results. Would a redirect get in the way of that? I find that using Wikipedia's search feature more as one would use Google could be more beneficial at times than having a redirect. Redirects can therefore be harmful if, especially in the case of new users, it's not clear that one can simply research that phrase using Wikipedia's search feature without being taken directly to a page that someone decided it should point to. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not, although refs 55 and 56 are the Flood Nomination for something or other. Si Trew (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. If it really is a musical term, which I'm pretty sure it isn't, then having it redirect to flood is unhelpful. Liam987 talk 15:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't have the chords for any of the songs listed on that dab page, so a user searching for that will not be helped. My first thought was not musical though, but fluvial - assuming it was something to do with flood relief channels (artificial), or perhaps channels that flow only during flood in a braided river. Searching seems to suggest though that this is not a term in widespread use and so wouldn't make a good redirect here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and everyone else. Not a musical term, at least not that I'm familiar with, possibly power chord or open chord but then it's very colloquial and I couldn't say which, so delete anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

April 18[edit]

Module talk:RfD[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, early close per WP:SNOW and premature reattempt at deletion (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this is misleading. I have PRODDed Module:RfD but the talk page should be at Module talk:RfD. I think the module is unnecessary, and its author (I think) has kinda slapped me on the wrist for doing so, but all the runaround with these redirects is crazy (it ends up at Template talk:Rfd which is a completely different thing). Si Trew (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

keep This is a normal way to do things. When a template is re-implemented using a module then the template has no code. Changes to e,g. add features or fix problems need to be made to the module code. But editors will often place requests on the talk page of the template. So it makes sense to combine them, so there’s only one place to discuss changes to the template/module, reached directly or via a redirect depending which talk page is accessed. If the module or template is deleted then it may be deleted under CSD #G8 but while the module exists it is useful.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I aint arguing against the module (at least not here, I am arguing that elsewhere),. But I think It is misleading to take Module talk:RfD to Template Talk:Rfd (and note the change of case in those letters please: We often distinguish things by letttercase). And templates are templates and modules are modules, or am I just being too simple? Si Trew (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
observation. And ironically you just used the module you nominated for deletion when nominating this redirect. If that isn’t proof to you that the module is useful I don't know what is.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
There's no irony. It gets in the way and does not work. I can't help what the back end of the Wikipedia software does, but we managed for 18 years or so without it. Do you want me to do a code review on it, I'm perfectly capable to do that. Si Trew (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Please explain how it doesn't work. Alakzi (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Not everyone uses the same software you do. On mine, it constantly brings up error messages. I can explain but my professional rates as a software engineer are 100 pounds an hour and my rates at Wikipedia are 0 pounds an hour. It doesn't work because it constantly pops up on Mozilla Firefox with errors, have you tested it on that browser? Si Trew (talk) 22:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Please outline the steps required to reproduce one of these errors in Firefox. Alakzi (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
But that argument is irrelevant anyway. Patently, the place for a talk page to be is the talk page, not going via a redirect. That is what talk pages are for. So we end up discussing it here instead because the talk page has been redirected. Si Trew (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
If there are errors what sort of errors and what page or pages you are seeing them on? It shouldn’t matter what browser you are using the output should be the same, but editors can test with different browsers to see for themselves. If we can actually identify the problem there’s a chance it can be fixed.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:38, 18 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.

Richard Williams (tennis player)[edit]

Currently a redirect for R. Norris Williams but not needed as he was either known by his article name or Richard Norris Williams or Dick Williams. Wolbo (talk) 17:41, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Are you saying he could not ever have possibly been known or addressed as Richard Williams? Unless there's a different tennis player named Richard Williams, I think this is harmless. Ivanvector (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure, but then they're appropriately disambiguated. Ivanvector (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Accoridng to the article he was not a player himself so I don't see that as an issue,-- (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as harmless. According to the lede he was also occasionally known as "Dick" Williams (Dick being a common nickname for "Richard") but Dick Williams is another article and perhaps they should be crossreffed with a hatnote. Si Trew (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's a contrast from Richard Williams (tennis coach). Tavix |  Talk  00:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. That's a tough one since tennis playes often hava a sideline as tennis coaches: has he? Si Trew (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Oddly when I gsearched for Richard Williams (tennis coach) I got the French article fr:Richard Norris Williams, where the lede says he is Richard Norris Williams II, but it doesn't say he was a coach, not even in French, as far as I can see. Dick Williams is an article at EN:WP but in the lede at FR:WP at Richard Norris Williams, saying that is what he was commonly known as, and there's no hatnote to Dick Williams (disambiguation): perhaps that's the way to do it, just add a hatnote or two. Noth are at the DAB in section 4.5. Si Trew (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

A Guerra não Declarada na Visão de um Favelado[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 Closed as speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

  • Speedy delete WP:G5, creator evading ban. No point in keeping this that I can see. I will tag accordingly. Ivanvector (talk) 18:32, 18 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.

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)
Not sure how it is useful; in no country was it ever released during 2014 in any way, shape, or form, even though it was originally scheduled for a 2014 release. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:54, 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)
  • Comment. We do not have Home (2015 comedy film). Not checked other years yet. Si Trew (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as an implausible search term. There are two things that make this implausible: the wrong year and the extra "comedy" qualifier. Tavix |  Talk  02:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC),
You're right, @Tavix:. I checked Home (2014 film)At the Devil's Door, a completely different film I think (I could be wrong, I am not a great expert on the flicks as I was usually behind the projector and never got to see the film). Si Trew (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

April 15[edit]

Unsound mind[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 Mental disorder. --BDD (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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 -- (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)
I'll go with that. I think mine is better but either will be better than where it currently stands. Not striking mine above because that would look like faking it, but I say Retarget to Mental disorder per User:Ivanvector. Si Trew (talk) 10:31, 19 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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) 14:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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)
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.


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)
  • Keep per Neelix. We're not a dictionary, and none of the other uses seem relevant. --BDD (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 Siegerland Airport. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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. -- (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)
Close, but no cigar. EDG is a DAB page and I think we should do {{R to disambiguation}} and list these we have discussed there. Inclined to be WP:BOLD but don't like doing so when things are under discussion, I have manners. No money, but manners. Si Trew (talk) 10:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per nom. The airport is the only common sense "EDGS." Tavix |  Talk  23:18, 19 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.

Brak obrama[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) 14:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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)
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.


Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 22#HGFS

List of of Cyprus[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) 14:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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)
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.

Tacünnisa Hatun[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) 14:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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)
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.

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]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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) 14:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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)
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.

Communism (religion)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 22#Communism (religion)

April 14[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. Until Wikipedia covers another topic referred to as AQOS, this is entirely appropriate. --BDD (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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 (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 (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Yes, 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? (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. [12] (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, 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 – 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”. (talk) 23:06, 16 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.


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)
  • Delete Steel1943 is right that we don't generally dab terms that are just misspellings. I don't know of a single instance. This is too out-there of a typo to really make sense of what a reader might be looking for. --BDD (talk) 15:22, 21 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)
I think no, unless there are a number of notable documentaries about ice ages, rather than children's movies called "Ice Age". Ivanvector (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 Autoconf. --BDD (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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. -- (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 -- (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 [13] 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 [14]; 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. -- (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. -- (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. -- (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? -- (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. -- (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)
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.

Şehzade Abdullah (son of Suleiman I)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 22#Şehzade Abdullah (son of Suleiman I)

Hafsa Sultan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 24#Hafsa Sultan

Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 24#Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III)


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talkcontribs) 06:09, 14 April 2015
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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.


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

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 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)
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.

User:Awolf58/The Catalyst[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 The Catalyst. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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)
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.

Head strong (Linkin Park song)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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)
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.

User:Awolf58/Rob Bourdon[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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 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 Sword (2005 demo)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

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.

Steven Brazile[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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)
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.

Leroy, artist[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 Leroy (musician). --BDD (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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

To Devour a Predator[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 devour. --BDD (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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 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 Mysteries of the Banjo-Kazooie Series[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) 14:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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)
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.

Shanghai Dawn (2010 film)[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) 14:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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)
  • Delete as misleading since said film doesn't exist yet. --Lenticel (talk) 01:32, 21 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.

User:Thefierydutch1212/Nike quickstrike[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 21#User:Thefierydutch1212/Nike quickstrike

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 -- (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 -- (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). -- (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 -- (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. (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 ([[15]], 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. -- (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. -- (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)


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.


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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.


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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. -- (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. -- (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 -- (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.

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[16] 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.[17][18][19] 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)


The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 -- (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 -- (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 -- (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.