Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 10, 2014.

Srpsko Sarajevo[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. Number 57 17:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(I've stricken votes that were made by sockpuppets of the same account and have been indefinitely blocked.) CodeCat (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I would like deletion because this redirect contains hate/nacionalistic elements (Srpsko means Serbish instead of Istočno which means Eastern, 2nd name is in use by government). Used during serbian attack on Bosnian and Croat civilians, after that they made this name for small part of town. Anyway, redirect isn't needed because name is not in use for a long time and it is unlikely term for search. As a proove to this, Bosnian wikipedia already deleted this redirect, so I doubt it's relevant to stay in English also. Lighthouse01 (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as offensive or abusive redirect.--Lenticel (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; according to the article, it was actually known as that, even if now considered offensive[according to whom?]. If you want to, and can justify, excision of this name from the article, then it might be appropriate to remove the redirect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nationalism in and of itself doesn't warrant deletion. See WP:RNEUTRAL. And I'm skeptical that "Serb Sarajevo" is really inherently hateful. It still may be wise to delete for other reasons, such as if it's obscure or an unlikely search term. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with that wholeheartedly. Something is only offensive if it meant to be, and anyway WP:NOTCENSORED. There are terms I don't like to hear used but I have to put up with them. Si Trew (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (the redirect, that is), as this is the English Wikipedia and we don't generally have foreign-language redirects (I got told off for creating one a couple of weeks ago!). If the article has problems, that has to be sorted out elsewhere, but the redirect is not (at least to my eyes) English and so is an unlikely search term for an English reader. These Central European articles tend to be rather contentious but that is another matter: we are discussing the redirect not the article. Patrick Campbell I think it as who said when he was starting in journalism his editor told him to "prehensilise some Bosnian peasants" and for some reason that phrase has always stuck with me, whenever I am doing a bit of blue pencil (editing). Si Trew (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If people reading the English-language Wikipedia use this term it should stay, if not, it should go: my stats show it was viewed a maximum 8-10 times a week which is a bit borderline (I have written articles that have had far fewer) but that the stats since this discussion opened, when you'd expect them to increase by this discussion itself, are actually about 2-4 a week. The reason I recommended Delete, below, which I posted before this reply, is simply that I think it is an unlikely search term.
If it helps people find the article it should stay. If it hinders them, it should go. That's all there is to it. Si Trew (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Si Trew, I was checking that link (possibly more than you mentioned). I really doubt someone is getting to this link to read actually about real article. That's my opinion anyway, but I was checking link. There are big numbers because of me :D --Lighthouse01 (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, we only delete foreign-language redirects when the language is unrelated to the subject. That's not the case here. Compare to Deutschland, Москва, etc. --BDD (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arthur Rubin. --BDD (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep according the the article, "It was previously known as Srpsko Sarajevo" That means it is a valid redirect. People might have heard of Srpsko Sarajevo and want to know more about it and if we remove the redirect it will make it harder to find. GB fan 14:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. People will find, entering new name, relevant article with old name in its text and we won't have any trouble regards finding info. Anyway, article with this name has not good popularity, Istočno Sarajevo is more likely search term. But even more East Sarajevo because of English public. --Lighthouse01 (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They will find the article entering the new name if they know the new name. If all they have heard if the old name they won't find it. How can having a redirect be hateful but having the same name in the article not? GB fan 23:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well there was a reason to change name: you can read it here. But I have nothing against mentioning old name in new article because people should know its' history. And they can easily find the article entering old name in Google. Right? --Lighthouse01 (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And just to say, If I was able to remove Srpsko prefix, I'd remove that from all the world. Why? Because, imagine this: Russia attacks America, takes about 50% territory, and rename Eastern Part of Town (i.e. Washington): Russian Washington. Or any other country. But using the worst crimes against civilians. How about that? --Lighthouse01 (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The situation would be the same, I'm sure. Compare to, say, redirect Nazi Croatia or Vichy France itself. I'm sure many Croatian and French people are ashamed of those periods in their countries' histories, but a redirect isn't an endorsement of such things. It's merely reflecting a historical reality. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And try looking at the edit history of Pressburg or Poszony or Pozsony (a misspelling) or Bratislava. Are those supposed to go? Historical names have their place. Si Trew (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about Leningrad, Stalingrad, Petrograd? Si Trew (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this name was not officially used and it's not likely search term. -WikiLite91 (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a likely search term, the article says "It was previously known as Srpsko Sarajevo" GB fan 20:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well maybe we could keep "Serb Sarajevo", but "Srpsko" for English native speakers is uncommon. --WikiLite91 (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are more than 7,000 results for Srpsko site:wikipedia.org, and over 500 for only English Wikipedia. The actual number of pages will be lower due to search engine issues, but it isnt isolated to this page. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nobody on an English keyboard will be able to type the thing above the C (I forget what they are called, but the diacritical mark above the C) so in that sense the redirect is helpful. But Istocno Sarajevo exists as a redirect and is rightly tagged as {{R from title without diacritics}}. The article itself could use some cleanup since the English grammar is a bit out of whack, but that's a separate matter (and I am happy to do that after we reach consensus). A very good friend of mine who is Serbian and I think born in Sarajevo can possibly help me find the facts, do a bit of translation and so forth, and we can scrub the article up a bit: but here we are discussing not the article but the redirect. "Srpsko" would seem very uncommon for an English speaker to type.
However, I also note there are no Interwiki links, so my pure guess is the majority of searches are by English-speaking Serbians/Serbs. Si Trew (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lighthouse01. SuperNepoznat (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons given so far. (Also, there is suspicion voiced at WP:3RRN that several of the delete votes could be sockpuppets of the same person, so this should be scrutinised before closing) CodeCat (talk) 13:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Subfamily Velociraptorinae[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 Number 57 17:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant title: Velociraptorinae is a subfamily. It is arbitrary and potentially confusing to have Subfamily Velociraptorinae appear as a search topic out of the untold number of biological subfamilies. --Animalparty-- (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There is a well-established criterion for the names of biological articles, so that for example daffodil and asphodel and narcissus are properly differentiated. So there is no need for this. Si Trew (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is not an article, but a redirect. Although Wikipedia uses a convention, readers are likely to be unfamiliar with it, and this is going to be a comparatively common search term. The assertion that the title is arbitrary is patently false - biological groupings are often referred to this way. The idea that this will cause problems with searching is both unexplained and inexplicable - only people searching for subfamily X are going to see it, and giving them nothing is no more helpful than giving them several possibilities - indeed, it's transparently more helpful. Since all the premises suggest to support deletion are patently false under even a cursory examination, this redirect needs to be kept, to direct readers to the content they're looking for. WilyD 19:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This page is entitled Redirects for discussion, not articles for deletion, so we are discussing redirects. It is fallacious and unrealistic to think that somebody searching for "Subfamily" will be necessarily looking for anything relating to Velociraptors (why not "Subfamily Ponerinae", "Subfamily Apocynoideae", etc...?). Yet when typing Subfamily into the search bar, Velociraptors come up twice as matching terms, which, whether an intentional way to increase page views, or simply the result of an over-enthusiastic bout of redirect creation, is arbitrarily spotlighting one group out of the countless numbers of biological subfamilies. A search for articles containing "Subfamily Velociraptorinae" yields the intended article as the first hit, so there is no hindering location of the article. Unless someone proposes to create a "Subfamily X" for every subfamily (again, redundant, superfluous, and not recommended), there is no need to have this one.--Animalparty-- (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commment I get from Special:Search ust for the term "Subfamily" as well as the one listed:
And others of course which are not so relevant. But since those articles call it a subfamily, perhaps in the end it should stay. It might be wrong if you were Carolus Linnaeus who after all had a rather odd naming scheme and was a bit sex-obsessed so that orchids mean testes and so on, but is it a likely search term? To me it would seem unlikely someone would go to the trouble of typing in "subfamily", but I am no expert. Si Trew (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. I'm not arguing that Velociraptorinae is not the name of a subfamily (indeed it is), and Linnaeus has nothing to do with the point of the Rfd. I am saying this is a singularly redundant and unlikely search term that gives the impression this one subfamily is somehow unique and distinct from every other biological subfamily, when all are subfamilies are simply names (N.b, over 31,000 articles mention "subfamily"). Should there be a redirect for Country Uganda?, Person Elton John? Name John Smith? Species Homo sapiens? If someone were to search for the subfamily that humans belong to (Homininae, arguably a more likely search than a dinosaur group), by the search term "Subfamily Homininae" the intended target is first in the results without the need for a redirect. And the same is true for Subfamily Velociraptorinae. (Subfamily Velociraptorini, on the other hand, is incorrect in nomenclature, and its Rfd is dealt with here.) --Animalparty-- (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I entirely agree. Just throwing in "subfamily" for me the first that came up were these, and exactly by your argument I am not sure someone would want to have a subfamily of velociraptors instead of a subfamily of bears (Ursa minor ) or example or a subfamily of caterpillers or whatever. I entirely agree with you just saying what I found at the top of my search. Surely Subfamily Velociraptorini should ho as well then? Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plausible search term that takes readers where they want to go. I don't see the problem. --BDD (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A similar redirect was deleted with the same reasoning. — Scott • talk 08:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this adds nothing. There is only one decent result for 'Velociraptorinae', so it does not enhance search results to add more words. It is arbitrary in that there are lots of possible words before or after which could be a redirect. In this case, adding subfamily is weird - subfamily of what?? If it was 'Dromaeosauridae subfamily Velociraptorinae', it would at least be descriptive. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unneeded, unlikely redirect. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not an uncommon way of referring to a taxon, though. See, for example, "kingdom animalia", "phylum cnidaria", or "genus hydra". "Subfamily Velociraptorinae" itself has usage on and off Wikipedia. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, the words "subfamily Velociraptorinae" may be used, as are "subfamily Homininae, "subfamily Murinae", "subfamily Ponerinae", ad infinitum, and every valid combination of name and taxonomic rank. The question could be asked why aren't there redirects to those (answer: redundancy). Velociraptorinae is but one of thousands of biological subfamilies, and we don't normally title redirects or articles with a description unless disambiguation is in order (thus there is no Genus Hydra but there is Hydra (genus)). There is no need for a redirect to Country Germany because it is widely known (or quickly inferred) that Germany is a country, and similarly, it is understood (or inferred) that all animal group names ending in "-inae" are subfamilies. In this case, disambiguation of any sort is unneeded because the rank name "Velociraptorinae", under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature cannot refer to anything other than a subfamily. It is just as plausible, if not more so, that a user searching for "subfamily" is either searching for information on the rank itself, or any other biological subfamily, but it would be needlessly redundant to add a redirect to all subfamilies, and presumptuous to only denote one or a few.--Animalparty-- (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:R from character[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 Move to Template:R from fictional character. Number 57 17:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is misleading, because there are character names that will be used as redirects to places other than actual character lists (i.e., an article on the work itself). There are some current uses, which will need to be updated; some may be erroneous usages stemming from this confusion. BDD (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I created this template in 2009 with the following instruction: "This is a redirect from a television, movie, or book character to a more general, relevant article. Most characters do not rise to the level of individual notability, but can be covered as part of a list of characters from the book/book series, television show, or movie/movie series from which they originate." Then someone complained it was redundant to the (terribly named - what the heck is a "CharR") "Template: CharR to list entry". At the previous TfD, I in fact argued that it was not redundant precisely for the reasons BDD cites. Others did not agree. My preference would be to keep "R from character" as a distinct redirect categorization template or rename "CharR to list entry" to something more sensible that allows for broader use. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Link to the previous discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 24#Template:R from character — Wbm1058 (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the other template name is shorthand for Character R to list entry or Character redirect to list entry, and it's bad form for a "R from" template to redirect to a "R to" template. "Froms" should redirect to other Froms and "Tos" to to other Tos. Perhaps based on that thinking—I don't recall exactly—I boldly redirected this template to {{R from member}} on 2 March 2013, and that stood for over five months before User: Paine Ellsworth reverted me 19 August 2013. A character is a member of a group, organization, ensemble or team, so my redirect was a redirect from a specific type of member–a character–to the more general category that includes other kinds of members, e.g., sports team members, political party members, etc., as well as cast members and fictional story members. In contrast, {{CharR to list entry}} is not all-inclusive of redirects from characters. As well as a character list, a character could redirect to the book or movie in which they appeared, or the real person who played the character, or another character whom they were related to. As there are at least two distinct cats that this could redirect to, perhaps it should be turned into a disambiguation page. Wbm1058 (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is meant to mean R from character to list entry ([from] Char[acter] R to list entry) which would be both from and to... and nonstandard. —PC-XT+ 06:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for linking to the previous discussion. The only part of its conclusion I disagree with is the direction of the redirect. Can we have CharR redirect here? This title will be more useful if it can cover all characters, not just those which are list entries. There are other redirect categories, especially {{R to section}} and {{R to list entry}}, which can express that. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be my preferred solution too. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I counted only 28 pages in mainspace using this template, so making any changes shouldn't be a lot of work. But, can you believe it—in our television obsessed culture—over five thousand redirects use {{CharR to list entry}}. Seems every minor character in any TV series has to have their own redirect. It would be a lot of work to confirm that they all go to lists, if the task couldn't be automated, but the few I checked at random all did redirect to lists. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember now why I made that change. It was because of Warren (Porridge), one of the 28 pages using this template. That redirects to Porridge (TV series)#Cast, which while technically not a list article, is a list section of the article about the TV series. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warren (Porridge) is one of the few deletion discussions that I've participated in. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes sense to either redirect to the more general template, or merge to the more used template. This was redirected to the more used template, which wasn't entirely redundant. The more used template should be made more general, or redirected to this one, as it was before being redirected. —PC-XT+ 06:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CharR is redundant to this template (before it was a redirect) and {{R to list entry}}, but is used so much as a specialized template, it was retained and one of the general ones redirected to it. That doesn't make sense to me. —PC-XT+ 07:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Perhaps I should clarify what I want here. I would also be fine with {{R from character}} being restored as its own tag. {{CharR to list entry}} would be a more specific version of the tag. The former could populate a Category:Fictional character redirects. Is that doable? This would preserve the granularity of CharR. Or we could just reverse the redirect, as previously suggested.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No no, the templates are hard enough for a gnome to find in the first place, and {{R from}} and {{R to}} at least give some chance. BDD, you seem a dab hand at searching stuff, or rather finding it, but I find it an eternal struggle, don't make it harder please! Si Trew (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hm? I want {{R from character}} to exist one way or another. And I'll probably propose an RM to move CharR to {{R to character list entry}} for clarity and consistency. Best to let this resolve first, though, in case the latter becomes a redirect itself. --BDD (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that all makes sense. Perhaps I misinterpreted what you wrote above. Sorry about that, fully support that proposition. Si Trew (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Template:R from fictional character (but keep redirect), make it a proper template, and have it used in conjunction with Template:CharR to list entry (renamed to Template:R to character list entry), Template:R to list entry or another 'R to'. I am happy to write a bot to sort through the uses and retag appropriately (I've been doing something quite similar using wikidata with JVbot (talk · contribs)). John Vandenberg (chat) 00:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. When we get consensus, I am quite happy to create the templates and docs for it. Si Trew (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to John Vandenberg's suggested titles. — Scott • talk 16:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is nothing wrong with the template as is; I think that "character" implies fictional (although I have no strong objection to moving to a new title including "fictional"). bd2412 T 00:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Move to John Vandenberg's suggested titles. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's quite a logical tag name - alternatively, rename it to the even clearer "R from fictional character". The reason this one isn't used a lot these days might be artificial: I recently ran across an editor who kept removing the tag from redirects because the redirects pointed to normal articles rather than list articles. Talk about a humongous waste of time. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Wbm1058 – if I've followed all this correctly, John Vandenberg's moves would be best, with the slight modification of {{R to character list entry}} → {{R to fictional-character list entry}} (moved from {{CharR to list entry}}). – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 11:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, fictional-character disambiguates from alphabetical-character or a real-life character actor. "Character" needs disambiguation: Character (arts). Wbm1058 (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per JV. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Acontias (synonym)[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) 04:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of a redirect like this? The background to this (and many other "Foo (synonym)" redirects) can be found at Category:Set indices on snakes which includes "Category tags are no longer allowed on disambiguation pages, so these ... "(synonym)" redirects have been created to carry them instead.". DexDor (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These, and the explanation quoted above, appear to be the idiosyncratic creations of Jwinius (note: stopped editing the project in 2011) for his own use. In a discussion at his talk page in 2008, he wrote that, following some interminable discussion that I can't find (probably at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles) that didn't go his way, he came up with a way to keep track those disambiguation pages that are not only about snakes by creating a whole series of new redirects for them that I can track. I've pinged the project to see if someone can offer an opinion on whether they're useful. — Scott • talk 22:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these "(synonym)" redirects I've looked aren't synonyms at all. They're homonyms. I don't think there's much value in creating redirects for homonyms, but it's not appropriate at all to have them as "(synonym)" redirects, and having them redirect to a dab is useless. The best way to disambiguate the homonyms from a taxonomic perspective would be with author citation, e.g. Acontias Troost, 1836 (which would redirect to Agkistrodon). I don't think there's a lot of value in the associated DABs either, but I took a stab at making sense of Acontias (disambiguation) (with this diff), which I hope might clarify what Jwinius seems to have been attempting. Obscure homonyms can be handled just fine in the taxobox of the relevant article, making dabs and redirects isn't very useful. Plantdrew (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion that Scott's looking for may be this[1] which ended with "[Jwinius]'s objections about people futzing with pages constructed according to practices that are rather persnickety and completely undocumented and so far as I can tell idiosyncratic to [Jwinius] seem rather unrealistic.". For the record, I don't agree with the suggestion in that discussion that SIAs be used to get round the rules on dab pages as (now) dabs have the advantage that inlinks get flagged up and fixed. DexDor (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that. Also - "idiosyncratic"! Aw yeah, I totally called it. — Scott • talk 13:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I can see the utility of a category like Category:Crotalinae by taxonomic synonyms, though I don't see why this page is necessary to have one. The Category:Set indices on snakes is just misleading here, since this isn't a set index. --BDD (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if there is a community supported need to add a category to disambiguation pages, the categories belong on the disambiguation page, not a redirect. If it is only one person needing to track these pages, use a userspace page to list them. If it is a bot-related task that needs them, or similar, add the metadata to the wikidata page for the dab page (e.g. [2]). John Vandenberg (chat) 01:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, essentially per John Vandenberg. I am not sure why Plantdrew piped Homonym (biology) in the discusion. But since I thought we just have a DAB page at the simple name of the subject (if there's no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) or at a page called "topic (disambiguation)", then to introduce "topic (synonym)" or "topic (homonym)" or "topic (antonym)" or "topic (neologism)" or whatever is silly: that is what DABs are for. Si Trew (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

CAT:File mover[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. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR that isnt using uppercase per WP:Shortcut. The target already has two shortcuts: CAT:RF and CAT:RENAME. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't say, but if it was created less than a year ago, there appears to be some interest in it. --BDD (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

T:N[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) 04:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR with less than 10 hits per month. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

T:FAUNA[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) 04:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FAUNA was repurposed by user:SMcCandlish to be about something about the real fauna. Likewise this template redirect should IMO point to something about the real fauna, or be deleted. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, unless it can be repurposed, again per nom. — Scott • talk 20:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A navbox template to humor pages isn't exactly a TfD candidate itself, but surely doesn't merit shortcut redirects like this. [And if the name Template:Animal is needed for something in mainspace about animals, it should be usurped. It's been SOP for several years now to use the real template names of wikiproject talk page tags, not shortcut redirects.]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Target has prefix "Wiki", so unclear if a R merits a non-WP shortcut name. When in doubt, remove it. Mainspace pollution, and confusing any editor who meets this one (non-intuitive abbreviation). -DePiep (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gornisht[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) 04:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Target article (Gornisht Yiddish Yinglish) makes no mention of the term "gornisht". (2) "Gornisht"/"garnisht" (גאָרנישט) is standard Yiddish, an adverb meaning "(not) at all" (see Weinreich, Uriel (1977) [1968]. Modern English-Yiddish Yiddish-English Dictionary (First Schocken ed.). New York: Schocken Books. p. 682. ISBN 0-8052-0575-6.) Peter Chastain [habla, por favor] 17:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — Scott • talk 20:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, scott. Not mentioned at target. Oy vey, that is just WP:NOTFINISHED. Si Trew (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As with many Yiddish expressions, there possibly exists enough material for a Gornisht helfen article, which would include, e.g., information on its origins, some famous instances of its use, and a discussion of how that usage departs from standard Yiddish, if it indeed it does. If gornisht [helfen] were a primarily American usage, I could see having an entry and redirect for it in Yinglish. At this point, this is all ignorant speculation on my part: thus the deletion nomination. Peter Chastain [habla, por favor] 04:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

T:RFPP[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) 04:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR that receives < 10 pageviews per month - often 0 or 1 pageviews per month. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unnecessary CNR clutter. — Scott • talk 20:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any editor (admin) working in page protection should avoid this "shortcut" (but not really, as it does not transclude). Any editor new to PP (asking for a PP) should not be mislead by this disfunctional template suggestion. Nobody is helped with this one. Mainspace pollution. -DePiep (talk) 07:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

T:WPMA[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 22#T:WPMA

Dr. Qamar Tabish[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) 04:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in Sialkot Elassint Hi 16:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mark Pauly[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 as G7 (IIO was creator). --BDD (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a Wharton School professor and well-known figure in health care economics, Pauly probably deserves his own article. He's been called "father of the individual mandate" and is quoted once at the target page, but it's misleading to suggest the ACA is his primary claim to notability. Indeed, he had no direct role in its creation. BDD (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Anthroposkentron[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) 04:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See #Άνθρωποςκέντρον. Also, it is transliterated. Wikipedia doesn’t need transliterations of random foreign words. Gorobay (talk) 14:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per below, per Gorobay. No need for a transliterated Greek word, a very unlikely search term for an English-speaking audience. Si Trew (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Scott • talk 20:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a transliteration dictionary. Not English, and Not Greek either. The topic has no pariticular affinity for Greek. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 06:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Άνθρωποςκέντρον[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) 04:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek, and this isn’t even a real Greek word. Greek doesn’t form compounds by shoving two roots together like that. Gorobay (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gorobay. The target word is 19th Century New Latin neologism (if you can call a two hundred year old word a neologism), according to Merriam-Webster. We don't usually have Rs from foreign languages unless they are related. If this is not used in either modern Greek or classical Greek there is no point in having it. I can't see it on the Hellenic/Greek WP via the Interwiki links. On the other hand, I did find this about Greek declensions, written in Spanish, which mentions how this is formed and my Spanish is not great but I think it says it would be the genitive. There's also a link here at factolex.com to it but I am guessing that is just a copy from Wikipedia or Wiktionary? Looking at their "about" stuff it says first "It's like Wikipedia, but we use short facts instead of extended articles, all our facts are referenced". But that doesn't help if someone has in fact inserted the thing by copying it from Wikipedia and deleting context (I am not sure they have, it could be the other way around, but the argument runs in circles either clockwise or widdershins). Si Trew (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not genitive. It’s two lemmas concatenated by someone who doesn’t know Greek. Gorobay (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was genitive. I said what I thought that Spanish article said it was. Either I have not read that article properly (my Spanish is not brilliant, as I said) or that article is wrong. Either way, there is no point using it in support. Si Trew (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. John Vandenberg (chat) 17:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — Scott • talk 20:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a translation dictionary. The topic has no particular affinity for Greek. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Άντρο[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. As potent as it may be for ants, the average human would need to drink copious amounts of ant rum to become intoxicated. --BDD (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • αντρο is greek word — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromeas (talk • contribs) 08:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Andromeas: when the nominator (user:Gorobay) says "Not especially Greek", they mean that "Antrum is not a Greek language concept, so there is no reason for English Wikipedia to have a redirect from a Greek language title (i.e. Άντρο) to the page Antrum." This deletion rationale is explained in more detail in the essay WP:FORRED. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_10&oldid=1138579365"