Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 24, 2014.

Bop your baloney[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silly redirect. No mention of this in reliable sources. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The phrase exists (used in National Lampoon's Vacation for example) but it's not common enough to need a redirect. I suspect creating this was someone's idea of a good joke on Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 1 March 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.

Capelle aan en Ijssel[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 Capelle aan den IJssel. --BDD (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason Capelle aan en Ijssel should be deleted is because "Capelle aan en Ijssel" is simply a typo. The correct spelling is "Capelle aan den Ijssel". 82.95.172.153 (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment.
nl:Capelle aan en IJssel → en:Capelle aan den IJssel (pop 60,000)
nl:Capelle → en:Capelle (pop. 2,000)
So the Redirect should have the other target. Then there are actually two typo's in the redirect spelling: "en/den" and "Ij/IJ (digraph)" should have two capitals from Dutch. This last one is a very plausible typo. But both typos happening is not plausible, so a "keep" would not help even mistyping readers very much. -DePiep (talk) 07:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Capelle aan den IJssel. There is only one typo in this redirect, "en" for "den". Rendering "IJ" as "Ij" is not perceived as a problem by people who don't know that IJ is a diagraph in Dutch. Indeed according to IJ (digraph)#Capitalization even in parts of the Netherlands it is spelled "Ij". Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A typo without consequences then. btw, Flanders is not a part of the Netherlands. They won a war and are doing well without the Dutch, except for this spelling issue. -DePiep (talk) 18:23, 26 February 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.

Eat Shit Retard[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. While this was my nomination, given the state of the backlog I think it's reasonable to delete, with unanimous consensus after over two weeks. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a huge South Park fan, but I don't think this is one of Cartman's better known phrases (Respect my authoritah, maybe). Since it's not mentioned on the target page, perhaps confirming my suspicion, I don't think this very helpful as a redirect. And while redirects can be vulgar or derogatory, this seems like another reason to delete if the redirect isn't helpful to begin with. BDD (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I've watched near every episode and he's never said this at all. Even if he did though, this is a juvenile and vile RD designed to shock and pretty much a big red target for personal attacks by school IP users who don't use us for research. Nate • (chatter) 04:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I guess. The current target is obviously no good. I've searched around for other possibilities, but none seem to have presented themselves. WilyD 11:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable enough to create a redirect. Nadesai (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing since not mentioned at the target. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:09, 9 March 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.

1-[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 Plus plus retargeted to increment and decrement operators, but no consensus for 1- and 1+. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation page, Increment, does not seem like the best target for these terms at all. They should point somewhere else, or be their own pages. bd2412 T 19:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

  • retarget. If nothing else 1- pointing to increment is incorrect as it's a decrement, but I don't think that is a good target either. I don't think there is a single good target for them all.
    • Plus plus is a reasonable search term for increment and decrement operators (represented as "++" in "C-like languages), but I'm not opposed to other suggestions.
    • 1- I think could reasonably point to -1 (number), as that's what I thought would be the target when I saw this section header.
    • 1+ would then logically point at 1 (number), but I think the disambig at +1 would be a better target as it's an equally likely typo for several entries there as the first positive integer. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • repoint "plus plus" to 'increment and decrement operators'. Repoint 1- and 1+ to a new page called 1&x#00B1; which will be a setindex and list the various options for this (including +1/-1, the increment and decrement operators page, 1AD,1BC, etc) -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget plus plus to Increment and decrement operators per ++. Agree with 70' for the disposition of 1+/1-, since the symbols don't clearly represent an increment or decrement, and I can see it interfering with searching. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:43, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I find consensus to retarget Plus plus to Increment and decrement operators, but I'd like discussion to continue on the others.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to -1 and +1, for lack of a better option. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 3 March 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.

Suth anston[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No pages link here (except merge log and 2 other non-mainspace pages) it's a spelling and capitalisation that shouldn't be used. I think it is needless to keep it. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only left redirect for the links on the merge request when I move to correct title. Keith D (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete South Anston article and revert Anston to uncompromised 18 May 2013‎ edit by Keith D. Acabashi (talk) 13:09, 12 February 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) 17:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it were that plausible a typo, there would be other "South ..." redirects beginning "Suth ...", but there aren't. — Scott • talk 17:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's complete nonsense. The existence of other redirects has no bearing on how plaiusible any given typo is. Are you really claiming that failing to hit a key is impossibe? WilyD 20:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This misspelling looks more like the name of a person than it does a geographical area. Steel1943 (talk) 14:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there were somebody called "Seth Anston" then I would agree that should be taken into consideration, but Google finds exactly no real people with this name, indeed the only hit is a fictional character who appears twice in a non-notable role-playing story. "Suth Anston" does not find even that. Given that there is no chance of confusion, then this is completely irrelevant to whether it is a plausible typo for "South Anston". Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that "Suth" is a very uncommon misspelling for "South", and with the misspelling, it looks like a name, even if the person is either nonexistent or unnotable, seems rather relevant to me. Steel1943 (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Unless you are suggesting that either (a) this should be an article, or (b) there is an equal or more plausible target, then the only relevant question is whether this is a plausible redirect for the current target. The answer to that can be no, of course, but merely looking like the name of a person does not establish that at all. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's an uncommon deliberate misspelling, but it's a common enough typo. A person writing longhand might be very unlikely to make the error, but few people access Wikipedia by longhand. Most of us use a keybard. WilyD 14:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It combines two separate typos in an unusual and unlikely manner. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 11 March 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.

Doink doink[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 3#Doink doink

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_24&oldid=1138579569"