Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 1, 2015.

Quark crypto-currency[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. Deryck C. 17:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, basically as a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 5#Quark (cryptocurrency), where consensus was to delete it per WP:REDLINK. Also note that there's no mention of "Quark" at both Cryptocurrency and List of cryptocurrencies. -- Tavix (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2015 (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.

200 American[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. Deryck C. 17:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the name of a film, but I have no idea why it redirects to United States dollar -- Tavix (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very strange. Probably some sort of vandalism (Edit summary: Film (name showing that the U.S. Dollar is TOP Dollar)) from an indef'd editor. There are a couple of incoming links for the film, one of which comes from director Richard LeMay. Retargeting there might be an option, though that's a new article and his notability looks questionable. --BDD (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's extremely unlikely someone would search for 200 American expecting to find an article of the US dollar. I did check and most of the actors in this movie don't even have their own article, and I'm not surprised it isn't notable enough to have its own article because according to IMDb, it was never officially released in theaters worldwide or even nationwide. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we need redirects for 185 American or [199.95 American]] Legacypac (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2015 (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.

Bad NES Games[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 without prejudice against creation of redirect to appropriate list in the future, if one is written. Deryck C. 17:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the angry video game nerd is by no means connected to bad NES games. There are countless YouTubers who criticize bad NES games, the only thing that makes the guy special in that case is the fact that he's the most popular one.

Also, when I look for an article on "bad NES games" I want an article about bad NES games. Such an article doesn't exist, we could redirect this to Nintendo Entertainment System, but since there is nothing in this article about NES games that people consider bad, it would make as much sense as the current redirect, so that's out of the question. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I was gonna leave a message on the user talk page letting the one who made the redirect know about this discussion, but since that user is blocked, I'm not going to as there would be no point as he can't be part of this discussion anyway. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2015 (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.

Hanno Möttola[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 Möttölä as {{R from surname}}, delete all others. Improvements to Wikipedia's search box autocomplete in recent years means that it's now diacritic-insensitive. The rough consensus here is that keeping redirects from wrong placements of diacritics pollute search results and don't help people search things any better. Deryck C. 16:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is is useful to have all these variations? Seems excessive and will make searching harder, while introducing bad info into the world. Legacypac (talk) 04:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep Möttölä, valid {{R from surname}}. Regular keep for the rest. I don't see them doing any harm, especially if you can't remember exactly how many umlauts there are, but know there's at least one. -- Tavix (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside on redirects with diacrtitics. As I've pointed out"elsewhere, the search seems to be "diacritic-insensitive". I know that didn't used to be the case, but for searching there's no need for, or advantage in having, these redirects. If editors really need to use variant forms (e.g. as they is used in sources), they can WP:PIPE it. That's what we do for many other variant forms, e.g. plurals, which are now deprecated for creation. I realise that was not always the case, but the search engine has got a bit better over the years. I'd like to get consensus to have this made explicit in MoS (unless it is already and I just can't find it); RfD is not really the right forum. However there doesn't seem to be a right forum. Si Trew (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as maintenance headache that encourages incorrect use in articles except keep Möttölä as {{R from title without diacritics}}.
As it stands, none of these has any links beyond this discussion; none has stats above noise level (<1 a day). Si Trew (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mottola is an article about an Italian town, it's not a redirect and not included in this discussion... -- Tavix (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I did actually check this too... amended mine above, I meant the full name without diacritics. Si Trew (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The full name without diacritics hasn't been nominated either. :P -- Tavix (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
grrr... I meant the one with the diacritics... I pared down from three to one, and twice got it wrong one. Surely this is right now? :) Si Trew (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I only nom'd the ones by Neelix is why. Legacypac (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2015 (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.

Egregiosities[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 all. Deryck C. 17:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My tenancy to do badly on math tests is not evil. None of these have anything to do with evil. Legacypac (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget baddest to superlative, where worst targets. Delete the rest. Bad is a disambiguation page and doesn't list anything that "badly" could refer to. As for the egregious ones, evil is the wrong target and we don't seem to have a better one. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: what is Category:Temporary maintenance holdings? I can't figure out why egregious is there with no content instead of being a redlink. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had to add that category because of a system bug that sometimes hits soft redirects to Wiktionary or Wikisource. Normally, the system treats a soft redirect as what it is — however, for reasons that have never really been explained to me, if somebody tries to convert a soft redirect into an article, and then it gets converted back into a soft redirect again because dicdef or whatever, then the system no longer recognizes it as a soft redirect. Instead, it now permanently considers the page to be an uncategorized article, and lists it on all the tools we use to detect and tag uncategorized articles — and there's no other way to ever make it drop from those lists again, except by finding a way to "categorize" it. If you read the usage note on Category:Temporary maintenance holdings, it explains what the category is for — this bug is the principal reason why it ended up being necessary, and most but not all of the articles in it were put there for this reason. The categorization project can't have pages like this cluttering up our project tools, so just letting it stay as a permanent feature of the uncategorized pages list wasn't an option. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I get it, thanks for explaining. I was confused why the category was on a page with no content, but I somehow managed to miss the giant wiktionary redirect box at the top of the page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget "badly" to bad (disambiguation); which was missing "error" a term that can be referred to as "badly" (that was badly done / that was erroneously done) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"erroneous" (itself a DAB) is not the same as "error". (You can't have ërrorly"). I've changed it at bad. Si Trew (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. "Baddest" isn't mentioned at Superlative—"worst" only barely is. Remember when we got rid of a bunch of redirects from examples of minced oaths to Minced oath that weren't mentioned there? Let's not create more work for ourselves a few months down the road. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all with BDD. None of these have to do with "evil" and I haven't seen any helpful retargeting suggestions. -- Tavix (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all as more Neelix junk. Mangoe (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All as worthless unnecessary junk. NOTDIC. Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as useless redirect spam. Baddest actually means best in slang (nobody says baddest when they mean worst) —МандичкаYO 😜 19:42, 4 December 2015 (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.

Dee dee dee[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 13#Dee dee dee

University of Hertfordshire Press[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 deleted, G6, by Ponyo. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page with this title has been created in draft space and cannot be accepted. LaMona (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close This discussion is simply a waste of time, the redirect is eligible for speedy deletion per {{db-move}}. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2015 (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.

Google (noun)[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. Deryck C. 17:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense—WP:RFD#DELETE #2 and #5. Google itself is a (proper) noun, as is Googol, but neither of those seem like appropriate targets, as they're not about a noun. The search term implies an article on a part of speech. BDD (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2015 (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.

Kilogoogle[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 all. Deryck C. 17:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what these neologisms have to do with Google as a verb. I'd imagine they're nouns for describing magnitude of Google search results. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Ironically, these words could be seen as ambiguous as misspelled made up words (Googol) for numbers: "Kilogoogle" = 10100 x 103, "Megagoogle" = 10100 x 106, etc. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2015 (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.

Google+(verb)[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. Deryck C. 17:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jokes about the site's popularity aside, this has nothing to do with Google+. BDD (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom & since there's nowhere to retarget it (no page on Wikipedia discussing any use of "Google+" as a verb). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2015 (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.

Global cooperation[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 to encourage article creation rather than redirecting to related concept. Deryck C. 16:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not synonymous. Global cooperation has more to do with intergovernmental interaction like Foreign policy. Globalization is more to do with the spread of cultural ideas and icons. Mr. Guye (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Multilateralism as a good fit. Legacypac (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It might be the best fit of these options, but I don't know if it's good enough. "Global cooperation" definitely implies a worldwide scale, and many instances of multilateralism are really only regional. --BDD (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was kinda my concern with it too. Maybe a Wp:CONCEPTDAB would be good? 127.0.0.1 (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes best of the listed options - I'm good with redlinking it too. Legacypac (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The word does not mean at all the same as either the current redirect target or any of the others suggested. There is no point in targetting it to something that is wrong just because all other suggestions are even worse. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's just too vague of a term. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:22, 4 December 2015 (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.

Contour (camera system)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 13#Contour (camera system)

Feed me[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 disambiguate. Deryck C. 17:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo/misnomer - Feed Me is a proper noun. (see WP:R3) The redirect was created nearly 4 years ago, therefore it is not recent enough to be speedily deleted. Thexperimentalist (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that is done the same should be done for Feed Me as well.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When we do that, then Feed Me should be displaced to Feed Me (musician) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2015 (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.

File:Dream 1989.jpg[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. The redirect will be deleted per speedy deletion criterion G8 if its target is deleted. No reason was provided to expedite the redirect's deletion past the file's, so closing this. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a non-free orphaned file Mlpearc (open channel) 05:14, 1 December 2015 (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.

Crown of japan[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. The discussion below concluded that "crown of japan" isn't actually a common name for this species of plant. Since Japan actually has a king, this redirect should be deleted as confusing. Deryck C. 17:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing. Likely to imply something to do with the Emperor of Japan to most people. I can't find any evidence that this is used as a common name for the plant. It appears to be an English phonetic "translation" of the French common name "crosnes du Japon" Plantdrew (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Just realized I didn't recommend any action when I submitted this. The New York Times article 210 found doesn't actually contain the phrase (not sure why it comes up in searches). The book has it, but with only a single source, I'm inclined to think that the author of the book either "translated" from the French themselves, or heard it spoken and guessed at the spelling. Plantdrew (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2015 (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/2015_December_1&oldid=1079531293"