Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 2, 2015.

Neuroqueer[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) 15:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Neuroqueer" is not mentioned or defined on the target page, nor is it referencees or backed by references. CombatWombat42 (talk) 13:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two blogs as sources...CombatWombat42 (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete''as WP:NEOLOGISM. What would it mean? Neuro presumably relates to the brain but queer in Br. Eng. is rathher old slang for a male homosexual so it would mean essentially headfuck or brainfuck or something like that? Brainfuck is an article about an esoteric programming language). I have no idea what it could possibly mean. Si Trew (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above points: I didn't realise the sources I had used were blogs. --Rubbish computer 15:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless this can be reliably sourced. The word seems to mean "born homo- or bi-sexual", i.e. "feels they have always known they were queer". I've encountered it a couple of times, also in a bloggy or social-networking context. I'm thinking it's too soon to include this, since there's no evidence the term is catching on, or has a published definition (I'm just going by assumption of the meaning given the context in which I've encountered it). If it's as popular and well-understood as "metrosexual" or "cisgender" in a year, then add it back.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:38, 6 October 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.

Digital life form[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 9#Digital life form

Fashion icon[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. This is an ambiguous term and no persuasive alternative target has been adduced. This can be converted, if so desired, to a disambiguation page by bold post-RFD editorial action. I have also deleted Fashion Icon on the same rationale. Just Chilling (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion design (or the original target: Fashion) is not a synonym. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment however, it is a synonym for fashion designer which redirects to fashion design. Though it also means other things besides fashion designer... -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the only piece of more defining resource for the fashion-uninitiated me, Time's list defines as "From models and muses to designers and photographers", and also includes non-human brands, fashion magazine editors and stylists. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 09:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to fashion design per nom. --Rubbish computer 16:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, surely a fashion icon is not the designer but the wearer, one on the front cover of Vogue or somesuch, that is to say, standmeat. (Which unfortunately we have not got.) Si Trew (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YSL is referred to as a fashion icon[1] YSL was a designer; as is Karl Lagerfeld, also a designer [2] ; and Jean-Paul Gauthier [3]; etc; though yes, non-designers are also called fashion icons -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague per above points. Besides that issue, my search also tells me that it can also refer to fashion related Icon (computing) --Lenticel (talk) 12:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One can be a fashion icon without being a fashion designer, and one can be a fashion designer without being an icon. As well, there's the connection to Icon (computing), as stated above. There's no proper target here really. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambiguation page that points to various fashion careers, including Fashion designer, Fashion model, and Fashion photographer, oh and Fashion illustrator – Erté is definitely a "fashion icon".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This reminds me of the "guru" discussions going on right now. This just amounts to "someone prominent in fashion", and really could also refer to the logos or icons used by fashion companies, such as a polo player or a crocodile. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 9 October 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:SmallLogo.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 speedy delete. The links are still displaying as blue. If that's not right, please contact me. --BDD (talk) 15:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File redirect eclipsing Commons. brining here because it's not necessarily uncontroversial... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also affected -

Thanks. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sfan00 IMG, do you mean you want the others nominated for deletion as well? Do you mean File:Edge.png? And does your argument mean that different files have these names on Commons? --BDD (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Different files on Commons have these names. The additional files are included in the disscussion. Yes I do mean Edge.png (corrected). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: RHaworth already deleted two (marked). BethNaught (talk) 15:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The remaining three additional listings should be deleted. This is uncontroversial per WP:CSD#F2 because they shadow Commons images with the same title. SmallLogo.jpg only shadows a redirect. It appears to have fallen prey to phab:T30299, so we may as well delete it. It won't work for its intended purpose. BethNaught (talk) 15:21, 2 October 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.

Crimson jihad[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) 15:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This term is not mentioned in the target. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 08:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a liar, we do have Red Jihad but not Red jihad. We could take it via that, red is not that far awaz fro crimson is it, if you are going to paint a wall with it, but this has religious significance so I think that would be wrong. Si Trew (talk) 11:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there appears to be no suitable target. --Rubbish computer 14:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crimson Jihad with the cap om the J is also red (not crimson). Si Trew (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cf. Crimson Permanent Assurance, which is a bit of a pun on Pearl Assurance. Please stop takimg my comments out. Si Trew (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per anon's findings. Looks like these are just obscure fictional organizations --Lenticel (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only place the term is mentioned is the plot section of True Lies but I doubt Thea someone typing this is looking up a fictional organization from a 1994 film.--67.68.29.107 (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to True Lies; the "Crimson Jihad" is the primary antagonist of the film, so should target that film article. The entire film is based around the threat posed by Crimson Jihad -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOTE the "Crimson Jihad" is mentioned at True Lies -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Turd it mentioned once in the plot section but I find it questionable that someone would type the term to find out about a fictional organization form a film that is over two decades old.--67.68.29.107 (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Sure" mangled by a voice-to-text system? --BDD (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CHEAP We have many redirects from characters and organizations to the movies they appear in, this is no different. It is a subtopic of the film, and it will lead people to the article. It is a popular film. This is a central "character" for the film, regardless of how we wrote the article. Most of the antagonists in the film are members/associates of the Crimson Jihad. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Crimson Jihad" is also repeatedly mentioned in the runtime of the film -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While I'm sympathetic to just retargeting this to the related movie page, the actual name of the terrorist organization is a minor point in the film as I recall (bordering on the kind of 'trivia' stuff asked about on game shows level). I agree with the above arguments that the thing should just be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:31, 6 October 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.

Molecular Machines and Nanoassemblers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 12#Molecular Machines and Nanoassemblers

צ'יפס[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, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Hebrew. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 08:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely unrelatad, I think the word was invented by that little Scots firm, you know, McDonalds. Neither Belgian nor French. (et je peux parler comme une vache espanol. I can speak French like a Spanish cow). See English as She is Spoke. Si Trew (talk) 16:48, 2 October 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.

חציל[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, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Hebrew. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 08:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I t hink you are wrong, the eggplant or aubergine (which redirects there) was actually first raised in Israel wasn't it? But has little to do with an auberge, a cheap hotel or inn, essentially Travelodge. Si Trew (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Instead of guessing, it'd be a lot better to read the article and find out for yourself. Here: Eggplant#History. -- Tavix (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The reaon I purposely guess rather than looking is that is what I think our readers would do, so I purposely do not look at the targets but what would someone searching for want to find? Am I wrong in doing it that way? Si Trew (talk) 01:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, because you're wrong in this regard. Eggplants don't have any affinity for Hebrew; and you guessing that it might doesn't create that affinity. -- Tavix (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. According to this document the plant was first cultivated in the modern Indian and Burmese regions. If we need a foreign redirect then I think it should be Indian or Burmese rather than Hebrew. --Lenticel (talk) 13:01, 3 October 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.

Ugaritisch[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 13#Ugaritisch

Combat operation[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 speedily retarget to Combat (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Combat operations are not synonymous with war. World leaders can send in troops for some form of minor military intervention Mr. Guye (talk) 01:59, 2 October 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.

Taisen[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, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No known relation between these two words. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictoinary. War is a general topic with no particular affinity for Japanese -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
:What os ot. Japansese I would guess? Si Trew (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK you already said that. I check kanji and hiragana for this. Still seems unlikely. Tai-sen definitely means "I shall fight", not exactly "war" but we dont have tai-sen. Si Trew (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance at Tarzan that seems like pushing it a bit. @Lenticel: is usually the expert on this. Si Trew (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
tai is a DAB at which taisen is not listed. sen is also DAB and at forurh lists the Japanese Zen. So this means four Japanese Yen, if it means anything, which it doesn't. Si Trew (talk) 05:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have the distinction between a tsunami and a Toon Army. What are we to do with this? Si Trew (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have Toon army by the way. I support Arsenal F.C. s I am neutral with that one. Si Trew (talk) 05:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I see the term used most (although I may be mistaken) in reference to video games, specially the whole Sūpā Robotto Taisen series (see: Super Robot Taisen). So, the word does have a strong pop culture influence, but I'm not really sure what to do with this redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My guess is that this is a Japanese reading of wikt:大戰, but I don't see a good reason for having this redirect. —Kusma (t·c) 12:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And thanks to CoffeeWithMarkets I know now that I am right, although it is written 大戦 in Japanese instead of Chinese 大戰 / 大战. —Kusma (t·c) 12:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED as a redirect from an unrelated foreign language. --Rubbish computer 14:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of potential targets. The closest targets that I got are "Taisen" series like Sakura Wars and Super Robot Wars --Lenticel (talk) 23:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As stated above, there really isn't a primary target, and it looks like the best thing is just to leave the text red. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. I was trying to think of Taiszen or Taishen as well but that seems far away. Taiwan surely would be a huge stretch. I only learned nihongo for a couple of years so am not very good at it. Si Trew (talk) 01:36, 3 October 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_October_2&oldid=1037881444"