Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 14, 2015.

Pastrami, 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) 18:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this redirect is meant to designate. Otherwise, it just looks like an unlikely misspelling due to the odd ", n" at the end. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 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.

Why animals don't have wheels[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This entry on August 6th was blanked in the edit immediately following the nomination edit, so it never had discussion. (The error was probably caused by WP:TWINKLE since both this entry and the next nomimation (which blanked this entry) were done by the same editor.) So, I put the nomination back where it belonged on the 2015 August 6 page, and now here it is "relisted".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the target does in fact discuss the phenomenon of why animals don't have wheels in pretty thorough detail. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I feel WP:NOTFAQ is not applicable unless a question is being asked, and this search term appears to be a rephrasing rather than a question. --Rubbish computer 19:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. And actually I think somewhere in Dawkins it mentions that some very very small animals do have wheels, well at least rotating tails that are not connected to their body except by kinda well how you make a wheel, but I forget exactly where. Not a vestigial tail but a genuine wheel, in the sense that it is not connected to the body except through a rotating hub, it's kinda an amazing bit of evolution, I think some kind of bacterium, but I am hard placed to put it (if I'm allowed to call a bacterium an animal for the purpose of this discussion). If anyone said it, was probably Richard Dawkins. It could possibly be in Desmond Morris's or Jacob Bronowski's The Ascent of Man, but I don't think so. I only have the woodware, so it is hard for me to check it quickly. Si Trew (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A most unlikely search term. Would be OK on Wikihow or Answers.com, but not here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the article is precisely over "why animals don't have wheels." I've never thought of that before, but I'm glad to have gotten such a detailed response. -- Tavix (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not a question, but a phrasing of the problem in ordinary English, rather than heavily jargoned English. WilyD 12:52, 21 September 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.

ʔal-maʃriq[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 WP:CSD#R3. JohnCD (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this IPA transcription per Ʒuˈɐ̃w̃ dɨ ˈbaʁuʃ, 'nunu 'aɫvɐɾɨʃ pɨ'ɾɐjɾɐ, ɑ̃sjɛ̃ ʁeʒim, Mau̯ː˧˥ tsɤ˧˥.tʊŋ˥, and Dʒenive. Gorobay (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per the rest; WP:R3 because it's a very recently recreated implausible typo. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above, although this is probably about to happen anyway. --Rubbish computer 19:10, 14 September 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.

'Sblood[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) 18:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is an example of a minced oath, but the redirect is not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of this redirect is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless a good retargeting option can be found for this redirect, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Per this redirect's edit history, it looks like it was previously a WP:DICDEF-ish article that was redirected to Minced oath in 2005. Steel1943 (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft retarget to Wiktionary as there is an entry there. Rubbish computer 10:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:MOSPUNC. Wiktiionary can have it if it wants, but it is not encylclopaeidic, WP:NOTDIC.Since when (abozuut six months ago) was Wikipedia used as an index to WIktionary? delete it, that is what Wiktionary is for. Thiuis is an enxccyclopaediae not alexicon, and the entries at Wiktionaryy are usually not very good anyway, but that is just my opinion. Si Trew (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget. to Bloody, which is itself a minced oath, and links to minced oath in that article.
I think we have established that we are not here to enumerate a list of every euphemism, but those that are noteworthy we can retarget. a Bloody Mary is a pun, essentially, on the blood of Mary, Queen of Scots (I am not scottish) when Elizabeth I sent her to the Tower, but is certainly a lot later in etymology. Bloodie is red. Si Trew (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as there isn't an encyclopedic place that discusses this word. -- Tavix (talk) 16:31, 14 September 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.

Egad[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 Egad to EGAD, delete the others. --BDD (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are examples of minced oaths, but the redirects are not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of these redirects is questionable since the subject of the redirects isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless good retargeting options can be found for these redirects, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Retarget to God (word) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft retarget to Wiktionary as there is an entry there. Rubbish computer 10:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I have no idea what a soft retarget is (actually I do, it just means retargetting so the "soft" is redundant) but I am strongly against turning WIkipedia into "Wiktionary with pictures and other stuff". That is why we have, er, Wikipidia and Wiktionary as two seperate entities. A lexicon and an encyclopaedia are not the same thing. WP:NOTDIC. 15:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)
Comment. @70.51.202.113: it doesn't for me, I don't mean specifically but in general, I bounce straight through them to their targets and wonder how I got there and have to backtrace how that happened. I can't believe that is just me that happens to. Si Trew (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to EGAD, with maybe some more information added to that page about how the term is sometimes used as a minced oath CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've added a Wiktionary link to EGAD, if that helps matters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget egad to EGAD per CoffeeWithMarkets, delete the other two as they aren't mentioned at that dab or anywhere else. -- Tavix (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment retargetting "egad" (singular) and "egads" (plural) to "EGAD" works for me. The other can point to "god (word)" -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:32, 15 September 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.

Gosh darn[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 8#Gosh darn

Harry S Truman[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. Use WP:RM to request this move. --BDD (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse this. The S in Harry S Truman does not stand for anything except itself, it is not an abbreviation and should not be stopped. The article does not say that it stands for anything (and it damned well don't) Si Trew (talk) 12:11, 14 September 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.

Paul Sartre[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Show me where with a WP:RS Jean-Paul Sartre was ever just called Paul Sartre. This is WP:RFD#D2 confusing. FR:WP does not have it. Neither does any search result I can get have it, all roads lead back via this silly redirect. Si Trew (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 09:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - could be a plausible error, and not confusing with any other notable target that I can think of. It's fairly busy and it's been around since 2009. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but I have been very busy and I have been around since 2009. Hits are around 1 a day but are quite consistently around that, more than bot noise. It's a bit of a coin-toss then. I can see the point of keeping it, in the meantime as usual without prejudice I have marked it as {{R from incorrect name}}. Si Trew (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I change my mind. Keep with Ivanvector. This does no harm, gets hits. I'd prefer if right now this was not taken as withdrawn by nominator, because I still think others may differ and say nope delete, but for myself, I am happy to withdraw it. Si Trew (talk) 19:23, 14 September 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.

In Other Words[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I already nominated this for delete but it seems to have got lost. "In Other Words" does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, "Fly me to the moon", in a rather imperative mood, would require some kind of rocket science, if demanded, perhaps Richard Branson could get you there one day. It's a lyric from a song and we are WP:NOT#LYRICS. It makes no bloody sense to put it there. Mutatis Mutandis, which means roughly speaking "In other words" (not exactly, more "With things changed as necessary"), is perhaps a possible target. Si Trew (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately we don not have In other words, In Other words, In other Words, Another word, Another words, Another Word, Another Words, and so on. Si Trew (talk) 08:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The original title of the song was "In Other Words." It has become better known as "Fly Me to the Moon.." There are two reasonable ways of handling this. I would prefer that "In Other Words" be considered the primary article title and the redirect go the other way. But in either case, it seems that the appropriate title (either of the main article or the redirect) be changed to "In Other Words (song)." Would that satisfy everyone? -- BRG (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I would be more than happy with that (and am happy with the explanation, thank you, I learned something). The thing is, how I came to list this, I just got a WP:SURPRISE by chucking in "in other words" (in those caps) and finding myself at Frankie crooning along. I think disambiguating it in that way is probably the best, but then we still have the problem that In other words should presumably go somewhere? But we can sort that out afterwards. More than happy with User:BRG's suggestion as a first bit of disentaglement. Si Trew (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (edit conflict) - based on the article I think it's fine as-is. "In other words" (no caps) probably does refer to something else but I can't think of what, and there's no need to add a disambiguator if the title (with caps) is not ambiguous. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (Sorry about the ec) If we are going to keep this why don't we add Put differently and In for a penny, in for a pound (or, if you want, in for a loonie, in for a twonie). I appreciate that deletion is not the reverse of creation, but we are WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In Other Words appears at IOW -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:11, 16 September 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.

Debation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 21#Debation

Meri Kahani[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) 18:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PRODed as non-notable music album of Atif Aslam, the link now redirects to the artist. But "Meri Kahani" is a very generic title. My Story (Kamala Das book), An Autobiography (Nehru) ref are both called "Meri Kahani" in Hindi language translations. There seems to be a Pakistani drama by same name. Also there are some non-notable Bollywood films of 1982 and 1948 of same name ref. The redirect is clearly at the wrong target. But then is a disambiguation page worth as none of the probable search results seem notable much? Or should this be deleted? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as redirects from individual albums and songs that are not notable in themselves are frequently used. Rubbish computer 08:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why should it redirect to Atif if other possible targets are also available? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dharmadhyaksha: I didn't realise there were other articles related to this, I thought you just meant other things. --Rubbish computer 19:20, 14 September 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_September_14&oldid=1086097178"