Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 27, 2016.

Hutterites in Australia[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. JohnCD (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Implies that the Rocky Cape Christian Community is the only place in Australia where there are Hutterites at all. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2016 (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.

Poop toilet[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. 11:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, like with the "Pee toilet" redirect, I don't think the toilets are referred to by these names. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2016 (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.

Pee toilet[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. 11:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think urinals are ever referred to by this name. . . Mr. Guye (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is just a made up phrase obviously. st170etalk 22:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - One can also urinate in a "poop toilet". Sort of misogynistic as well.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is just baby slang. It's not misogynistic, the fact that blokes have a penis to both piss out of and do other things out of, and women have separate tubing that ends up with them needing to sit, is just a biological fact that comes with its own consequences both to women and men, but nobody is claiming it this is somehow against men or little boys, that is a stupid thing to even suggest that it is mysogyny. The gyns may miss sometimes but the blokes do too, and we use less toilet paper. Si Trew (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy-delete per above - vandalism. Rossami (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2016 (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.

Blade Runner 2 (film project)[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. 11:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless and dormant redirect created 3 years ago during misunderstanding of how to go about creating articles on one editors account. There's no other movie called Blade Runner 2, so it's unnecessary. Rusted AutoParts 20:31, 27 April 2016 (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.

Blade Runner 2 (film)[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. Though the IP ultimately has the stronger argument here, the nominator is the creator, so G7 applies. In light of Blade Runner 2 existing, I'm going to go ahead and delete, albeit on a bit of a technicality. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless and dormant redirect created 3 years ago during misunderstanding of how to go about creating articles on one editors account. There's no other movie called Blade Runner 2, so it's unnecessary. Rusted AutoParts 20:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Blade Runner#Sequels - BD2 is under development and information is present in the target article. Principal photography is set to start in July 2016, just a few months from now. Nominator is wrong in claiming that films are the only use. There is a novel also called "Blade Runner 2" that was released many years ago. Also WP:CHEAP the redirect is correct it points to an article where information about the film exists -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
....There's a redirect for Blade Runner 2 here. We don't need the Blade Runner 2 (film) redirect as nothing has been added to it since 2013. Rusted AutoParts 05:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect is functioning correctly, and the novel "Blade Runner 2" is detailed in the Blade Runner article, so the existing of the redirect "Blade Runner 2" is not for the film, rather it can be interpreted as being for the novel. Further wP:CHEAP -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The edit history is made up entirely on information for the film, as opposed to what you think it is for. And regardless of WP:CHEAP, the redirect that i nominated here is still an unneeded redirect, so it should be deleted, considering no edits has been made to it since 2013 as I said. Rusted AutoParts 16:39, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects do not obtain edits in the normal course of things, so that does not matter. This is functionally correct, and is WP:CONSISTENT with how real film articles are disambiguated, so serves as a clear marker pointing to where information on the film is located. The novel is unrelated to the new film and has been released many years ago, so people expecting that things that have been released have articles first would expect that a "(film)" redirect would point to the film while the one without may be about the novel. And it is still WP:CHEAP so there's no real good reason to delete it. -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well no offense, but I'm not going to take in the input of an IP who just started editing yesterday. Rusted AutoParts 15:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - If/when there's solid talk of a sequel film that gets consistent reliable source coverage, then this redirect should exist. Not before. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2016 (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.

Banana (2014 Film)[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. 13:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Useless and misleading redirect. There aren't bananas in the Abraham's article, there is no film called Banana starring John Abraham, and most importantly there isn't any film called "Banana" and produced in 2014 [1]. Cavarrone 19:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Neither of these sources are strong enough to support an article but they do suggest that the movie really existed. [2] [3] Probably, anyway. Both do confirm that John Abraham was (or would be) involved in the film.
    Still thinking about what that means for the redirect. No opinion for now... Rossami (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rossami's sources don't really help, so here are some better ones: [4], [5]. All sources I've seen refer to "Banana" as an upcoming film, so I'm assuming it never got finished for whatever reason. More to the point of the redirect, I wasn't able to find any sources mentioning that the film was released, especially not in 2014, so the redirect is misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as is not at target. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Even if Rossami's refs proves that this film exists, then at best this is still a WP:REDLINK deletion --Lenticel (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: WP:REDLINK would only apply if we actually wanted an article at that title. I can barely find evidence that the film exists. There is no evidence that it would meet generally accepted inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 05:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with that, that's why I said even "at best" this RfD's result will still be delete --Lenticel (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no such notable film in 2014, and it's in caps anyway - should be (2014 film) instead of (2014 Film) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's not clear if the film even existed. This redirect should just be trashed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2016 (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.

Hircine[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 per the emerging consensus towards the end of the discussion, despite the fact that nobody put "disambiguate" in bold text. Deryck C. 17:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional god not mentioned at the target article. He appears in The Elder Scrolls III: Bloodmoon, and its probably his biggest role in the series, so I'm not opposed to a retarget there, but I'm leaning towards a WP:NOTWIKIA delete. (N.b., this is also an obscure word in English.) BDD (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to The Elder Scrolls III: Bloodmoon. It's not a bad word in Scrabble, but WP:NOTDIC. (Ovine is usually better if you hold the B.) Si Trew (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ovine goes to Sheep, but Bovine and Porcine go to Bovinae and Suidae, respectively. So Capra (genus) or Goat could also be possibilities, though the word is so obscure that that might WP:ASTONISH. (Side note, related to domestic animals and fantasy fiction: Magic: The Gathering has the delightful Ovinomancer, a wizard who turns enemies into sheep.) --BDD (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to goat. This seems to pertain to goats more than TES. Google search got hits from the 1700s and 1800s though which confirms nom's claim that this is indeed an obscure and old term --Lenticel (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to goat. Yes literally it means "of a goat", like ovine means "of a cow", lapine "of a rabbit", feline "of a cat", vulpine "of a fox" and so on. (I haven't checked canine but imagine it goes to teeth and if it does or does not was probably hard fought for.) But with BDD I was thinking that might be WP:ASTONISH too which is why I refrained from saying what BDD said better. However I think it more astonishing, despite WP:NOTDIC, for it to go where it currently goes. Si Trew (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I deliberately didn't check canine before the above, so as not kinda to queer my own argument, but actually it's a DAB with doggies and teeth. Si Trew (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to head that way with you. -- Tavix (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with a dab given that there are at least three plausible targets. Perhaps we can separate the "goat" and "Capra" entries? --Lenticel (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could. IMO, it's fundamentally the same topic, and worth an IAR exception to the usual dab guideline of one bluelink per line. --BDD (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2016 (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.

LTE (telecommunications)[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. JohnCD (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is not necessary from my point of view as the shorter and almost identical form without any different spelling is the destination of this redirect. It does not aid any accidental misspelling, which could be considered useful. A deletion would also not harm redirection as the name of the link-destination suggests to me that it is found more easily than this redirect. As far as I can see there is also no relevant edit history to preserve. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I hear the plural form more often. As Telecommunication says, "The word is often used in its plural form, telecommunications, because it involves many different technologies." As for the redirect itself, it's unambiguous and not harmful. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but reverse the redirect. Despite what the article says (that BDD notes), "telecommunications" is not a plural here but an abstract noun. It is, I would suggest, by far the more common term than telecommunication. It would be like saying "she works with computer" rather than "she works with computers". There's no harm in keeping it but it makes sense to move the article over the redirect. Most if not all of our articles use the -s form, such as Telecommunications in Tunisia not Telecommunication in Tunisia (but, nothing is perfect, Telecommunications redirects to Telecommunication). Someone has been overly pedantic with the singulars; what is widely known as BT is not legally known as British Telecommunication plc for example but British Telecommunications plc. Si Trew (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would prefer to match the main article, though there's never been an RM there. (In its talk page archives, an IP opined in 2006 that the plural form should be used.) --BDD (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's fine for the main article, I think that is rather a coin-toss really, but the prevalent usage I think would be with the -s to describe the state of the art, rather than the concept of talking at a distance. (Nearly ec'd but we missed.) It's not really a plural, despite what the article says, but an abstract uncountable noun depending on when you learned your grammar. (Grammarians make a good living redefining grammar.) Si Trew (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revers the redirect the real article should use "telecommunications" and the redirect from "telecommunication" to the article should exist -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 05:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I have voted, I'm also curious about other titles that use these disambiguators. Is there a standard? Should there be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pluralization and other grammatical variants are not only allowed but encouraged. That said, I have no opinion about which should be primary and which the redirect. That can be left to sort out on the respective Talk pages (hopefully informed by the comments to-date here, of course). Rossami (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, keep (I think I said that) but this is not a plural except in a strict syntactic sense, it is like thinking "the heavens" is a plural whereas "heaven" is singular, doesn't stop them being one and the same thing just because it has an S on the end of it. (I may queer my pitch there because "the Gods" were definitely different, separate entities to the Greeks but "the Gods" as the area at the top of a theatre a long way from the stage, the cheap seats, is singular (we'll get a seat in the gods, not any particular seat, just a single area of the theatre). So these -s's are not kinda concrete plurals like apples or oranges. But that's just my pedantic grammar head on. Si Trew (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I suggested was yes we might wish to reverse the redirect (also I would remove the thing at the target saying it is a plural when I don't think it is, but I don't like to do that when something is being discussed.) Certainly UMTS (telecommunication) (s) should go the same way if we decide that telecommunications is the common word and telecommunication the less common, but we haven't made our minds up on that yet.
To perhaps declare an interest, I worked for a company doing test equipment for wireless communications and are very familiar with both specifications, so perhaps that rules me out, no conflict of interest because I don't work for them now (about five years ago) but just the words we used at that company may not reflect how the whole world uses them. Si Trew (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why this is non my talk page where blatently there is a forum to discuss it and the admin should be well aware of that but I copy paste

"LTE (tele)communications" and "LTE (tele)communication" are wrong because the technology is simply called "LTE" or "long term evolution"... or at least those grammatical constructions aren't used "in the wild". It is right that we don't have articles or redirects at those titles.

LTE (telecommunications) ↔ LTE (telecommunication) won't be {{R from plural}} or {{R from singular}} because the main noun is "LTE", not "communication". The correct tag for the redirect, whichever one it ends up being, would be {{R from other disambiguation}}. Deryck C. 17:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The place to say this is on the RfD page, not at my talk page. Si Trew (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the admin is incapable of finding an open discussion I start to doubt the competence of the admin. I am well aware of what LTE is I fucking worked with it for eighteen months so I don't need to be told. Being a bit modest I didn;t want to have to expalain [[quadratrures] and IQ planes and so forth. Si Trew (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Canceling own request / proposal : Following this discussion I can find that keep is more preferrable than to reverse this redirect. Maybe it can be useful to follow the idea of Si Trew or Deryck C. to add a further template to this redirect. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's very generous of you. I really don't know so that is why I stood back. I can tell you why grammatically it is "right" or "wrong" but it depends on how people use it in real life, we are not the Acadamie francaise and dictate how people speak rather they dictate and dictionaries listen (if you're a descriptive grammarian). But we are WP:NOTDIC either. I am neutral on this. Si Trew (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2016 (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.

Russia (1991-1993)[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 Russia (1990-1993) as the discussion below demonstrated that this title resulted from a conceptual misunderstanding, so the redirect serves no useful purpose. No consensus, default to keep Russia (1991-1993) as discussion participants agree that it refers to the state of Russia that existed between the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the Russian constitutional reform of 1993 and the existing target one of several plausible targets. Deryck C. 12:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the significance of this is. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 05:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the period between the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the adoption of the constitution in 1993, making this a period that is a different country from 1993 onwards -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1991-1993 as it indicates a particular country called Russia. Weak keep the other one as a conceptual misspelling or a political viewpoint on the collapse and reconstruction of Russia. (This would be like indicating the French Third Republic or Fourth Republic or Fifth Republic as years) -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because date is irrelevant, its just the same article AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 13:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was created as a redirect to Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic#1990s. It'd be one thing if we had an article on Russia from these years, but it looks like our series of articles of the History of Russia starts at 1991 (History of Russia (1991–present).) For these reasons, I say delete. -- Tavix (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the reasons Tavix gives I say weak retarget; to History of Russia (1991–present). Normally I am against directing the specific to the general, but I think this is specific enough. Unlikely search term, though, and stats on both are below noise level. None is used outside discussion pages. It comes up as the first hit when I put "Russia in 1990" into the search engine, but only the third when I put "Russia in 1991" (the first being FC Neftekhimik Nizhnekamsk and the second Moscow Ladies Open); the tags may obscure the result of course, or my linking here change their prominence). Si Trew (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete by Tavix but not per. Since Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic#1990s and History of Russia (1991–present) seem equally likely, WP:XY per WP:RFD#D1 inhibits search. Si Trew (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the "1990-1993" version because it contains history of content which I believe was later merged into other pages. (A history-merge would be too likely to introduce spurious changes to the content and is not worth the trouble.) It does no harm to keep it as an artifact of the development of other articles. Weak keep the "1991 version because it does no harm. Rossami (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2016 (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.

Pueblo of Laguna[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 Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix redirect) I must admit I can't hang me hat on this one, it is the "of" that is bugging me. The whole phrase is not at the target, but there is no doubt if it goes anywhere that it should go there. But it seems unlikely to me to put an english "of" between two spanish words. Pueblo de laguna, Pueblo del laguna, and any other nonsense like that (in a sad attempt for Pueblo de la laguna and so on), are red. People of the lagoon and Lagoon people are red. Si Trew (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Their official website uses Pueblo of Laguna, so this one's a real alternate name. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 12:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily keep as nominator. As I say, if I have any doubts about a Neelix redirect under the WP:G6 concession I bring them here. A lot I just rcat and also keep, steadiy we will get there, but listing about twenty a day I can't (and the CSD admins can't) check everything. Nice call, speedilyy keep. (Procedural close as withdrwan by nominator, me Si Trew (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2016 (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.

Slipper jack[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 "Slipperjack", delete "Slipper jack". JohnCD (talk) 09:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix redirects) These are a bit nonsense, but I was expecting them to go to detective Jack Slipper, the famous Scotland Yard detective.They don't so it is a bit (WP:XY) as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Probably delete per WP:G6 housekeeping but not 100% sure, others may bave better ideas for example shoehorn (being a jack (device) although you really shouldn't need one for your slippers. Si Trew (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well the one without the space is a sensible R from surname or whatever, the one with the space is not her surname so is just absurd. Si Trew (talk) 15:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Slipperjack, it is just a standard redirect from surname, delete the other. --Cavarrone 11:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' without prejudice I have marked the non-spaced one as {{R from surname}}, but I am with Cavaronne, one makes sense the other does not. Keep Slpperjack and perhaps {{R to full name}} as well; Delete slipper jack as WP:RFD#D1 hinders search, WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. It is not as if it (she) is a trolley jack or something like that. Si Trew (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I am surprised we don't have trolley jack, is that a pecliarly British English thing fot them? Si Trew (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2016 (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.

Taciturnity[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 Taciturn. JohnCD (talk) 09:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix redirect) Not sure about this one. Taciturn also goes to silence but taciturn does not quite mean silent but reluctant to talk. Si Trew (talk) 15:31, 27 April 2016 (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.

Irritant (biology)[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. JohnCD (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix redirect). At the top of the target it says "an irritant, in biology". I'm just wondering if this blocks search for other irritants such as Wikipedia editors. Irritant (disambiguation) does not have it (I think) Si Trew (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2016 (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.

Sad Paki Loser[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 RHaworth (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was created as an unsourced article on May 21, 2006, and redirected to the current target on the same day. It doesn't appear that the list has ever contained any discussion of this term, and in any case it doesn't now. Since there's no discussion of this at the target, and since it's unlikely that anyone will type this exact phrase into the search box as a way to find the entire list, preserving this serves no purpose. It should be deleted. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per 64.105. If we had any information on this phrase, it would be a different matter, but as it stands Paki is offensive to some (not to others), Sad Loser is offensive to some (not to others), stick the three together and you can be nothing but deliberately trying to be offensive. That is OK WP:NOTCENSORED but without anything at the target to explain the etymology of this phrase it is just downright offensive. I think it was a line in a British film once, but search engines don't get me very far, it may have been shouted during an international Test Match Cricket game, but not England versus Pakistan, it was in a different game India, I think, so was incorrect and offensive at the same time when shouted (the Englishman was kindly escorted to by the constabulary to help them with their enquiries, but I may be thinkiung of something else); gsearch brings up nothing for me, ; others might search better. It's in a dictionary (I assume) at dict.youdao.com%20›%20常用查询 (but then, that's in chinese script not even in sanskrit but the results are in English) but I can get no farther than that. Unfortunately I don't think we have any Pakistanis contributing to RfD or any I could point to who could know, perhaps worth pinging [[Wikipedia: Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan.But the phrase is very much British not Pakistani. Si Trew (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though not for any of the reasons given in the nomination. I can find no evidence that this phrase actually exists except within Wikipedia or sources that I could show are derivative of it. This appears to me to be a hoax that should have been sorted out via AfD back in 2006, not punted to a redirect. It's past time to clean it up. Rossami (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I meant offence caused in Britain to British Pakistanis. I am not of that kind, I am just biologically a mix of German, old English, and something my great-grandmother got up to once, a hybrid. THere is no need to cause offence to the British Pakistani population through a stupid redirect. Si Trew (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2016 (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.

Illuminato[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. JohnCD (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) This is not at the target. I know it is the singular of Illuminati but the target does not say so. I could imagine that it could be a typo for Illumination. I have never heard anyone in English saý "The illuminato" not even as a joke (like I might say, for a single hand clap, an applau. WP:RFOREIGN perhaps, or WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. (The target should really be at its redirect The Illuminati because in English is is always a collective noun) and is as Fowler would say a siamese twins (linguistics), the "The" and the "Illuminati", but that's for another day; nobody in English says just "Illuminati". It's a bit like in English there is "the hoi polloi" even though the first word actually means "the" in Greek, and the "the"is of course elided in Italian but not in English.) Si Trew (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:G-Neelix. Could be a typo for Illuminati, could be a mishearing of Luminato, could be a bunch of other things. Let's not waste time on it, that's what the special G6 criterion is for. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been listing lots today under the Neelix concession, but brought a few that I think would have any contention. I go Speedily delete per Ivanvector (i've been working me way through the Anomie list.) I have taken it thus referring back to here. Si Trew (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete typing in Illuminato will pull up options for likely search terms such as Illuminator (several terms under this) and Illuminati anyway. The singular would be Illuminatus as folks would be searching for the singular like alumni / alumnus not alumno. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:52, 4 May 2016 (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.

Myopically[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 9#Myopically

Heighth[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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Neelix redirect, but refer yáll to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_9#Highth. This just has an added T. Literally no incoming links beyond this discussion (nothing on any other talk pages etc let alone articles) and stats are below noise level at about 2 a week. Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Si Trew (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: I added this redirect simply to cover all bases for alternate words spellings (a là heighth and width). FWIW, Dictionary.com lists this as a "nonstandard spelling". — Loadmaster (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would not cover all bases, height and width are differnt things. Both are linear measures in different axes (generally orthogonal but in planar geometry) or non-euclidian geometry can sometimes be differet. That does not help anything, that is like saying "Which way is Up", it depends on a point of reference. You didn't cover all bases because otherwise we'd have widthth to worty about. Si Trew (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And what are you going to put there beyond saying it is a variant spelling, WP:NOTDIC. I have in no doubt that it is a variant spelling, but this is not encylopaedic content. If you can put that Shakespeare or Chaucer or Washington used it once, that would still not be encylopadic; the article needs to be about Heighth (a bloke called Heighth or whatever). It is not, so that is just NOTDIC. I have dictionaries too, mainly in woodware. I can look something on reliable sources on my fingers in woodware before coming to Wikipedia and having to look up unreliable sources. The links you gave are not reliable sources. You say "it was included in the Oxfored English Dictionary at a time" which is just your personal opinion, the OED the dictionary based on etymological principles does have a reference to it, but you can't find it and I can because I subscribe to the OED. Put that in your pipe and punch it, it is still not encylopaedic. No idea why this is in small. Si Trew (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTDIC. Wiktionary do have it, (I added the crosslink above right now, so it was not in the discussion before this), but I am very averse to making links to wiktionary because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:NOT. If Godsy adds some encyclopeaic content about the word then great, but what more can one do than say that is ust a word. @Godsy: if it is any help, I and another user created {{ety}} to help fill in etymologies. Si Trew (talk) 07:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because Godsy's sig cocks it up. Get the balance on the sups and subs right old bean. Now it is all in bright cyan. Sheesh. I could be doing somethig else than fixing Godsu's sig with qll the sups and subs and color font and meta. Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Si Trew: You accidently posted your comment in the middle of my signature markup. All is well now, I went ahead and cleaned it up. Best Regards,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that @Godsy: and no hard feelings on either side. I edit in plaintext and see all the HTTP markup when I edit, I do everything longhand. Thanks for fixing it, now we can get back to the discussion, which I disagree with you. (edit conflict) Si Trew (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a valid synonym, not a "novel or very obscure" one, which would warrant deletion.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as valid synonum. Godsy has shown from somewhat dubious sources that this is used in real life. No good comes of deleting it, it is not as if it goes to Carpathian Mountains or whateer. Godsy has provded evidence it is used in real life, and that's good enough for me WP:RFD#K5 someone finds it useful.
  • Keep as harmless and a plausible misspelling/variant spelling; it's not getting a lot of hits, but WP:CHEAP applies. Sideways713 (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible misspelling. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2016 (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.

Wah ah ah ah (Monkey Thing)[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. JohnCD (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is something the reader would type into the search box. Wah ah ah ah is a red link. Note: This redirect has history. SSTflyer 05:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - odd but harmless, and refers fairly unambiguously to a sound produced in the song it targets. Is mentioned there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it isn't referred to as "Monkey Thing" in the article... It's one of the most nonsensical disambiguations I've ever seen. -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. ("Monkey", "wa" aer not even at target. History is in its history log, that is no argument to keep it. Monkey Thing is red. Si Trew (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. Monkey thing not mentioned as a key lyric or catchphrase. And it would need to start with Ooh, according to the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:43, 4 May 2016 (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.

I ♥ Mother Teresa[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 deletedby User:Liz as WP:G3 vandalism. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: joke redirect, unencyclopedic opinion. -- Tavix (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to the history, it's not a joke redirect but an artifact of the revert of pagemove vandalism. Still, delete. Rossami (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put it up for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G3.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:45, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a result of vandalism and isn't a likely search term. Mz7 (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the G3 Speedily delete'. Si Trew (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2016 (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.
Discussion about the close
  • Comment: Technically, this did not qualify for speedy-deletion because of its age. I don't think it's worth reversing the deletion but in future similar situations it would be better to let the deletion discussion run its course. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rossami: WP:G3 says nothing about age, so the speedy was fine. Could you be thinking of WP:R3 perhaps? -- Tavix (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's a general rule (though you are correct that it is more explicitly spelled out for redirects).
        Per the header on WP:CSD, "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." A title that has existed for six years can not easily be said to be among "the most obvious cases". Even though I think it's vandalism, we cannot exclude the likelihood that other editors looked at the page somewhere during that time and reached a different conclusion, tacitly agreeing (by not immediately deleting the page) that CSD did not apply. Rossami (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • This did technically qualify for speedy deletion. It was an obvious case due to the implausibility of the title and the circumstances surrounding its existence as a redirect being a reversion of clear page move vandalism. I doubt many editors came across this obscure redirect.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as proposer for the speedy I believed it met all the criteria. If it did not then User:Liz who technically as admin deleted it can restore the redirect and we can argue it all over again, I don't mindl. Commenting except for procedural reasons a but after a closed discussion is a little de trop, just recreate it if you want. Thiis is cocking my browser up with the heart symol, but I think I (heart) new york is blue, so there is a good case for it, althogh it cocks my browser up. Si Trew (talk) 13:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. Senators called David Stewart[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 G7 tagged (non-admin closure) --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This just seems silly, and is an implausible search term. ¡Bozzio! 01:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I've added two variants. -- Tavix (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. The target is not a list of US senators called David Stewart. Si Trew (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural hang fire. The target now redirects to the DAB at David Stewart, which I doubt it did wen it were listed. Si Trew (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm and it always did. Tavix sectioned the DAB and marked the target R as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} (today 27th) but I don't get how a bot didn't fix the double redirects; there;s nothing on any to say {{nobots}} or anything like that, but still they are nonsense as they stand, a DAB is not a list article and the best way to let editors find out about this US senator is to take them through the DAB, either to David Stewart (Maryland) or David W. Stewart, both listed there. Neither has hatnotes to the other. I note that David Stewart (Maryland) as at that DAB -> David Stewart (Maryland Senator) which is probably {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} and I don't want to muddy the waters further. WP:DABPIPE [sic] suggests we don't put redirects at DABS but to change it now could muddy the waters, but we should probably do that on closing (regardless of the result.) The article for the maryland senator was created at that title, as far as I can see, and none of these are redirects from moves as far as I can see from their histories. Si Trew (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2016 (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.

Pigot Diamond[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. Converted to article. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirects to a section in George Pigot, 1st Baron Pigot that is unreferenced and apparently incomplete. There is a better writeup in Spoonmaker's Diamond that has references and says the info in George Pigot is one of several stories. The better article actually links to the inferior one. I could change the redirect to the better section, move the text to the Pigot article and keep the redirect as it is, or move the text here and make this a short article. I think the latter may be the best approach. MB (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MB: WP:JUSTDOIT, WP:BOLD. Let us poor fellas at RfD know how you want this closed, you're the expert. Si Trew (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was look for other opinions. Should Pinot Diamond be it's own article so that the discrepancies can be dealt with in one place? I'll do that and turn the redirect into an article if no one else has an opinion. MB (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Making an article (splitting them out) even as a WP:stub article is a great idea. After you do that, or while you do that, I am more than happy to do any WIkipedia tidying as a sub-editor or WP:Wikignome, just ask. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged., right at the top of WP:RFD. (If all else fails, read the instructions, but just do it! Procedurally closing here or elsewhere is no big deal, it's just gnomework) Si Trew (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have written an article at Pigot Diamond; it is no longer a redirect. (I hope it's not a problem that I have done this before this discussion was closed.) MB (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2016 (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/2016_April_27&oldid=1138580814"