Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 21, 2016.

Nonnes Preestes Tale of the Cok and the Hen, Chauntecleer and Pertelote[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) 15:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Highly unlikely typos of Nun's Priest Tale of the Cock and the Hen. (Neelix redirect) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm tempted to keep this, as this appears to be the name of The Nun's Priest's Tale in Middle English. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Notecardforfree. This transcription begins, "Heere bigynneth the Nonnes Preestes Tale of the Cok and Hen, Chauntecleer and Pertelote". This redirect is an exact match for what is presumably the original Middle English title. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, this transcript has it simply as "The Nonnes Preestes Tale." -- Tavix (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've seen him do a couple other like this. Only way I confirmed my was reading an image of the printed play cover. However, it should go without saying to assume the redirect is wrong until confirmed correct in this case. Legacypac (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The wiki page did not mention anything about the alternate spelling. If it is confirmed, I'll be okay with keeping it. However, it needs to be confirmed. Maybe include this alternate spelling in the article? --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also added to the article with ref just now. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: hmm, I just saw your source, it's the same one as mine as it happens, but a different page. I'm going to ping some WikiProjects for interpretation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: I don't care whether you delete or not, I'm just going to try to provide some background information. I've reviewed the reasons for deletion of a redirect, and I'm assuming this (potentially) falls under #8: "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created."
The redirect references the title given to the work in the original manuscripts, in its original language (Middle English). Thus it is not novel, nor an unrelated foreign language, nor a typo or misnomer.
It probably cannot be considered obscure as this title is used (as a subtitle) in Benson's Riverside Chaucer, which is widely used, and the preferred edition of the Canterbury Tales task force.
However, the usefulness and validity of the redirect can still be questioned. These manuscript titles may or may not be authorial; certainly the spellings aren't. Benson's subtitle is based on the Ellesmere manuscript, but cleans it up with a capital "T" and comma; both differ from the Hengwrt manuscript. But these are just the most important of around 80 manuscripts which probably have dozens of variations, all presumably non-authorial.
  • Benson: "the Nonnes Preestes Tale of the Cok and Hen, Chauntecleer and Pertelote"
  • Ellesmere: "the Nonnes Preestes tale of the Cok and Hen Chauntecleer and Pertelote"
  • Hengwrt: "the Nonnes preestes tale of the Cok / and Hen / Chauntecler and Pertelote"
Should these all be redirects? For each, do we need a version with and without an initial (uncapitalized) "the"? Surely not. For reasons like this, scholars, students, and readers tend to stick with the certainly non-authorial but traditional "The Nun's Priest's Tale". Similarly (pace MrLinkinPark333), I have previously objected to these manuscript titles being included in the lead paragraphs of the Tale articles because they give an "inauthentic air of authenticity". Hope that helps... though I trust it didn't! Phil wink (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil wink: thank you kindly, actually that helps quite a lot. You described very good reasons why the article should be at the title where it is. We generally (hopefully) subscribe to the idea in this forum that the existence of a certain redirect does not prescribe the creation of others, and that redirects are cheap so their existence (or not) is mostly inconsequential, so as long as it is reasonably accurate and points to the right article (both true, I think) then there isn't a reason to delete. And at the same time there isn't a reason to create the others, although if someone did it would hardly break things. If you wanted to revert my addition of the full title to the article, given this detail, I would be fine with it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:58, 23 February 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.

Πεδία[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) 22:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Neelix redirect doesn't seem useful. It's a partial match of Hλύσιον πεδίον, and Google Translate says Πεδία translates to fields. If a user was using this redirect, I believe they'd be looking for field/fields, not Elysium Fields. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:22, 21 February 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.

Fuck God[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, G10, by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the utility of this redirect. The term is not mentioned anywhere on the target article and it may also fall afoul of WP:RFD#D3. clpo13(talk) 19:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an unambiguous attack page and to say that recognizes God's existence so the target makes no sense. Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, WP:G10, per Legacypac. -- Tavix (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:18, 21 February 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.

Women issues[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) 22:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems over the line NPOV to me JZCL 18:55, 21 February 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.

Slatish gray[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 Sphilbrick. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, "slatish"? Si Trew (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete I just tagged G6 as Neelix nonsense words. What was he thinking? Legacypac (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for combining for me. I've sent a lot of others to CSD, but was not so confident with these. Si Trew (talk) 17:44, 21 February 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.

Menotti[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. Since this isn't a redirect, it is outside the jurisdiction of RFD. Any further comments can be made at the talk page. Good job creating the name index! (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for discussion.

Apparently this was a redirect to the composer [[Gian Carlo Menotti|Gian Carlo Menotti]], Italian-American composer and librettist. However there are at least 3 people and a draft being written to whom this could apply. It's not that I want to delete the redirect - I've boldly turned it into a disambiguation but I am not sure where/how I should have discussed it first - if it was causing errors in redirects it shouldn't go back to the composer only but I also didn't want to leave it blank...What should I do/have done? - I've added this comment to the talk page as well 🍺 Antiqueight chat 16:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment you are doing the right thing and you don't need to bring a change like this here. In this situation also take a look at "what links here" and see if there are any inbound internal links that should be fixed to go to one of the specific people. Better to get the reader directly to where they need to go. Legacypac (talk) 17:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Beat me to it, just check and fix What Links Here. You can use {{surname}} on the DAB. But if one person is patently primary topic, put the DAB at Menotti (surname) and a {{redirect}} hatnote on the target. Si Trew (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good, yeah. I see no evidence that any of these persons are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Menotti", and for what it's worth the person being written about at Draft:Menotti appears to be entirely non-notable. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:29, 21 February 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.

Redviolets[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 both. JohnCD (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix redirects) the first was declined at CSD, though many other fused adjectives for this target that I proposed at CSD were accepted.

Delete per WP:RFD#D2, not at target; I don't think in the plural this is close enough to be anything but WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as more Neelix color nonsense and per nom. Legacypac (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - These just aren't helpful and don't have a reason to exist. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:36, 23 February 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.

Bluerinse[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 as WP:G7 Just Chilling (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as WP:RFD#D2 per WP:XY, or retarget to Blue rinse as {{R from other punctuation}}. The target seems the most used in sources, so we could hatnote it, but that's not necessarily very prominent on a list, so perhaps it's better to delete it and let search do it. Si Trew (talk) 13:49, 21 February 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.

Reddish-gray[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 that have not already been speedied. JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This one's a bit like #Orangeish-brown, below. Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target, WP:XY; WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. The target has swatches for grey (with the British spelling) and brown, but not red; it refers to Russet (color) as a reddish-brown, but it's hard to see why it has the swatch for grey at all.

We have the reddish-gray musk shrew, the reddish-gray mouse lemur (which is also known as gray-brown), and the reddish-grey bat, but not the reddish-gray seal. Si Trew (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A Seal brown (horse) specifically lacks a reddish tint, whereas a bay (horse) has a reddish-brown colour, so the lede says. I've no idea where the gray comes into it with this one. Si Trew (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We also have the Grey red-backed vole (note the position of the hyphen). Si Trew (talk) 13:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as more Neelix color nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 17:11, 21 February 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.

Brown-orange[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, G6 by User:Anthony_Bradbury Lenticel (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:XYZ, not mentioned at target and these are by no means synonymous. The target's lede actually says that mahogony (color) is reddish brown. Si Trew (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As below; even if mahogany was orange-brown, it is not the only colour that could be described as such (Tawny (color), Russet (color)). —Xezbeth (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I'm looking at a lot of mahogany right now and none of it is orange, even a little bit. This is essentially why these random colour matchups should all be deleted: if they're not attested in reliable sources, then we can argue all night long about what colour a thing is or if it's a valid target, and all of us will be right. Burn it all down. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as more Neelix color nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 19:42, 21 February 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.

Proposed 2017 'In/Out' Referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Union[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 29#Proposed 2017 'In/Out' Referendum on United Kingdom membership of the European Union

Orangeish brown[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) 15:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 'Orangish Brown' as a label appears to be a valid description from several sources, particuarly as a color variance used in website design. Here it is being mentioned over at XKCD of all places. This is one heck of a WP:XY situation, though, since 'Orangish Brown' could go validly to both 'Shades of Orange' and 'Shades of Brown'. And there are so many specific narrow types of colors from 'Peru' to 'Burnt Orange' to 'Cocoa Brown' and so on that visually are a combination of both traditional brown and traditional orange. This is quite a mess. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is pedantic, but that's "orangish brown"; other sites do however use "orangeish brown", such as this one for the Web color.
Perhaps best to delete it, then, per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, or WP:REDLINK, since if it's a well-defined Web color (not just someone's arbitrary name for it) then it will have well-known RGB/HSB/CMYK values etc. (I just hope that orangeish brown and orangish brown are the same thing.)
I guess these originate from the redirect Orange-brown (or Orange brown) which also go to the same place, and there are lots-o-other variations; I've added them to this nom, @CoffeeWithMarkets: I hope that my doing so doesn't distort your comment above. I sent Brownishorange and Orangeishbrown straight to CSD (same target). Si Trew (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The target's lede actually says that mahogany (color) is reddish brown, and has done so since February 2008. I don't think it's ever said it's orang(e)ish brown; the spelling correction from "redish" to "reddish" was about three months later. Si Trew (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if mahogany was orange-brown, it is not the only colour that could be described as such (Tawny (color), Russet (color)). —Xezbeth (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as more Neelix color nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - we're not a colour catalogue and none of these are notable. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there isn't a clear target given the ambiguity here, I'll go ahead and make it clear that I do support deletion in all of the cases. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget The first four clearly refer to shades of brown; the last two clearly refer to shades of orange, a solution to ambiguity and lack of precision. Peter James (talk) 00:18, 26 February 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.

Orangeishly[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 by someone Legacypac (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC) "someone" is Sphilbrick btw Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target; WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Essentially a Neelix redirect, but it has one edit to rcat it as {{R from ambiguous page}} so I hesitate to take it to CSD. Si Trew (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not helpful to point it at a DAB. Could go to Orange (colour) on the model of Reddishly, Blueishly, etc. The uses are usually in adjective phrases (reddishly brown, and so on), and normally we prefer nouns as titles; but colours are (usually) adjectives themselves, and it's ok to string together an adjective phrase by putting nonfinal adjectives into adverb form. Si Trew (talk) 10:12, 21 February 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.

Blackish orange[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 deleted by User:Sphilbrick. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix redirect). Delete, WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. I've taken Orangeish-black to CSD, and perhaps should have done with this one, but too late now as listing it here gives it history (or does that not count?) Si Trew (talk) 08:15, 21 February 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.

Blackish[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) 15:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Convert to DAB as an alternative to WP:RFD#D1, hinders search. There are several partial title matches for "Blackish", which the presence of this redirect makes it unreasonably difficult to find.

Usually I would say that a DAB would seem unnecessary; the search would do it; but since black-ish is "camped" here as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC I think we might need a DAB. There is a hatnote at the target to shades of black, which in turn hatnotes to black, but neither includes a hatnote to blackish (disambiguation), probably because we don't have it.

I've drafted a DAB under the redirect, but I'm undecided whether to have it here at blackish or at blackish (disambiguation), if at all. It depends, really, on whether black-ish is really the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for blackish. The half-dozen internal links think it is. Si Trew (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to TV show I've deleted every animal that was listed on the draft DAB. Disambiguation is not the place to list everything that happens to contain that word, otherwise, image what the (disambiguation) would look like. Removing these species names that don't belong leaves us with the TV show and shades of black. Of those, only one of the is normally called Blackish (the TV show), so redirect to the show and hatnote to the colors. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Disambiguation is not needed per WP:PTM as none of those species are known solely as "blackish." The TV show is the primary topic; if we still want to keep the set-up decided at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_30#Color-ish_redirects, "shades of black" is also a topic, covered by hatnote. -- Tavix (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We have a primary topic here, as stated above, and the redirect seems fine to me. Discussions about whatever hat-notes to have or not have can happen over there at the TV show's page. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:34, 23 February 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_February_21&oldid=1138580934"