Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 21

[edit]

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

Extreme sex

[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) 10:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vague and POV. What constitutes "extreme"? Is the term "Extreme sex" only used in regard to BDSM? Mr. Guye (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is extreme sex an extreme sport? Legacypac (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? hahaha. Anyways, what I meant is that it should have refs in its target article to counter the vagueness of the term --Lenticel (talk) 01:18, 24 January 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.

Jumala ompi linnamme

[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) 10:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED. This German hymn has no inherent connection to Finland or the Finnish language. The only translations discussed at the target article are English and Swedish. BDD (talk) 23:54, 21 January 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.

When the bough breaks the cradle will fall

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 29#When the bough breaks the cradle will fall

Template:Talk archive notice

[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 (no quorum, request granted) Deryck C. 13:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has not been transcluded on any pages. Template:Talk archive was moved to this page by Renamed user ea6416fc (formerly Alakzi) and then this page was moved back by David Levy. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:20, 21 January 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.

Posthumous award

[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 no consensus, default to keep. Opinion is split between keep and delete, with a general consensus that other solutions (retargeting / soft redirect to Wiktionary) aren't appropriate. Deryck C. 22:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to re-target this to wikt:posthumous. There are dozens of links to posthumous award and they are referring to people who were posthumously given some prize, award, metal, etc. The articles specify what they were given posthumously. The current redirect is to a list of awards, and specifically to a section that lists one United Nations award given to people killed while serving in UN peacekeeping missions. This redirect makes no sense and does not aid in understanding these articles. In the context of the articles using linking to posthumous award, a definition of posthumous is the only thing that would be useful. I already made this suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Posthumous recognition (I was originally disambiguating links to posthumous when I found this redirect.) The only comment there was one in agreement, so I went ahead and made the change once already but it was reverted with no edit comment. MB (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that in Wiktionary terms, the phrase "posthumous award" is "non-idiomatic", in that it doesn't mean anything different than an "award" which is "posthumous", so it's unlikely to ever be an entry there. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tidbit of knowledge! With that in mind, I really don't think there's much that can be said about a posthumous award besides the obvious. I'm going to say keep then, because this is probably the best target for it. -- Tavix (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator placed an RfD tag there but didn't create a corresponding discussion. I'm going to add it to this discussion, which appears to have been the intent. Since Posthumous recognition was pointing to the same place as Posthumous recognition before this discussion, I'm restoring that as well, so these two can be retargeted (or whatever) together.
As for the former article, it was moved to List of posthumous awards before being redirected by SilkTork, who may want to comment. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before being turned into a redirect, List of posthumous awards was not really a list of posthumous awards anyway (diff here). Since the section at the target only contains one award, for the Dag Hammarskjöld Medal, and that award is also mentioned in section "United Nations"), I think it would be better to delete the section entirely from the target. We would then have WP:CSD#G8 redirect to invalid target for all of these. Si Trew (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be misleading to look at only that diff. There used to be much more there; see the immediately preceding diff. The big change that was made was to switch from individual acts of awarding things posthumously to awards that by their nature are always given posthumously. (Whether we want to have a list of either of these in Wikipedia is a matter that one may wish to debate, of course.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toby Bartels (talk • contribs) 21:06, 22 January 2016
  • Keep I've added a brief description of posthumous granting of awards to the target section, as well as a statement that some awards are only given posthumously. Right now, only the Dag Hammarskjöld Medal is listed there, but it stands to reason that there are others. I think this is the best solution—the many incoming links will still be meaningful, readers might learn something, and there's still a link that will take readers to Wiktionary if they desire. --BDD (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:11, 21 January 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.

Mmmm

[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 no consensus, accept current state of affairs. As closing admin, my analysis of the discussion is as follows:
  • Mmmm - 2-way split of opinion between keep (Mmmh, 3 supporters) and retarget (MMMM, 4 supporters).
  • Mmmm! - 3-way split between Mmmh (3 supporters), move article over redirect (2 supporters), and MMMM (2 supporters). No advocates for keeping as-is and BDD moved the article over the redirect.

There's no consensus on either page title with significant opinion arguing for the current state of affair, so I'll close this RfD as no action. BDD's page move should be considered as an editorial decision beyond the remit of this RfD. Deryck C. 23:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first redirects to Mmmh; the second to an album. As MMMM now exists, I consider logical to redirect them both there. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 04:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • retarget both per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may have mildly messed things up. Without looking carefully at this discussion, I saw Mmmm! redirecting to Mmmm! (Floor Thirteen album) and reversed the redirect since the title had unnecessary disambiguation. But if we deem that title ambiguous, it could probably just move to Mmmm! (album) with a hatnote to Mmhmm. Definitely retarget the first, but I'd say keep the second as it is now (so that's a move the article over the redirect). An album simply called Mmmm might be cause for disambiguation, but I don't see anything else at MMMM that would plausibly be referred to as "Mmmm!", let alone "Mmmm! (album)". --BDD (talk) 14:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first, do what BDD says for the second, per BDD. As it stands, things which might be referred to by "mmmm" or several very plausible variants are listed at Mmmh, while things known by the acronym MMMM are at MMMM (with a few exceptions; these should be fixed). The album is naturally disambiguated by the exclamation mark, and the only other thing we seem to have which is referred to in that way is a sub-grouping of Acid Mothers Temple according to one of these dabs; it could be hatnoted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It gets even more confusing; Mmmh is also a DAB page (which includes a link to Mmmm! (Floor Thirteen album)). I know this is a little outside the scope of this discussion, but I think the best course of action would be to merge Mmmh and MMMM to create one comprehensive DAB page and retarget both Mmmm and Mmmm! to the new merged DAB page. However, based on what exists at the moment, I would reluctantly retarget Mmmm to MMMM and retarget Mmmm! to Mmmh (while renaming the article for the album), because I think it is more likely than not that readers will be looking for the onomatopoeia that indicates agreement or satisfaction. Mmmh gives the best description of that onomatopoeia, and I think that redirecting readers to an obscure album (even with a hatnote) will likely WP:ASTONISH more than anything else. For that matter, I doubt that the article about the Floor Thirteen album would survive AfD. I couldn't find any reliable sources to substantiate its notability, but I will wait to take any actions re: deletion until this RfD is resolved. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to mmmh per WP:CAPS. As User:Notecardforfree comment. The variants for onomatopoeia mmm/mmmh/mmmmh/mmmm/mmmmhmm/ etc don't have any real difference, acronyms like MMM and MMMM do have a real difference. Mmhmm (Relient K album) etc. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if some onomatopoeic titles which are properly "mmmm" are listed at "MMMM", they should probably moved onto the onomatopoeia dab page, and a simple see-also to mmmh listed. It is a good idea to keep acronyms separate: "MMHM" is decidedly wrong as an acronym for anything listed at MMMM (as an example). However, readers could easily confuse "mmmm", "mmmh", "mmhmm" and so on for any of the things listed on the onomatopoeia dab page, and I would strongly oppose any suggestion of splitting it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And if you were going to merge in the acronyms from MMMM, then you'd also be looking at merging in acronyms from MMH, MHM, and probably several others. It would be quite unwieldly. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:11, 21 January 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.

Several redirects containing wiki markup ... (again)

[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) 18:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is yet another batch of redirect with wiki markup in their titles. These redirects have at least one instance of consecutive apostrophes in their titles. Consecutive apostrophes has the potential to create wiki markup issues if the title is linked. At the present time, due to the technical issues associated with such titles, creating titles with consecutive apostrophes is restricted by the title creation blacklist. For similar RFD discussions for reference, please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 20#Several redirects that have wiki markup in their titles and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 4#Some redirects containing wiki markup. (Also, at the time of me posting this, I have confirmed that none of the redirects nominated here have any incoming links. Also, there are a few redirects nominated related to bots; I confirmed via research beforehand that deleting these redirect should not affect the functionality of the bots, considering that one is blocked and the other no longer executes the task related to the redirects nominated.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessary since they're blacklisted. For the few that are left, the normal G6 avenues should suffice. -- Tavix (talk) 23:28, 21 January 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.

Autonomous Universitary Center of Brazil (UniBrasil)

[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 per WP:CSD#G3, this was a leftover from a page move due to an apprent typo. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Universitary" is not a common typo for "university". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:07, 21 January 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.

Mathyu

[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 more Neelix junk. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At best this is a non-English version of the target not mentioned among the many mentioned. It exists, mostly as a rare last name, in the world. Not a valuable redirect in my view as it is not an English name. Legacypac (talk) 21:56, 21 January 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.

Granulomatous inflammatory lesions of breasts

[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 per nom. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No results found for "Granulomatous inflammatory lesions of the breasts".on Google says it all. Neelix redirects so can be G6 housekeeping. Legacypac (talk) 20:24, 21 January 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.

Without obstacles

[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 with all due respect to the admin who originally declined the CSD nom, they may not be aware of the Neelix situation or did not check the history. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix redirect using one of several English translations of a name, these get deleted at AfD, we've done dozens, Too vague. It was declined for speedy with the rational that redirects are cheap, so sending for discussion since we have usually found these are not useful and should be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 19:59, 21 January 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.

Arsonistical

[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 more Neelix junk. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing usage in RS for these Neelix words. The few results are wiki mirrors and usernames in forums. They are nonsense or invented "words" Legacypac (talk) 19:56, 21 January 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.

So called

[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 The Anome. --BDD (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A very common phrase that does not necessarily mean Allegation, especially it does not mean Allegation in a legal sense as the target is pretty tightly focused. So called can just refer to an alternate name or title. Delete as too vague and not useful Neelix redirect. Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 21 January 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.

Traditionalistically

[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) 18:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very rare word with very limited usage. Now redirected to a DAB page that does not define it. Perhaps redirect to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/traditionalistically ? Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 21 January 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.

Beautiful-voiced

[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 more Neelix junk

Another literal translation of a Greek word that is the source of but not exactly, a name. We've deleted a bunch of these Neelix specials already as misleading or too vague. Many people are Beautiful voiced. Sometimes people come up with better targets but in this case its just a phrase with an obvious meaning. Legacypac (talk) 19:37, 21 January 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.

Egalitarianistically

[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 Legacypac (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 30 Google hits, several put a question mark behind the "word". Most of the others appear to have pulled the "word" from this Neelix redirect. I found one use in a book [1] which does not provide enough evidence this is an actual word in the real world making it a useless redirect. Legacypac (talk) 19:08, 21 January 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.

Ville d'eau

[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) 16:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French phrase meaning town of water. While France is covered, this is a worldwide list and this term is not used at the target, Legacypac (talk) 11:17, 21 January 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.

Water towns

[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 water town to watertown (disambig), delete others. Deryck C. 12:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vague terms not at the target, Off Neelix list. There are 20 places just in the US called Watertown. Legacypac (talk) 11:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, delete Watertowns and Water towns as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense and WP:XYZ. Why would a "spa town" be a "water town" any more than, say, a seaside town (-> seaside resort)? How is a spa town different from a spa resort (-> destination spa)? Isn't a spa resort a town that has, amongst other things, a resort spa (-> destination spa)? What a mess. Si Trew (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've listed those for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_24#Resort_spa, cross-referencing here. Si Trew (talk) 09:39, 24 January 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.

Mushroompickers

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 28#Mushroompickers

Mushroomingly

[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 Sergecross73 for multiple reasons; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical Neelix creation. No meaningful results on the web attest this term Legacypac (talk) 10:56, 21 January 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.

Faggingly

[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 Anthony Bradbury for multiple reasons; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This word shows up in online Thesaurus's (maybe sourced from WP) and porn sites, making this an inappropriate and misleading redirect I sent Faggingness to CSD as it is even less of a word - google it. Legacypac (talk) 10:21, 21 January 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.

Trama Macabra

[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. JohnCD (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need for redirects in various languages to an English language film. I don't know if these are even the actual alternate titles or just Neelix using a translation program. There are Spanish, unknown, Finnish x2, Greek, Spanish, French, Romanian, Italian, Hungarian, unknown language, Portuguese x2, and Polish. Legacypac (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - this film has no affinity for any of these languages. In addition, the film's title is a play on words in English and doesn't fit these bad machine translations anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, WP:RFOREIGN. Incidentally, the "unknown language" Csaladi osszeeskuves is also Hungarian without the necessary diacritics for Családi összeesküvés ("Family conspiracy"); a family grave would be családi sírhely. Whereas German Familiengrab is a grave, not a conspiracy. Just to emphasise Ivanvector's point that the pun is often lost in translation. Si Trew (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I kept finding more and adding them to the list, updating the list of languages in reverse order - so it might be a little out of order but it conveys the idea. I can't figure out the source language of Yoreshet but Cyrillic pages come up in search. Legacypac (talk) 19:30, 21 January 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.

La Mandragola (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 keep. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

La Mandragola is already a redirect to this target, making this redirect redundant since no one will type it for search and no one needs it for linking. Autocomplete in search just gets messed up by this redirect. Legacypac (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the Italian name is not followed by (film) right? This one is not really bad, just dumb. Legacypac (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wondering: is that behaviour only because the redirects are Rfd-tagged (so they're not behaving as redirects)? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector: No, but I don't fully understand when pages do or don't come up there. Normal redirects still do. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 28 January 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.

O dromos tis agapis

[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 La mandragore, delete others. Deryck C. 12:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

French-Italian film based on an Italian play. But we have these and many more redirects:

  1. A Greek phrase that means "the way of love". This Greek phrase has nothing to do with nothing here that I can see and there is no reason to give this in English wikipedia.
  2. Close to, but not the Italian name of the film which is La Mandragola not mandragore. It appears to be just wrong.
  3. Appears to be German phrase which translates as "The Mandragola or lover as a doctor".

No reason to have these redirects in a language unrelated to the film and not English, Neelix just redirect bombed this page with nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 08:34, 21 January 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.

Red album (taylor swifts)

[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) 16:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has history which would qualify as WP:A10 if nominated soon enough after its creation. I think this qualifies as an implausible typo. sst✈ 08:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete taylor swifts = two capitalization and a spelling error. plus searchers are very unlikely to use the (). combines to be just not a plausible redirect of any use to anyone. Legacypac (talk) 08:40, 21 January 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.

Tradeunionistic

[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 all speedy deleted by Anthony Bradbury per multiple CSD; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We already deleted a bunch in this series of fake compound words created by Neelix. Here are some more non-words. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_13#Laborunionistic Legacypac (talk) 06:48, 21 January 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.

Sensibilizer

[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 more Neelix junk. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really clear what these words mean (Google hardly knows) but it does not mean anything at the current target. The words seem to refer to stabilization of various sorts. Really obscure. Legacypac (talk) 06:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. I think it's time to revisit the possibility of admins wholesale deleting the bulk of Neelix's absurd and ridiculous redirects. Reporting and debating each one of the 80,000 is going to take years. Softlavender (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I keep plugging away through this - a thankless job - and now several admins I've had no interaction with have accused me of having a vendetta against Neelix, an editor I had never dealt with before his spam redirects came to light. These same admins have never voted on or deleted any Neelix redirect I've touched, so they are part of the problem rather then problem solvers. Legacypac (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Revisit? Did the blanket G6 authorization for Neelix redirects expire or something? --BDD (talk) 19:47, 21 January 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.

Sensibilisations

[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. Anthony Bradbury already saw to the second item. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix redirects that are not English words, but a French one. Googling bring up just under 4000 hits each, a suggestion that the search should be for another word, and an offer to translate the page from French since all results are in French. Redirects from rare French words are not helpful to readers of the English Wikipedia Legacypac (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a bad translation. From what I can tell, versinnlichung translates to sensualization, which would not be quite the same thing. Is this close enough to retarget from wrong name? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector, I agree that "sensualization" may be a better a better translation, but for reasons that are unclear to me, translators seem to use the word "sensibilization" (see the books I cite above). However, it looks like some translators also use "sensualization" (see this book). In any case, readers who come across the word "sensibilization" in one of Heidegger's books may want to know more about what the term means, and absent a discussion of Heidegger's theory of sensibilizations at the article for sensibility (or the Martin Heidegger article), I think retargeting to Schema (Kant)#Criticism will be the most helpful for readers. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll go along with that. However, we already have sensibilization and sensibilisation which are better retarget candidates for this usage, and I don't think we need to keep the plural forms. So my !vote is technically the same. Not to prejudice this discussion: I've gone ahead and boldly retargeted those two, since they weren't actually listed here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:39, 21 January 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.

Novitiations

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 28#Novitiations

Just-before-the-battle

[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 speed-y-deleted-mother Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is very unusual and pointless to create redirects with dashes between each word for no reason. The other redirects are Just Before the Battle Just Before the Battle Mother and Just before the Battle, Mother which should help anyone looking for this song. By Neelix so could be G6 Housekeeping. Legacypac (talk) 05:08, 21 January 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.

Template:Fact (lede)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 28#Template:Fact (lede)

Chris Nicoll

[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) 18:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nicoll no longer plays for a Royals minor league team, so a redirect to the team's list of minor league players doesn't make much sense. kelapstick(bainuu) 03:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The target page is not (or at least, should not be) restricted to just the current roster of players. If Nicoll was a player and as long as there is no better target (that is, he's not now playing for some other team), the redirect is plausible. Rossami (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rossami is incorrect because the target article is only for the current roster. See here for other similar RFDs in the past. -- Tavix (talk) 05:17, 25 January 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.

Guthrie vs. Elliott

[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) Steel1943 (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Page moved from inappropriately POV name. Title implies a civil suit brought by Guthrie against Elliott, while the subject of the article is a criminal trial in which Elliott was charged by police. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as an {{R from move}} with 200 views per day and at least one usage in a wire service column [2]; likely has external links or otherwise falls under Wp:R#K4. Also, even if there's no concurrent civil case here and none gets filed later on, I don't think that mistaking a criminal case for a civil one (as opposed to the other way around) is a big enough POV issue to trigger Wp:R#D3. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That said, I make this !vote reluctantly because of how bad this title is. "Vs." is for boxing matches and video game crossovers, not court cases. (Also regarding the target: don't Canadian case styles use "v" instead of "v."? Or have they picked up the American habit of adding the dot?) 58.176.246.42 (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      You're probably right about R from move, although the wire source you linked to is pretty opinionated itself. I don't think it's appropriate to keep Rs from moves if the titles violate other policies (i.e. WP:BLP) but you're also probably right about this not quite meeting that line. As for the naming convention I'm not sure, I went by there being several other notable criminal cases in Canada with articles here which use "v." in their title. I should probably check that they're not also redirects. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those not familiar with Commonwealth law, the "R" here stands for the Crown, so is analogous to "The people vs." or "United States vs." in American law. (I had to look that up.) --BDD (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now at least - I wanted to learn about this case, so I Googled it. This was the only Wikipedia link on the first page of results. Even as an experienced editor it gave me momentary confusion to see that what I had landed on was being considered for deletion. This is a useful redirect, even if it is technically incorrect. Perhaps in a month or two when this is no longer a high-profile case it would be reasonable to clean this up, but at the moment this nomination is disrupting the experience for a large number of readers. Thparkth (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People looking for this article are likely to find it with that redirect, like I did. This request for deletion is disruptive of people's access to information, as I ended up here instead of reading the article. A redirect is the appropriate way to deal with the technical juridic lingo. Correjon (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: redirects from an incorrect title for a thing to its correct title shouldn't be deleted, since there is a decent chance someone who (due to mistake/misunderstanding) is searching for the wrong title will find the article with the right one as a result, and maybe even their misunderstanding will be cured. SJK (talk) 02:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw - keep arguments are correct; besides {{R from move}}, it has become a valid search term for the case, and it's certainly snowing here (even though it's not in Toronto). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:39, 26 January 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_January_21&oldid=1138580961"