Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 4, 2016.

Legends[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 (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this should redirect to Legend, as it is just a plural of legend. Natg 19 (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC) Pinging @Jack Sebastian: who changed the redirect for his input. Natg 19 (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for filing this, Natg, as I had no clue how to proceed. I think that reverting the redirect on the basis of one being a plural of the other is a bit short-sighted. By redirecting Legends to the dab page", the reader is far more likely to find what they were looking for, avoiding at least one more level of redirection (I myself discovered the problem while looking for Legends (TV series)]]). Cutting down the effort and deduction the reader has to exert in order to find what they want seems a no-brainer to me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – there are items on the disambiguation page explicitly referred to as "Legends" in plural form. I do not think that Legend is necessarily the primary topic for someone searching for "Legends". sst✈ 04:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't think there is a primary topic for "Legends" (plural) per SSTflyer. Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SST and Thryduulf. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the best target available. Legacypac (talk) 15:00, 11 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.

The lifting of the veil[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. Disambiguation has been proposed but the general consensus is that it's not helpful as none of the candidates for disambiguation had standalone articles. Deryck C. 22:09, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix - G6 as really confusing Legacypac (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Follow-up comment: for the same of developing consensus, I'm fine with creating a DAB page that includes the various suggestions listed here. As other editors have pointed out, there are many potential targets for this term. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or create disambig page - As there's really way, way too many places that this can go to. I can think of at least four definitions right off the top of my head out of the news and scholarly articles-- a)the ability to obtain information about the U.S. federal government's intelligence programs (there's Edward Snowden, lifting up that satin 'veil'), b)efforts made by women both inside and outside of the Roman Catholic Church to end or at least reduce that organization's anti-women policies ('veil' here as a symbol of men restraining women), c)the same as b) only in the context of fundamentalist Islam (ditto), and d)programs such as Unwrapped and other news-ish series that take you behind the curtain to see how companies that physically produce things are able to do so ('veil' meaning 'wrapper', basically... think of the wonderful scene in the Willy Wonka film depicting the creation of chocolate bars). And that's just off the top of my head with barely any thinking. This is an extremely wide and varied concept. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It might be helpful if someone could draft a dab for consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per CWM's suggestions. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. I appreciate CWM's explanation, but the problem I'm seeing with a dab is that I don't think we have any articles on any of those subjects, so disambiguation would be inappropriate (remember that disambiguations are to disambiguate articles, not just meanings of a word). -- Tavix (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I took another look at it, and I really don't think we have enough terms to disambiguate. The only ones I could see would be between Parting of the Veil and Piercing the corporate veil and I feel like hatnotes would do the trick. The use of 'of' (ie: "lifting of the veil") would be best for the witchcraft article, and the omission of the 'of' (ie: "lifting the veil") would be best for the corporate article. That being said, I agree with NCFF that if we're going to retarget somewhere, that Parting of the Veil would be the best place to do so. -- Tavix (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'd want to see a draft dab, and details on which phrases it would include. Some of these phrases might not be ambiguous, or at least wouldn't apply to other ones. For example, no one is going to call the Jewish unveiling "piercing the veil". --BDD (talk) 16:00, 11 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.

A sowing of seeds[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 sowing of seeds to sowing, delete a sowing of seeds. JohnCD (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible and very vague. Legacypac (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would redirect "sowing of seeds" to Sowing the Seeds and delete "a sowing of seeds," though I am happy to change my vote if someone can find a more appropriate target. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up comment: I'm fine with redirecting sowing of seeds to sowing as a plausible synonym. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:54, 4 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.

ACFRB[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 all. JohnCD (talk) 14:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same as others - no basis for these in articles or sources. Neelix coined terms. the third one is an abbreviation of an abbreviation 12:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - as unique abbreviations. No reason to delete. GiantSnowman 08:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Giant Snowman. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all – in the future, if we have articles with titles that can be abbreviated similarly, then we can consider disambiguating these redirects. For now, there is no reason to delete them. sst✈ 04:13, 5 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.

Wackyparsing[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 11#Wackyparsing

Template:Louisiana Center for Women in Government amd Business Hall of Fame[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, G7 and R3. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typo on my part no relevant incoming links — Maile (talk) 15:03, 4 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 talk:Louisiana Center for Women in Government amd Business Hall of Fame[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, G8, talk page of above. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typo on my part, has no relevant links — Maile (talk) 15:02, 4 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.

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000[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 both. JohnCD (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating these because I want to hear from the community about whether these are truly useful redirects. These have existed since August 2005 and July 2006 (respectively), but there are no incoming links to either of these redirects, and I question whether anyone would actually take the time to type out the full number. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both. The page view statistics show these are well used redirects. I suspect most of their use comes from being linked from somewhere outside Wikipedia and/or copy and paste rather than being typed in, but we have no way of knowing that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 (one followed by 100 zeros) = 1 Googol. The name of the number in short and long scale also redirect there, eliminating ambiguity, hence the redirects are reasonable, non-harmful, and accurate. They are valid {{R from alternative spelling}} (Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages#Grammar, punctuation and spelling).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 is an alternative name for a googol. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless. sst✈ 04:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Yes, they are useful. More to the point, they are not harmful and that is the proper standard deletion discussions about redirects, not "usefulness". Rossami (talk) 16:43, 9 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.

TTTFFF[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. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This term is not used at the target, and I could not find any reliable sources that use "TTTFFF" to refer to terrorism financing. It's possible that TTTFFF is the abbreviated name of an organization involved in combating terrorism financing, but a google search did not yield any results. Therefore, I think deletion is appropriate. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. My findings match the nominator's. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as is neither at target nor supported by sources. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overlooked clean-up from a complicated pagemove. From the edit history, it appears that the then-current version of the page was moved to this title as a temporary placeholder, then moved to the correct destination 2 minutes later by the same user. Rossami (talk) 16:48, 9 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.

UUUUU[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 —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the premise underlying this redirect is that Western Washington University is occasionally referred to as "WWU," and if you add two "Double U's" with the final "U," you get five U's. However, I could not find any reliable sources that refer to WWU as "UUUUU," and deletion is therefore appropriate. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I couldn't find any references to the target being related to this title, let alone reliable ones. However it does get lots of hits - many more than UUUU and UUUUUU and all other five letter combos I tried except VVVVV and ZZZZZ (both articles) and AAAAA (which has a long history and is apparently something to do with Uncyclopaedia). I'm unsure what to recommend here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: That would be related to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubbish computer (talk • contribs)
  • If the ghost of Shakespeare uses Wikipedia, he might find this a likely search term (cf. W#History). I'm surprised this is getting hits, and I suspect many of them come from readers playing around in the search box, seeing it as a suggestion, and wondering where it takes them. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the connection between the redirect and target is unclear and unsourced. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 22:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom or weak retarget to 4U 5U--Lenticel (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – what the heck is this? sst✈ 04:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I briefly considered Lenticel's retargeting suggestion, but it is a bit of an WP:XY situation, as it could be U5 or 5U just as easily. It's better off just deleting it. -- Tavix (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I kind of understand the logic behind the redirect, but it's not an actual search term. Any normal person would search WWU instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:37, 10 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.

, Lower Order Batsman(cricket)[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) 10:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In July 2015, an article was created at this title, but it was transformed into a redirect nine days later. Although this redirect averages approximately one hit per day, I think it is an exceedingly unlikely that an editor would enter this search term, and deletion is therefore appropriate. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 10:46, 4 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_4&oldid=1037882996"