Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 6, 2016.

Nona hora[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 and refine to Noon#Etymology. --BDD (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No language has any special connection to the English word Noon. By Neelix Legacypac (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. General topic with no particular affinity for any language -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine Target to Noon#Etymology where the term's importance to "Noon" is explained --Lenticel (talk) 02:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:50, 6 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.

Perfumedly[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. "Because Neelix" is void as soon as the first substantiated "keep" opinion is voiced. Among the other comments, there's a roughly even split of opinion between "yes these are real derivative words" and "no these aren't plausible search terms". Deryck C. 22:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very rare or non words set up by Neelix Legacypac (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. More Neelix nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this a case of Neelix creating what he thought were neologisms, but were, in fact, words that have fallen out of fashion in the English language. A century ago, writers were still using these terms (see this book, this book, and this book). It is entirely possible that a reader of one of these old books will want to know more about these words, both of which are derived from "perfume." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Notecardforfree, backed up by WP:CHEAP. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 01:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIC, as we shouldn't have redirects for all possible variants of words, just common ones that facilitate navigation within the encyclopedia. -- Tavix (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as Neelix gibberish. Mangoe (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. The question should not be "Is this a word?" The English language is sufficiently extensible that you can adverb-ify (etc.) just about anything. The questions, like with any RfD, are, "Will users search for this?" and "What would users searching for this be looking for?" To the first, I'd say probably not. And to the second, I suspect they would be looking for something more specific than Perfume, which they almost certainly would query first if they were seeking it. --BDD (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible variants --Lenticel (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletitionally. To expantify my reasoningness, timewise we permitificate verificational lettercombinatics to expansication into differenty parts of talkingness which notso usefulness in common conversationalities, the useificationness of those languagesymbolstrings beginificates into notreallyrationalunderstandificationnesslies, inespecialmently for comprehensionlookers whose initialknowwordprotocol is antiBritishpeoplespeak. Instead, we should delete these meaninglessly modified variants. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Notecardforfree and Rubbish computer. The creator is irrelevant, and so we are left with the question of whether these are plausible search terms for the target, which Notecardforfree demonstrates they are. Then there is the question of whether another target is more likely to be desired by people using these redirects, and I can't find anything we have that would be more useful. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 8 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.

MGTOW (Men's rights)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 16#MGTOW (Men's rights)

BDBC[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 dabify. --BDD (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Searches for this don't turn up the target in the first 30 results at least, even with this Neelix redirect in place. Legacypac (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Business Development Bank of Canada at first but could find no evidence anyone uses BDBC for that organization. They have BDC in their logo and use BDC because it fits the French version of their name too. We should not invent acronyms here. Legacypac (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow further discussion of delete vs disambiguate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:01, 6 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.

Pimmally square[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 16#Pimmally square

Joaquim Mulembwe[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 except the one item already withdrawn. Deryck C. 17:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted incorrectly marked versions of the guy's name of no value to searchers. Some are based on his middle name making them doubly useless, Legacypac (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would fall under {{R from modification}}, perhaps the most versatile of those Rcats. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a modification, though. It's an error. And an unlikely one: if you're going to type the diacritics anyway, then leaving just one out is implausible. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first four as implausible modifications of his name. Weak keep the last four, as I think those are at least close enough. -- Tavix (talk) 01:46, 13 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.

Ratty (railway)[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) sst✈ 01:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Neelix translation of the French nickname for the operation Legacypac (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The local nickname, as in the article, is La'al Ratty. The associated pub is the Ratty Arms, and there's a book which uses Ratty as the title, so there's some evidence for the currency of the shorter nickname. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well known English nickname. Not ambiguous; harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector and Peter James. That it was created by Neelix is entirely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 8 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.

Wikipedia:Health Sciences basic topics[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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. --BDD (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CNR, redirects from the wrong namespace. Since healthcare science isn't a project-space topic, these redirects are misleading. -- Tavix (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Wikipedia:Health Sciences basic topics - this link is included in historical versions of the main outline page. If you get rid of it, the link won't redirect when you are viewing the historical pages (here's one of them). We should retain the history behind the basic topics links. There was a set of about 50 of these created by Larry Sanger in the very beginning. They were wish lists of needed articles, and therefore they were filled with redlinks that you could just click on to create the desired articles. Eventually, the links all turned blue, and the lists were forgotten. Years later, someone discovered these useful lists of blue links, and moved them to article space and renamed them to Lists of basic topics. An unexpected thing happened: people kept adding to them until they were no longer basic. So they were renamed to "Outline of". But if you erase the historical links, someone reviewing the history won't necessarily know what became of those pages if their links are broken by removing these redirects. The Transhumanist 00:12, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. Possible problems that these redirects cause (such as making readers think that these lead to a page in the "Wikipedia:" namespace) outweighs the "linkrot" argument. Redirects are supposed to be useful and not misleading, and these are neither. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that Wikipedia:Healthcare science serves no useful purpose and should be deleted. But the only purpose that Wikipedia:Health Sciences basic topics serves is as a historical link in page histories. It has zero live links (check "What links here"), except in relation to this deletion discussion. That page was an important part of Wikipedia's development history, and still lives on under a new name. Breaking that link with the past would be disruptive to the preservation of Wikipedia's history. So, the purpose of keeping it would be so that when someone is researching the history of the outlines, they will be able to see what happened to this page just by clicking on it. The Transhumanist 20:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to me that a retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine may be in order. Hatnote if you feel it necessary. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget. The primary objection to cross-namespace redirects is that they will confuse people looking for encyclopaedic content if they end up in project space. This is not the case for redirects out of article space, and so there is no need to delete history. Oiyarbepsy's suggestion is also good if you cannot cope with the idea of a non-harmful redirect that crosses namespaces. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Oiyarbepsy. They're probably unlikely as searches or navigation aids, but they're pretty harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget per Thryduulf. No reason to lose the history, though. Rossami (talk) 16:16, 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.

Improper Fraction Arena[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. The general consensus is that this redirect is a joke that we shouldn't entertain. Deryck C. 22:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unattested name, with a single (!) -wikipedia Google result. BDD (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nonsense. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This was almost certainly a joke as (or ) is an improper fraction. Thryduulf (talk)
  • Delete as joke redirect --Lenticel (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zero hits with alternate search engines. Delete as a prank. Rossami (talk) 16:21, 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.

Meeu[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) 14:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gulls live all over the world, not just South Africa, and are therefore not especially related to Afrikaans. Gorobay (talk) 14:17, 6 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.

Lee Jae Jin*[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. I've speedied this as WP:CSD#G6 uncontroversial housekeeping as it was clear from the edit history (and the short discussion below) that nobody wanted the redirect to be there in the first place. Deryck C. 11:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Created as a result of an inappropriate page move. Despite a couple dozen views per month—perhaps from curious readers because it comes up in the search suggestions—this is an implausible search term. — ξxplicit 04:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete It was only at this title for less than a day and the asterisk does make it implausible. The official website link given with the original move summary does not include an asterisk, nor can I find the name stylised in this way anywhere (either of which would make this a plausible redirect) - I suspect it was a hyphenation issue that motivated the move as the website presents the name with none. That is outside the scope of this RfD though. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible search term --Lenticel (talk) 01:21, 7 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]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 14#Posthumous award

Template:Ethnic stereotypes[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) 14:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the generic "Ethnic stereotypes" template should redirect to the more specific {{Ethnic stereotypes USA}} (or even {{Stereotypes in the United States}}, which the former now redirects to). I can't seem to find a better target, so I'm thinking it should just be deleted (after the transclusions are changed to the other template) Primefac (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete after fixing per nom. Ethnic stereotypes are far from exclusively a USA thing. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate - it's a {{R from move}}: it may have been more generic in the past but it's US-centric now, and not appropriate to be redirected from the generic title. Maybe there's a version in the history that could be restored over this template instead? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's really not. Before it was moved it was "ethnic stereotypes in western culture" but all of the links are now redirects to United States-specific topics. Best to delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:12, 7 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_6&oldid=1074238776"