Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 19, 2016.

Dark Magician Knight[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 send to graveyard (delete all). Deryck C. 11:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are for non-notable cards that are not even mentioned in the target article. Should all be deleted since there is no reason for us to have redirects of every single Yu-Gi-Oh! card ever made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.78.233 (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2016‎

  • Delete - I agree. We don't have a gigantic master list of every card ever made. Even if the idea was seriously proposed, anyways, it would be rejected since such a list would be unwieldy and filled with non-notable commentary. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I would be surprised if Yu-Gi-Oh had trademarked names like Dark Paladin or Zombie Knight. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send into the Graveyard (delete) per nom. I don't think any of these cards have much notability in both the real life card game and the Yugioh world itself. --Lenticel (talk) 04:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dark Paladin" is the only one that looks reasonably salvageable. Paladin (character class) and Paladin (Dungeons & Dragons) have some limited discussion of the idea, but neither uses the exact phrase, and from what I do know about D&D, it's unlikely to be an official one there. In Final Fantasy games, Dark Knight is the usual term. I was a bit surprised to not find any general discussion of dark knights in fantasy. --BDD (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's black knight for all the fantasy ones, and Dark Knight, the latter referring mostly to Batman's moniker. Anti-Paladin is associated with Dungeons & Dragons. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Decapitation of John the Baptist[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 Beheading of St. John the Baptist. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems so obvious to me that this should redirect to Beheading of St. John the Baptist that I'm tempted to just unilaterally redirect it, but this being Wikipedia someone would inevitably complain if I did so.  ‑ Iridescent 22:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Caravaggio painting is so famous that I would think this is the primary redirect. Si Trew (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's true but then neither does the suggested target use the word "decapitation" so that particular portion of your argument don't fly. I was kinda taking it as read that "beheading" and "decapitation" are synonymous although there is no doubt some technical difference depending on which way they whack your head off. Si Trew (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But if we decide to keep it pointing towards a painting, what makes the Valetta Caravaggio the primary topic? The execution of John the Baptist is one of the commonest themes in European art (artists liked the topic of Salome and JtB as it was one of the few cases where the depiction of scantily-clad women and violent death was permitted by the church) and the Caravaggio, which is tucked away in Valetta Co-Cathedral, well off the usual artistic trails, isn't particularly well known (and is also just one of at least eight paintings Caravaggio painted of this subject). ‑ Iridescent 12:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SimonTrew: Primary topic aside, it's the difference between an event, which as far as I'm aware doesn't have an official name, and a painting, which does have an official name, and it's not "Decapitation..." If Caravaggio titled his work "The Decapitation of John the Baptist," then there might be a case to either redirect there or have it titled without a disambiguator, but we're not in that situation. -- Tavix (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix:, to be pedantic Caravaggio wouldn't have titled his work at all, since the concept of paintings having titles is a relatively recent development. (Even names which "everybody knows" like Mona Lisa and The Birth of Venus are the names bestowed by 19th-century curators, not titles given by the artist.) Besides, if Caravaggio had titled the work he'd have presumably called it Decollazione di Giovanni Battista so it would be a case of which translation one preferred. ‑ Iridescent 14:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't even think of that, but it makes perfect sense. Thanks for that little tidbit of knowledge. -- Tavix (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Mona Lisa is only called that in English. In most Latinate languages she is La ciccolina or something similar depending on the language. Nobody really knows why she was ever called "The Mona Lisa" in English. She's not called Lisa. So, yeah, painting names are a relatively new development. Si Trew (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where have you got the idea that "she's not called Lisa"? It's a portrait of Lisa del Giocondo. ‑ Iridescent 09:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ohh it it is getting tricky this one because at that target in the infobox the particular painting is indeed the one by Carravagio so then we are running around in circles. (That's a bit of a stupid expression isn't it when most athletes run around in circles well okay elongated circles). I was with User:Tavix and then checking with User:CoffeeWithMarkets. I think the first thing is to decide, and of course this is purely linguistically, whether there is a difference between a beheading and a decaptitation, viz. whether in English Carravaggio's painting is called "The beheading of S. J.". I think it is sometimes but perhaps that is just informal. I can see then that we can make a distinction between the event and the painting as User:Tavix argued but I still think you really can't get a cigarette paper between the two of em. Hmmm. Si Trew (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hierophancy[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. Participants of this discussion think this redirect isn't even worth the WP:CHEAP costs of keeping it. Deryck C. 11:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix) while technically correct I doubt that many people are going to search this way. Si Trew (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wording things this way is so rare that the chances of the redirect actually being helpful are non-existent. While redirects are, indeed, cheap, in this kind of case, I'd rather just scrub it. Get right rid it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've never understood why people (not you) try to use WP:RCHEAP as a reason to keep things. They are as cheap to delete as to keep and the RFD instructions say so quite clearly. If all else fails read the instructions, it is not an argument one way or the other is it, of itself. Si Trew (talk) 00:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I am surprised we don't have shortcut WP:RCHEAP. After all, redirects are cheap, we should probably create that. Si Trew (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And to almost nobody's surprise someone has used WP:RCHEAP again as the sole reason to justify keeping a redirect. We really need to highlight more clearly what it says in the instructions, that you can't use that as an argument one way or another. It's right there at the top of RfD every time you load the page. Si Trew (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
RCHEAP is already at the generic WP:CHEAP, as though it's only redirects that are cheap. Uanfala (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was more suiggesting we highlight the sections in the WP:RFD instructions somehow better because this argument "redirects are cheap" comes up time and time again as the sole argument for keeping something, and the instructions (going from memory) say "redirects are cheap. There's no harm if a few are left around" and a bit futher down "redirects are cheap, so there's no harm in deleting them".
(that is my periphrasis for brevity) . The two bits of advice are not contradictory but we could probably tidy the instructions somehow to make it clearer that you can't use that as an argument one way or the other. I'll have a think and suggest at WT:RFD if I can think of a reasonable way around what looks but isn't a contradiction-- the "cheap" !voters are inevitably on the "keep" side of the fence without looking further into a dicussion of whether a redirect makes sense. Si Trew (talk) 09:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Benedictus Montanus[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. Deryck C. 11:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is right on the cusp. The latin name is Benedictus Arias Montanus as at top of lede. Not sure with this one. Si Trew (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - being right at the top of the lede is nowhere near the "cusp". Jonathunder (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it is on the cusp is that "Montano" is Spanish and "Montanus" is Latin. While I could have just {{R from other language|la}}, without the "Arias" in the middle I am not sure it makes sense. It might do but it might not. Benedictus Arias Montanus which incidentally I have just marked thus as R from other lang certainly makes sense but without the Arias I am not sure this one does. Nowhere in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE or anywhere else in the article says he was called just "Beneductus Montanus". You can't play with names like that. It's either right or it's wrong. If it's wrong, it goes, we are not here to give people false information. I am no religious scholar, I can't call it, so I bring it to WP:RFD. Si Trew (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Unprogressive[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 11:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is just on the cusp (Neelix redirect) it would mean I guess conservatism but does it actually mean anything or is it WP:MADEUP as I suspect Si Trew (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - I'm conflicted about this, because it looks at first like absolute guff. In print, however, the term appears to be used many times as just a clunky way of calling someone and/or some group a reactionary / hard-line right-wing type. A loopy way of alleging backwardness in social, cultural, economic, etc ways is another common usage. The term is not just made up here on Wikipedia as we have clear-cut situations such as this old newspaper article, which gives us: "Why is Ireland unprogressive? Has she not been ruled by England for seven hundred years? Is Ireland unprogressive in spite of everything that England has been able to do?" Quite the loaded questions, so provocative as to be essentially unanswerable, yet still a case of sincere usage of our weird "unprogressive" term.
  • As well, one of Webster's "New World Thesaurus" type books gives us "unprogressive" / "conservative" being defined as meaning the same as "fearful", "unimaginative", "unchangable", "traditionalist", "conventionalist", "obstinate", "die-hard", "inflexible", "old fogey", "classicist", and-- my personal favorite-- "fossil". Just for fun, imagine them all being screamed by Captain Haddock over the side of a massive schooner, face red, with maybe a few "Gyroscope!"s, "Blistering barnacles!"s, and "Duck-billed platypus!"s thrown in. (I swear I don't deliberately try to pick out provocative things to find and repost, they just seem to pop up right in my face while searching various redirects.)
  • So, while the "unprogressive" term itself has some worth, we have to deal with the fact that its no good to retain it going over to its antonym. Yet there's no clear synonym that's the absolute best to retarget it over to either. Conservative? Reactionary? Right-wing politics? Perhaps just trashing it is right, but I could be persuaded otherwise. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a dictionary. Wait until a group or someone prominently uses the term so there would be a page written. No redirect for "unlike" but there is one for unfriend. And there are Progressive Conservatives, according to the disambiguation page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is how we make unprogress. This is one of the more sensible ones, believe me. Si Trew (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete a disservice to the English language, this is not a real word. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Malouet[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/withdrawn. Deryck C. 11:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky one (Neelix redirect). He was the first Baron malouet but presumably then there are other barons Malouet. I haven't searched being deliberately ignorant. What to do with this one I dunno. Si Trew (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

State of Ungrace[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 11:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declined at CSD. Tell me why this is a state of ungrace. Tell me Si Trew (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The book, with a wholly different title, spun off of a 1997 written magazine article named "State of Ungrace", as is shown in What's_So_Amazing_About_Grace?#Background. So, that's the origin of all this. However, the whole thing appears more a matter of, frankly, trivia than anything else. I'm also uncomfortable with the precedent. If some columnist writes an article titled "X, Then Y" before writing a partly related A, Then B book, then it's still a peculiar WP:SURPRISE to type in "X, Then Y" and get the book. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That article itself doesn't seem to have its own notability as with a short story or a pilot chapter / one-shot. And it precedes the working title which would also not require a redirect as the final version is a shortened version of that. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. My search results says that this phrase isn't necessarily used for Christian topics. There are book entries which use this phrase to describe the suffering of one of its characters --Lenticel (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Not a real word --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Goo&gle[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 22:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, adding a random ampersand to a name does not seem like a common typo to make. -- Tavix (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What an interesting list. I had no idea we were chronicling Google's Doodles every day... It'd be easy to add that in: "Google commemorated the 200th anniversary of George Boole's birthday with a doodle that read "Goo&gle."" A retarget there would at least give readers more context than a cryptic redirect to Google. -- Tavix (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be easy to add that in Yeah I was about to do it, but then I decided to go look for sources, and when I look at what seems to be a picture of the Doodle from a newspaper, I have no idea how you get "Goo&gle" out of that: [1]. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 01:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for that. The one pic I saw of the doodle was [2], which shows something different. I think that's what it showed on the results page only. -- Tavix (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added a brief explanation of the pun at List of Google Doodles in 2015#November 2, so a redirect there would make sense. — JFG talk 11:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this redirect can be explicitly included in a section somewhere, then this redirect would helpful. If not, the only thing this redirect likely does is cause frustration due to the lack of information. Perhaps it could be included in the List of Google Doodles in 2015#November 2 entry, which is what this seemingly refers to.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too ephemeral. Unlikely search term overall, and likely to confuse anyone who gives it a try. --BDD (talk) 18:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The thing is: This is a minor bit of trivia in the history of Google. I don't see the point in retaining the redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Google Doodles in 2015#November 2 — JFG talk 11:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable abbreviation for a single event and it wasn't even the detailed icon [3]. It'd be as useful a redirect as "FATTY OWLS" and would just mess up legitimate texting searches from someone typing "goo" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonnotable abbreviation and per many above nominators. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

First Serbian Volunteer Division[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 move First Serbian Volunteer Division (military force) over redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of redirect, as the Serbian volunteer division is distinct from the Czechoslovak Legion, and the Czechoslovak Legion page no longer has a section on Serbia or Serbian involvement. Alcherin (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • And? Hmmm this is a bit nonsense to send a redirect via {{R to section}} to a DAB but redirects and DABS are kinda like siamese twins that they well they go together like a horse and marriage as Frank Sinatra sang. We should probably actually take out the section link (at the target not here at RfD) but beyond that what is the problem? the DAB lists it and it gets an English-speaking audience to where they want to go. Perhaps pinging WP:MILHIST would be an idea. Si Trew (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't get the audience to where they would suppose from clicking on the wikilink, which would be an article about the First Serbian Volunteer Division, not a disambiguation page for the separate Czechoslovak Legion that was a different military formation comprised of men from an entirely different country. The dab redirects to something that does not discuss the Serbian volunteers at all. Alcherin (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Czechoslovak Legion was a force allied to UK and France, which fought in Russia and ended off stranded in Siberia. It was ultimately repatriated by the British transporting it across the Pacific and Atlantic. I think that the Serbian Volunteer Division has similar history, having been stranded in Russia, when the Central Powers overran Serbia. I accept that the redirect is highly inappropriate: the two military forces had a similar history, but they were different. The appropriate course is to rescue the text that this used to be redirected to and use it to create a stub article. Any other action will lead to the redirect under discussion being left as a blank article which will be deleted. That would be a wholly inappropriate outcome, as the subject is notable enough to require an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be about the last version where the relevant material appeared: [4]. This is written from the context of the Czech legion, making it unsatisfactory as a stand alone article, but it is the best we have. It appears to have been removed as unsourced. It may not be perfect, but I do not believe it is rubbish. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure about the division's notability before, but there must be sources out there if there was that much detail about it. Does rescuing the text and adding it to the redirect page count as Speedily keep then? Alcherin (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Call WP:MILHIST. I am not sure if a Serbian legion would be in Czechoslovakia as was but they certainly would. Give MILHIST a ping. I've left a brief message referring back to here from WT:MILHIST. Someone will know there. Si Trew (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Peterkingiron rescuing the text deffo would be speedy keep, an article trumps a redirect any time. Can you have any RS for it that would be perfect but even if not it is better than a redirect. Coincidentally I well I don't know him but my namesake Simon Trew the military historian at Sandhurst would probably fill you in. May be in one of his books. He very much concentrates on eastern/southen Europe. I just live in Hungary which seems to be treated as some kind of military roundabout. Si Trew (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Keeping the text red encourages article creation. I believe that there's enough historical documentation about the ethnic Slavic volunteer paramilitaries fighting on Nicolas II's behalf, and how said leader had to violate the Hague Conventions for them to do so meanwhile, for this to become its own valid page on its own terms. See reliable historical works on print such as this. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, though, I guess in voting for for someone to remake the article from a redirect into a stand alone page is essentially the same thing as a keep vote as well. It just should not be kept as is. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so to make things even easier, I went ahead and created "First Serbian Volunteer Division (military force)". CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, to be most precise, my vote is: De-redirect First Serbian Volunteer Division so that it's got the current contents of First Serbian Volunteer Division (military force) and then turn the latter page into a redirect to the former. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do what CoffeeWithMarkets says. I don't quite understand what de-redirect means but this user has taken time to sort out the mess and it is for the better. WP:BOLD. I won't take this to CSD because I am not sure what quite de-redirect means because I assume it does not mean delete. Si Trew (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The solution is to merge the new article First Serbian Volunteer Division (military force) into the existing redirect (article). Thank you for creating that article. I was unable to do that. When I created a redirect (with possibilities) I was working on a bio-article on Sir Alfred Faulkner, who had had some role in repatriating them to Serbia. I do not currently have access to my source on that. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Demarcay[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. --BDD (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm the hatnote says I can't do the cedilla Demarc,ay redirects here, sio does this but may be a step tooi far (Neelix redirect) Si Trew (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think and I have not checked again tonight but when I checked last night that is a hatnote on the target I think. Si Trew (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is another little battle I have to fight. WP:MOS does indeed say create {{R from title without diacritics}} and indeed I used to. Now the search engine has got a little better I don't believe it is helpful indeed I believe it is harmful. I have created very many in my time. But I think these days with the better search engine creating redirects for titles without diacritics just hurts the search engine. There's no need for it. The MOS doesn't ask for {{R from other capitalization}} but I totally gave up on MOS because, well, I just did because you can never get anything done there. Longer bloody style guide than the whole of any other manual of style I have ever read and and it just gets longer. The idea to make it shorter does not go down well. Just write in good plain English and you will be OK. Si Trew (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Honestly, after some thought, I don't feel inclined to change things. "Demarçay" and "Demarcay" both go to the scientist, who appears to be a valid primary target in this case for use of that one word alone, and there's a convenient hat-note to help those looking for the hotel. I don't see a particular problem. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily withdrawn by nominator. I toss the coin, others make the call. Fine by me, Si Trew (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The question still remains whether it should be disambiguated or kept as is. I added a couple potential entries to my hypothetical disambiguation. Is that enough to dab it? -- Tavix (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't this just be decided as: Keep plus add link to disambig page at the primary target article, substituting / replacing the current article's hatnote? I wouldn't think anyone would object. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

User:Bbauer25/Bull Run Regional Park[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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User page under a long gone user created by User:Godsy while moving a good article back out of mainspace. Serves no purpose and is just clutter. Legacypac (talk) 06:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user left it at User:Bbauer25/Enter your new article name here (now a REDIRECT) not the extra brand new page nominated here. The draft went to mainspace again - and I suggest Godsy stop taking pages I move into mainspace and stealth deleting them by sending them back to stale draft status without discussion. A lack of listed sources for non-controversial info on a park is not fatal to the existence of a page. Legacypac (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I am very much against deleting user drafts or (as has been the case for me) moving them without my asking then to Draft space and then deleting wih no editor scrutiny and without any ask on my part as a stale draft. For if not, delete any content in user space. I know WP:OWN but there is a reason they are in user draft space because they don't meet the WP:Five pillars. Don't matter if it is two years they are not ready. WP:NOTFINISHED. Draft: namespace is a good idea but this is just WP:HOUNDING, the whole idea of Draft namespace or before we had that to put drafts in User namespavce was to keep them out of sight of readers. It's absolutely ridiculous to think this would be deleted, under the policies I said above. Si Trew (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The content of this particular one seems to be empty, so not a particularly good start on a draft. But I have to say, you can't go deleting stuff out of user space. What the fuck did anyone even think of bringing it here for, it was perfectly idle as a no-bit idle remnant. If as the nominator said it was moved to namespace as an article, tag it as {{R from page move}}, done. I tend to clean up my homework when I translate and stuff (less need now) but there are probably loads of remnants in mz user page of little drafts and whatnot. WP:RFD#K5 someone finds it useful, keep to preserve history (and please nominator tag as {{R from page move}} and tell us which article). Si Trew (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:SimonTrew I don't think you are reading the situation correctly. The actual article is perfectly find and found at Bull Run Regional Park after I moved it from User:Bbauer25/Enter your new article name here the space of a departed editor. Godsy moved it to a NEW page User:Bbauer25/Bull Run Regional Park that he created (the redirect up for deletion here).Legacypac (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then put a {{R from page move}} om the redirect, as I suggested.
I need to put me foot down that I don't like things being hoist out of user namespace, put into draft space by some kind of Wikipolice who take stuff out of user draft and put it into Draft:, then deleted, as recently happened to one of mine. That is just out of order whatever WP:OWN says. Before Draft: was a namespace it was common and normal to put drafts in user space tucked under ones own name. The principle of taking them out of a user's draft spave, hoisting them into draft, then deleting them as a stale draft, is completely anathema to WP:NOTFINISHED. And I shall prove it by sticking to my strong keep vote. Legacypac is probably right on this particular one but I am not having it that someone can hoist an article out of user space grabbing another user by their private parts and clutching them by their throat launch them with a trebuchet unto the unknown. I built a nice trebuchet once. Worked reasonably well. It was only about 12 feet (3.7 m) high so not a very big one. Si Trew (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I guess Draft:Simon Trew whiuch was at User:SimonTrew/Simon Trew. which was or was not deleted as a stale draft goes the same way. Technically I took it WP:g7 after a lot of bullying by the Wikipolice that it was a stale draft. All that does (and patently I am not that Simon Trew, the military historian) is make Wikipedia worse. I don't think people should come here to make the encylopaedia worse. It was very very hard for me to find any references to him beyond his books as I imagine he is a very private person, even though notable. So it stayed at Draft so maybe someone at WP:MILHIST could fill in some details. To be hoist out and deleted by some idiot who doesn't know what they are talking about as a stale draft is just fucking nonsense. then to suggest we hoist it out of a user's draft space and delete it is still fucking nonsense. I have loads of stale drafts kicking around in my user space and can't even find em myself but WP:NOTFINISHED, I tend to request to delete when I move a draft into mainspace but this is over the line to go deleting stuff out of a user's namespace. For if not, I can delete User:Godsy's page, and that would be OK? I can nominate that for deletion or blank it any time I like. (Not picking on Godsy just as an example.) Si Trew (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The editor is clearly not coming back and if by some miracle he does then he can manually search the draft where the red log thingy will show ..... He'll of forgotten it and he's not coming back any time soon so pointless leaving the redirect. –Davey2010Talk 23:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Davey2010. Among users who would actually come across this, it's more likely to confuse. There's a pretty simple trail that will be left if it's deleted, and if the user ever returns, it can be recreated. --BDD (talk) 02:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

US mid-terms[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. --BDD (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then it goes to RfD. There are thirty seven I have listed. The basic rationale is that without "election" in the title it does not make much sense WP:WORLDWIDE, some make more sense than others. This is probably one that makes more sense than others. WP:BRD come along then. Explain the reversion. Si Trew (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have immediately asked the reverting editor politely in kinda my basic Japanese to explain the reversion and draw him to this discussion. He might not be japanese I dunno but if the name is in Japanese I assume so. What would you do. Oh, I forget, you probably don't speak Japanese. Let's separate the men from the boys shall we. Si Trew (talk) 18:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's very odd. An editor who was quick enough to revert my CSD so patently is around can't be bothered after BRD to discuss it at RfD. That is very odd. I am sure I posted the right directions. Si Trew (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are commonly simply called midterms. --BDD (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine BDD and I would know them as that. There were a lot that were much more convoluted than this one. This is one of the most sensible ones. Withdrawn by nominator as speedily keep. Still no sign of the declining CSD editor, how very odd. Si Trew (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sir Robert Catesby[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 30#Sir Robert Catesby

Princess Élisabeth[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 after recent additions to disambiguation page at target. Deryck C. 11:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) this one's tricky. The DAB at the target has nobody who has the É at the front. It is probably a stayer as {{R from misspelling}} but it is just just a little borderline. I dunno. Si Trew (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone does identify with the É, it's pointless. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding those! That's enough to Keep then. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Alan and Kathryn Hughes[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. --BDD (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where this is grounded

They are masters where they're founded
But putting them together makes me
Roll my eyes and say whatever
This is just about all right
But Neelix ones to W will keep
Me up all night
I get no sleep Si Trew (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. @SimonTrew: I hate to be the one saying this given my history, but no rationale has been given for deletion, just a poem which is charming, but ultimately not very helpful. It's possible that this is an WP:XY situation, however the target does clearly list Alan and Kathryn Hughes as current master founders of the target foundry. So this redirect is harmless and points to where it should. Should there be separate articles on each of these persons in the future (unlikely) then we will have to revisit. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say keep or delete or anything but now I shall Delete. You can't put both of them together. We don't have Denis and Margaret Thatcher or William and Kate whatever the press things they might say. You can't conjoin the two like that. Si Trew (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we do have William and Kate but I think with the surname this is pushing it a bit. Si Trew (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See also the section below.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

William Mears (bell-founder)[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. --BDD (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Three sticks and an apple say the bells at Whitechapel.
You owe me three farthings say the bells of St Martins
When will you pay me say the bells of Old Bailey?
When I grow rich say the bells at Fleetditch.
When will that be say the bells at Stepney
When I am old says the great bell at Bow.

Although this chap and his family were among the great makers of the bell foundry at Whitechapel, this is going around the houses as indeed does the nursery rhyme. I believe that just because it was created by Neelix we now have some clutter to remove. William Mears is a WP:TWODABS but probably didn't need to be had Neelix not created this needless disambiguation first. We don't I hope have William Mears (bellfounder) for example so it is kinda a bit nonsense but I am all a bit bob doubles and grandsire triples on exactly what to do with it.

It's not marked as {{R to section}} but that is easily fixed, I just wonder whether it perhaps is a bit WP:UNDUE to have it on the DAB at all, in which case we don't need the DAB and well it all kinda starts to unwind from there like an unheld bellrope and all comes clashing down usually, if the bells are founded in Whitechapel, in the key of D major. I still stick to my opinion that since they managed to cock up the Liberty Bell and Big Ben (bell) on the second attempt after some bloody Northern firm also managed to cock it up the first time, I would ask for a kinda guarantee of workmanship before commissioning 'em, they don't come cheap you know. Si Trew (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the artsy thread above. I have taken the liberty (pun absolutely intended) of correcting the subheader target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only one person on that list is currently bluelinked. Is this person notable, and can we say anything else about him?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno where BDD's comment is for De La Soul but that would not have surprised me in the least. It made me smile. Thanks for giving me a laugh. Nice one. Si Trew (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I may have removed it by accident cos couldn't find it in the basic editor but User:BDD said I think "I'm surprised he didn't take it to De La Soul. Nice one, you made my day. Si Trew (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but it's still there! It's in the section below. --BDD (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I found it afterwards I thought I may have removed it. It's not my browser but something in the internet cacheing along the way sometimes means I don't get a very fresh update on pages even if I update my browser cache. There's not much I can do about that except apologise. My Internet works great but I think partly because it does a lot of cacheing and I can't do much about that. Si Trew (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Of the soul[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 Blue Slide Park. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to James Brown. Or not. Neelix redirect Si Trew (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

THat's fine by me (I was joking when I said retarget to James Brown as I imagine you guessed). I know I should do my homework but it is a tricky balance when listing these Neelix redirects which to take to CSD, which to RfD and which to look into more thoroughly. I do admit I don't tend to look beyond Wikipedia cos kinda with mass listing them I haven't time much to check elsewhere, which is why I bring them to RfD if in doubt. If my balancing act of that, flooding the poor CSD admins and taking as many as I think speedy keep is out of whack then I can only apologise, but it is a tricky balancing act and I am not saying I always get it right. If in doubt I bring to RfD. I don't think we need to make the other two, it is not redirects for creation, but if they happened to be yes they should go to the same place. Si Trew (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I'm a little surprised Neelix didn't redirect this to De La Soul. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a very generic term and we have no adequate article to which it can redirect. Psychic is not suitable as it is one of many possible things readers could be looking for. I suggest let search engines do the job. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Blue Slide Park, {{R from song}}. -- Tavix (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Collectivistic[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. --BDD (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem ok to me (neelix redirect) as someone who had a tendency to collectivism but I need a second check on this. I am pretty sure it is OK isn't it Si Trew (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Erabu sea snakes[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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Call it. Calling experts User:Peter coxhead and User:Plantdrew. I know a bit of Japanese so that will not be a problem I can help you out there, but does this make sense in an English taxonomy? In the article we have it both as Irabu and Erabu. There are lots of these so we better make our minds up on the first one before the lot stay or go. (Neelix redirect, there are many others but they can be taken as a job lot depending on what we decide). Si Trew (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the mainstay Erabu to CSD under the WP:G6 concession. That will maybe make our minds up. To me it makes no sense in English. Si Trew (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources support mixing the Japanese transliteration "erabu" with the English "sea snakes". Implausible search term. Plantdrew (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What do you mean, "no sources"? Did you look? Try [5][6] as just two examples of many scientific articles calling this species the "Erabu sea snake". Fences&Windows 22:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While this all appears rather silly and doesn't particularly make sense, if the exact terms "erabu sea snake" and "erabu sea snakes" get used in print by serious sources, then the redirect should be kept. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cross-dressed[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. Deryck C. 11:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this nonsense? Just because someone is a cross-dresser does not mean that he or she after then dressing is cross dressed, quite the opposite. We need to make the distinction with a drag act but this is not the case here. Is this just nonsense? (neelix) Si Trew (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's the stance on redirects for terms that could be piped as with MOS:PIPE? Usually the link would cover [[Cross-dress]]ed or [[Cross-dress]]es. Cross-dresser on the other hand is a common enough term to keep the fully typed version as a redirect. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So it might, but is anyone ever referred to as being "cross-dressed"? Thats the point. Neelix has a habit of just whacking every possible conjugation or whatever onto any word imaginable. Is it a real word or is it not? I don't think it is. WP:NEOLOGISM we are not in the business of making up words here. Si Trew (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You see to me the first thing that came to mind is the "crossed garters" in A Midsummer Night's Dream but even then they are not really cross dressing. They are I forget there is a technical dramatic word for it just switching clothes. Si Trew (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This seems like too much hair-splitting, really. People comment about such and such having "cross-dressed" / "crossdressed", the terms get used in places, redirects are cheap, etc. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily keep as withdrawn by nominator. Splitting hairs is exactly what we have to do, User:CoffeeWithMarkets or at least what I have to do because with this list of Neelix redirects created in good faith some are just fine I have tagged several as keep and rcatted them and some to me are a bit over the mark, That is how we get WP:CONSENSUS. If you're trying to build or rebuild an index of an encylopaedia splitting hairs is exactly what you must do. Si Trew (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Great House of 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 keep. --BDD (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the great House of God is more than just one book I seem to remember being told so at school. Delete it or where to put it? (Neelix) Si Trew (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another marvellous publication from CSS Publishing. To nobody's surprise. Si Trew (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm not seeing any other uses per my search, and an omission of a "the" is common. -- Tavix (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nancy Kovak[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 ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect). I can see this as {{R from mispelling}} but it may be a bit far out. Only one letter out but we don't spell black as blak even in English, so to an English audience this seems unlikely to me. Another similar coming Si Trew (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took the other Nancy Kovach to CSD but if it bounces we can combine here. Si Trew (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now since Kovak seems to be the spelling for the other notable people with the same last name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a fairly straight-forward {{R from misspelling}}, especially since they have the same pronunciation. -- Tavix (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - That it's likely an uncommon to rare misspelling doesn't change the fact that the redirect seems helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cat women[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 ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) isn't this stretching it a bit. I guessed the target. There is alo cat-women but since patently this is one woman however fictional you can't pluralise it like this can you? Si Trew (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Whether or not someone sees "cat women" or something like that and think of actual women who happen to own a lot of actual cats, think of fictional hybrid beings that exist in various video games and elsewhere, think of the one specific Batman-related character, or think of whatever else is completely up in the air. It seems best to just let people search. Just get rid of both "cat-women" and "cat women".
    • Going to note that's kind of funny, now that I think of it, that the aforementioned "human-animal hybrid" page doesn't have (at the moment) images relating specifically to cats, yet there's a mouse (this little one) there instead. Perhaps such a matter could be put to a vote for changing (or adding one)? If we're talking pure fiction, I suppose it's true that cats have flip-flopped from antagonist to hero and everything in between while it goes back to both C.S. Lewis and Walt Disney that mice are positive and heroic. Though, Pan is not exactly a nice figure, and he's at the top of said page for all to see. Interesting. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to CatgirlCatwoman (disambiguation) Covers women who act like cats or are partly cats. I forgot about cat ladyAngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC) updated 18:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with that, although I feel like just outright deletion is the better option CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per AngusWOOF since both Catgirl and Cat lady can be "cat women." I'm not so sure about the hyphenated variant, but if kept, they should at least point to the same place. -- Tavix (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kovack[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. --BDD (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) Is this the primary for this or do we need to go to the surname DAB? I never knew she was a a coalminer. Si Trew (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If she's the only notable person with this form of the name, the current hatnote is sufficient. --BDD (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD. She is indeed the only notable person with the name, making her the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. -- Tavix (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Speedily withdrawn as Keep by nom, was not 100% sure on this one, thanks for calling it. Si Trew (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Greets[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. -- Tavix (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) WP:NOTDIC we do not have to list every form of a word. Not at target. Si Trew (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP:POFR/WP:VERB the verb form should redirect to the noun. The noun article greeting has not been deleted, and the AfD is malformed having no deletion rationale provided, being blank. -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 07:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it was a verb? Who said that the word "meet" meaning "meeting" was a verb, or "greet" meaning "greeting" was a verb? No, no, that would be easy to mark as {{R from verb}}, I meet, he meets. That would definitely be WP:NOTDIC anyway, but in "meets and greets" the "meets" and the "greets" are not verbs but nouns ("meetings and greetings"). It could still go there but not by being a verb; but is WP:RFD#D2 confusing not at target. We could add a hatnote, but we have nothing encylopaeidic on meets and greets. Si Trew (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
wikt:greet is a verb, and wikt:greets is a form of that verb. The noun-form for "greet" is greeting, so this redirect is functioning properly. As we have no article covering your alternate topic, there is no confusion engendered with non-existing coverage. Even if it was covered, a hatnote can be emplaced. -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, greets are not verbs. They are nouns. I can perfectly well form the second person of a verb and that is just WP:NOTDIC. Greets are not verbs, they are collective nouns. Si Trew (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Doe greets Mr. Roe with a handshake -- "greets" is functioning as a verb. The older form of the verb would be "greeteth"; It is the third person singular present form -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirects to common word "greet" that would be removed for overlinking. A search for "Greets" brings up places like The Greets inn and other non-notable restaurants. It's different for Cats (disambiguation) because there are actually notable names that use the plural. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AngusWOOF makes a good point about overlinking, but that's not the only way readers navigate. I could see this as an informal rendering of "greetings", and the verb usage is an additional factor, though not a strong one, in the redirect's favor. Perhaps not highly plausible, but unambiguous. --BDD (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So in the expression "meets and greets" the word "greets" is a verb then? No, it is shorthand for "meetings and greetings" both of which are plural nouns. But thanks all for correcting my appaling grammar I must get back to school. Of course it is a second person verb but not in this sense it isn't. Si Trew (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wiktionary, if "meet and greet" is a noun then it would be "meet and greets" or "meet-and-greets". [7], [8] If it's a verb then "meets and greets" would be fine. But greets by itself is still overlinking: "Obama greets Duterte by phone, hails high voter turnout." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the point about over-linking, but it's also something that applies equally to the article for "Greeting" as well. And it also has relevance to pretty much every other thing that you linked. The aforementioned news piece might as well have been called "Duterte Receives a Greeting From Obama that Hails the High Voter Turnout". Possible over-liking is a recurrent problem that exists regardless of whatever exact wording one chooses. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as noun. Does no harm. — JFG talk 04:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The Queens Award for Environmental Achievement[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 ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I listed this and many others at CSD to save RfD the bother. How many queens? This one was reverted so it comes here. Si Trew (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale was thus:

no you can't just take out the possesive like that. If English has one thing it is the ability to put the possessive 's on it that is kinda cool many languages do not and go round the houses and say "of" essentially". You can't go taking it out.. If you take it out then what you do is turn a reward by Her Majesty for honourable achievement into a I dunno chess queens in some parlour game or Alice in Wonderland or something it makes it nonsense and belittles the enterprises who have that award. As it happens I think Prince Philip administered most of it like with the Duke of Edinburgh Award Scheme (not, it appears, the Dukes of Edinburghs Awards Schemes). I don't have a great belief in monarchy as a system but you can at least get someone's name right. Even at ANI people get my name right. Si Trew (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – God save the Queen and her awards! — JFG talk 04:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The two spellings sound identical, making it a reasonable spelling goof, grammar nazis aside. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, omitting an apostrophe is a common grammatical mistake, so this one is helpful. -- Tavix (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wantedly[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. -- Tavix (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a pisser. There is a famous poem called Adlestrop that goes

Yes, I remember Adlestrop
The name, because one afternoon
Of heat the express train drew up there
unwontedly. It was late June.

So this is just about kinda reaching but I think a bit out of order. Can't think of the name of the poet off the top of my head Herbert Read maybe. No that is not right. Forgot to say Neelix redirect. Si Trew (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Thomas. It is at the target. In fact the poem is more famous than the place but that was the point of the poem. It could just about go as unwontedly but we don't have wontedly or unwantedly so what to do with this one. Unwontedly in that sense would not mean "unwanted" anyway it means "unexpected" so this is a bit of a blinder. Si Trew (talk) 12:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Searches on the Internet lead it to a social network job recruiting website in Japan. If that site is notable it can be a redlink. Otherwise it's overlinking to a common word "want". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is, as pointed out above, the name of a possibly notable Japanese web service. In terms of having an exact literal meaning, I'm... well, I'm not getting results that make sense. This looks like another case of a turn of phrase that various poets and the like made up one day yet never got a logical meaning attached to it that stuck. From searching, neither the Oxford Dictionaries nor Webster's various ones know what to make of this word. Let's just get rid of the redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Sounds like one of those once-fashionable Web 2.0 names that went nowhere. Definitely not worthy of Maslow. — JFG talk 04:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a real word. Implausible typo and search term. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Anarchistical[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. -- Tavix (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a coin toss. (Neelix redirect). The word should be anarchic but does anyone use this in real life? Probably some professor in an ivory tower has managed to use it. Still doesn't make it English. Si Trew (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm seeing pretty rare, almost random usage of the term "anarchistical" in ways that don't exactly make sense. Dictionaries can't make sense of this odd combination of letters. The only application I've come across that I consider even interesting is how apparently Pablo Picasso (Well, I suppose, who else?) showed the signs of "living hard" through rejecting more simplistic headgear and adopting a "broad-brimmed anarchistical sombrero" as a momentary trademark (see here). Do people actually use this term? Not really. I feel like just deleting it. (However, if anyone reading this gets the idea to start some kind of clothing business and/or musical group and/or radical art collective called "Anarchistical Sombreros", do let me know.) CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible typo. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 11:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a real word.Real word is "Anarchic". --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Greymarkets[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. -- Tavix (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can we do this (neelix redirect) I think this is pushing it a bit. We don't have blackmarkets at least I don't think we do. Si Trew (talk) 11:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We do. Who made that. Oh, Neelix made it (Xqbot did some fix). Can we do these? They sound a bit far fetched to me. Si Trew (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as made-up gibberish – You're being too kind. Or add "Gray's markets" for balance — JFG talk 04:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mark Grossman[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 keep. (non-admin closure) by yours Trewly Si Trew (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are some Mark-with-a-k that aren't notable enough to have their own page, but are mentioned in Wikipedia articles, but the Redirect to Marc-with-a-c makes them difficult to find. I will try any repair incorrect links into Mark that are meant for Marc. I can't create a disambig page because there would only be one notable entry. Is Delete the right thing to do? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It's such an easy, simple phonetic mistake to make, and the redirect appears helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not as if Marc and Mark are different names, in the absence of their being someone else notable called Mark Grossman this would seem fairly obvious keep to me. If there were a Marc G. and Mark G. it would be a different matter. Si Trew (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I no longer remember the circumstances of my edit that created this redirect, but I don't go around indiscriminately redirecting Mark-Marc or Steven-Stephen or the like. I must have wanted to read about this guy and had trouble finding him because someone got the name wrong. My edit summary and the edit summary for the creation of the bio suggest that the error was on Wikipedia, and the bio was initially at Mark, but the earliest version in the history shows Marc, so I'm confused on that point; but whether the mistake was on Wikipedia or on some other source I was reading, it confirms the view of CoffeeWithMarkets that it's an easy mistake to make. If a notable Mark Grossman emerges, this redirect will become his bio and the two bios will hatnote each other. JamesMLane t c 13:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gray boxes[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. -- Tavix (talk) 04:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) tricky one. All those at the target, the DAB, are with "Grey" with the British English spelling. This may be pushing it too far, I dunno. I could see it as a likely search term but it is also misleading because Gray in Britain is always used as the surname and Grey for the colour. So I am not sure on this one. Si Trew (talk) 10:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I have sent grey-browns and other things to CSD it is the ones I am not sure on that I list here. The "Neelix concession" is not a licence to commit homicide. You still have to use your judgment. Si Trew (talk) 12:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I see no harm with this one, just mark it {{R from alternative spelling}}. — JFG talk 04:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily keep as withdrawn by nominator. Thanks to User:JFG for calling it, of course R from alt spelling I'll do that before the procedural close. Si Trew (talk) 11:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Blacklegger[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. -- Tavix (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure on this one. There are lots of silly Neelix redirects with various hyphenation and so on but were they called blackleggers? They probably were, Neelix redirects get you like that after a while, were they? I am pretty sure they were so this one is probably fine but there are loads with silly punctuation and stuff. Si Trew (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Looking at how the more established terms of "Blackleg" and "Blacklegging" have been used made me think that this was a simple kind of verbiage mistake, the vexing English language assumption being played out yet again that one can always turn an "X activity" into an "X-er/X-ist/etc label". However, "blacklegger" isn't just something made up on Wikipedia, and I see actual usage by a hodgepodge of blogs and whatnot. Reliable sources appeared unlikly to be found, but then I came across that as well. For example, we have the likes of Labour and Partition: The Belfast Working Class remarking: "At the 1907, Twelfth, in Belfast, Crawford described his audience as the 'vanguard of the Protestant democracy'. He was coming to see Irish protestant politics as reactionary, describing Ulster as 'the blacklegger of the land strike'."
    • One's reminded of Elvis Costello's famous remark about why he created and sang "Oliver's Army", quipping something like: "Every side always gets the poor little working-class boys to do the dirty work, don't they?" Class lines line up in such peculiar ways with ethnic lines, and both of the above with ideology lines, but then I won't say any more since accidents happen wading into that quicksand, and it's getting way from the exact matter at hand. The "blacklegger"->"blacklegging"->"strikebreaker" language is archaic yet helpful, so lets keep it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey "One's reminded". Better get out the cucumber sandwiches. Si Trew (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily withdrawn by nominator as Keep. The thing that screwed me is I was thinking of a bootlegger. They get you like that after a bit. Done about 100 today. Si Trew (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Pottery-maker[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. -- Tavix (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) does this make any sense. A person who makes pots is a potter. I would have thought that was obvious Si Trew (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The hyphen version is not used. It's either "potter" or "pottery maker". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "Pottery maker" without the hyphen is valid English; I can find it being used by the likes of the Financial Times and other sources. The distinction, though, I don't quite understand. However, it appears from searching that the difference in terms is that a "pottery maker" is involved with the mechanistic or otherwise assembly-line based mass production of pottery, perhaps only being a manager who rarely even touches the product, whereas a "potter" is one directly creating something themselves, using individual initiative and personally handling materials. Again, however, I'm not quite sure. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not overly worried about this either, but yes, I think there is some kind of distinction and you're probably right it is between something artisanal and something mass manufactured. That is why I did not immediately CSD or keep it but brought it here for others to muse over. Si Trew (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete correct English language word for this is "potter". The proper process for creating large amounts of irregular and new words is to write a series of plays in the Globe theatre and win popular acclaim and then wait a couple of decades. Wikipedia is not the place to do this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Soyuz-st[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 31#Soyuz-st

World's Largest Athlete[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:Fences_and_windows Lenticel (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) there are variations on these but we might as well stick at this one first. Anomie list. Does this make sense? I mean what does "largest" mean? Heaviest, tallest, widest, what does it mean? Does it mean anything Si Trew (talk) 10:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ta I take the lot to CSD. Thanks for the double-check. Si Trew (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't just take everything to CSD because we do actually have to double check things. Neelix created many thousands of redirects but I truly believe created them in good faith as a good Wikipedian. Many do actually make sense and I rcat and rtag them as so. I need a sounding-board i.e. RfD when I am not sure I am not some kind of mass murderer. If in doubt give RfD a shout. Si Trew (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to my Guinness Book of Records (1967) the world's largest athlete was a british chap called Giant Haystacks (he kept budgerigars, lovely fella, absolutely a gentle giant). This is simply going to go out of date anyway. Better off deleted I think. Si Trew (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The black one[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. --BDD (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a queer one (neelix redirect). Although the redirect has been tagged by several as other name and so on, the term "the black one" or anything near it does not appear to be at the target (but I may have missed). The target is well maintained and probably has been removed as inaccurate but I need a second check. Si Trew (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as inaccurate and nonsensical. Softlavender (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. "the black one" is a frequently given meaning of the name "Kali" and is discussed at length in the target article. Now, this isn't enough by itself to justify a redirect and the question is: is this phrase used as an epithet? Judging from the results at google scholar there do appear to be some instances where this is so. Uanfala (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope that is speedily withdrawn by nominator as keep then. If in doubt give RfD a shout. Thanks User:Uanfala for checking that because I don't have Google Scholar or anything like that. The target is a superb article and I am sure others can add it back in, but even if they don't then this helps readers get to where they are likely to want to go. WP:RFD#K5. Si Trew (talk) 11:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But it already is in the target article, both in the lede and in the etymology section. Uanfala (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find it but that's my incompetence. That's a deffo keep then. Si Trew (talk) 14:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Black-and-red[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 Deleted.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

tricky one (neelix redirect). The DAB (target) has two entries neither of which has hyphens. The search engine is insensitive to hyphens and will replace hyphens with spaces and vice versa, so this is a bit harmless, but I say Weak Delete because it is simply wrong. Si Trew (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you would think it would go to Roulette or something like that but it don't. I've taken it to CSD referring back to here. I think this can be safely deleted. Si Trew (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Asiavision Song Contest 2009, Asia-Pacific Song Contest 2009, Our Sound 2010, and Our Sound 2011[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 31#Asiavision Song Contest 2009, Asia-Pacific Song Contest 2009, Our Sound 2010, and Our Sound 2011

Pelvic regions[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. -- Tavix (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) We have had some of these before about some other regions that we couldn't quite pin the tail on the donkey. Of course pelvic region is fine but the plural is a bit weird. It is not as if any mammal has two pelvic regions and this is just well frankly masturbatory I think.; I do not imagine Neelix was looking up to discover the I dunno anterior dimension of the hip bone, which is connected to the thigh bone (now hear the Word of The Lor') Dem Bones Dem bones gonna walk around, dem bones dem bones gonna walk around, dem bones dem bones gonna walk around now hear the Word of the Lord. Best version is The Inkspots I think. Si Trew (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bollox being particularly appropriate. Si Trew (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

White-water[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) 19:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) This makes perfect sense (I translated our article on Rabaska) so as a well adjective makes perfect sense I am wondering if we have a better target. White-water rafting? Any suggestions. No doubt it is a valid redirect but we might have a better target Si Trew (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now I miss on these sometimes because they kinda block the search but we don't have white-water (disambiguation) I think. Since the hyphen makes the difference between this and a lot of whitewater the hyphen in this case is important. Si Trew (talk) 09:11, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps it is not as whitewater (disambiguation) exists. Is the hyphen important or not. If not send it to Whitewater (disambiguation) I reckon. But I am not 100% sure. Si Trew (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The hyphenated version does not have a different enough meaning to retarget it elsewhere or delete it. -- Tavix (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Almeron[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) 19:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit odd because Almeron Dickinson also to same target or I have missed somewhere. TI think there are a few Almeren or something but the target is at WP:AFD so it makes it hard to search. We should probably stand off while the AfD discussion takes place, I guess, but we need to keep an eye depending on the result of that discussion. I am so tired you can sodding refer to it I am going to bed. Neelix redirects. Managed about fifty tonight and this is my last. Si Trew (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget or disambiguate. This is an odd situation, but it's because there are three pages containing "Almeron:" Almeron Eager and two houses. I doubt the houses could be known solely as Almeron, which would leave Eager as a {{R from given name}}. However, I think an exception to WP:PTM might be helpful. A disambiguation page could include Eager, the two houses, and a see also to Dickinson, the current target. I'd be fine with either option. -- Tavix (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 08:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Tavix, or delete as the search engine looks capable of listing the relevant articles. Uanfala (talk) 11:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me in England people are very proud of having just a house name not a number. In Weston Colville, this may have changed since I lived up the street from there, even the Post Office had not managed to persuade the population to have numbers and everyone only had a house name. So I can see it in real life being that people have just a house name. Wheter it's useful to Wikipedia is another matter. I forgot to say anywhere this is a Neelix redirect, not that that makes a difference. Si Trew (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there's only one article actually called Almeron (Almeron Eager), he doesn't automatically gain Wp:PRIMARYTOPIC status just by having a stub; see Wp:ONEBLUELINKDAB. Additionally, there are some reliable sources which suggest Almaron Dickinson might have actually spelled his name Almeron too [9], meaning he'd be a legitimate entry at Almeron and not just a "See also" 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Phelps and Lester[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. -- Tavix (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about this (Neelix reedirect). I can't see where Phelps and Lester come into it. The Whitechapel Bell Foundry is still going and actually founded the bells in 2000 as was my local church, St Andrews in West Wratting (I had to put up with them for two hours on a Thursday evening cos one of the bellringers was my landlady and I have been up that belltower). I just can't see where Phelps and Lester come into it. They did indeed cast the Liberty Bell and also Big Ben so I wouldn't recommend them because they seem to have made cracks in both of em, shoddy workmanship in my opinion, but the guarantee I think has expired. Si Trew (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it as the song goes Davy Crockett fixed up the cracks in the Liberty Bell? He should have asked for his money back. Si Trew (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mentioned in article - a reader might well see "Phelps and Lester" on a bell and this is a sensible target Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 08:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No that's the thing User:Shhhnotsoloud. You would never see "Phelps and Lester" on a bell. you would see "Whitechapel 2003" or whatever. You don't cast your own names in the bell because many people go through the process of bell founding they cannot each take the credit for it so it is usually the company's name on the bell not the individuals. I can see the point I think you are wrong. I kinda miss hearing Bells on Sunday with strange things I have never understood like grandsire triples and bob doubles. Our articles on bellringing actually are a bit sparse. Unfortunately I guess bellringers have their hands full and have not time to edit Wikipedia, I couldn't do it because the musical notation is entirely different from a standard score and also you have to kinda time it so that you hit the note not when you pull it but when the thing clangs (I am not sure even if we have clanger not The Clangers of course). That's quite an art to learn. I know. Sometimes I know. Just because I don't say doesn't mean I don't know. Si Trew (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but the Robert Stainbank tenor bell in the photo in the article has "Robert Stainbank" on it!  ;-) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK and I genuinely don't know this what is the inscription of who founded the Liberty Bell? (It was founded at Whitechapel and they mucked that up just as they did Big Ben, I would be asking for me money back). You will have an inscription on the back or more commonly inside the um well bell but it is usually the foundry not the individual caster isn't it? But you have given a good counterexample that I cannot argue with that is a fact, it's a fact, sometimes it is the individual founder. I never thought it was User:Shhhnotsoloud. (and play the bells quietly please). Si Trew (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the Whitechapel Foundry is probably the best foundry in the world, and I am only being sarcastic about them of course. Their fine work is bloody marvellous. One of the nice things about Big Ben is that it is kinda "off" it is just about a quarter of a tone off on its major chime because of the crack in it. If they ever corrected it people in Britain would be going, hang on, that's not right, because they're so used to it being off. On the Westminster Chime when Big Ben hits the D it is just a bit out. If it was spot on people would go hang on what have they done with Big Ben. You just can't possibly correct it everyone is used to it. ITN News used to have their intro sequence with ˇ"The Bongs" and that was always out of course because it was the chimes of Big Ben and Radio 4 broadcast them every night at midnight the BBC have a mic somewhere in the bell tower and they are broadcast live they are not recorded. So if it is somehow wrong (and it does go wrong occasionally, not very often) then you go what's up Big Ben isn't chiming. If it were kinda right that would be more wrong if you see what I mean. Si Trew (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the news at Midnight introduced by Peter Donaldson (or Charlotte Green). That will be six seconds before midnight. Then it goes over to the chimes of Big Ben and on the strike of midnight you can set your watch and make sure the clocks around the house are on time. It is always a reliable source. But then I am a great lover of the Shipping Forecast as well and once won a pub quiz for knowing all the shipping forecast areas. So I am just a boring old sod really. Si Trew (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Liberty Bell was re-cast by Mr Pass and Mr Stow and it is inscribed - on the outside - PASS AND STOW Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Welll blow me down. Now you are right and I am wrong. So you take it your call, because you know more about it than I do (and that is not being sarcastic). I sometimes deliberately do not look things up because I come as an intelligent but ignorant reader and think what would someone be looking for. On this one, you are right and I am wrong. You know more about it than I do. I owe you an American quarter (I have one on me if you should like to collect it). Si Trew (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right so having established that some bells have the names of the founders inscribed on the outside, where does that leave us with Phelps and Lester. Does any bell have their names cast on the outside inside or anywhere else? Are they notable? Si Trew (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is mentioned in the article and redirects are cheap. Jonathunder (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects can be as cheaply deleted as they can be cheaply created. Phelps and Lester were not some kind of double act unless we have RS that the two of them have their name on a bell somewhere. They are mentioned individually at the target. They are not Laurel and Hardy. Si Trew (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From the article: "1735 Phelps and Lester". Do you check these things before you assert that they should be deleted? Jonathunder (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, no. That is exactly the point. Just because it's in an article does not mean it is correct. We need WP:RS. We need a reliable, secondary source that says that Phelps and Lester cast some bell together. The redirect stands if the text in the article stands but you can't really use the text in the article to back up exactly the point we're arguing here, that is simply a circular argument. Yes, I do check. Why do you think I bring things here when I am in doubt? Do you think I just have too much time on my hands? There is no doubt I think that Phelps was at Whitechapel in 1735 and so was Lester. The point I am making is you cannot from that infer that they were some kind of double-act, I already made that point. Do you ever read up on what has already been said in a discussion? Si Trew (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Putney Debate[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. -- Tavix (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) Not sure about this. The Putney Debates are certainly notable but they are a series of debates not a single one, not sure that the singular here makes any sense, of course we can {{R from singular}} but not sure it makes sense to do so Si Trew (talk) 22:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This appears to be a simple enough typo to where the redirect really is helpful. While not strictly correct, yes, I don't see the harm in retaining it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 08:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Speedily withdrawn by nominator. This was a second check, CoffeeWithMarkets called it, that is fine by me. Speedily keep. Sorry for the relisting this went past my eye would have said so sooner. Sorry for wasting admin User:Deryck Chan's time with the relisting, it is fine by me and I imagine everyone if you just close this as withdrawn by nom. I just missed it, my Internet provider or somewhere along the plumbing sometimes caches pages for days and I just missed it. My mistake, speedily close. Si Trew (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Faith Walk[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, CSD G8: page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page. The target page has been deleted at AfD and the redirect has gone as well.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) this goes to our old friend the Christian publisher. But isn't a faith walk kinda something people of many religions do as a walk I don't mean in church but in the countryside to establish a bond and perhaps raise some money for a worthy cause? Or am I just mistaken there? Like a charity walk, I don't know how to put it. They affirm their faith by instead one day of going to the temple or the church or the mosque go out rambling. Si Trew (talk) 08:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - "Faith walk" as a direct idea, going out and meeting with a bunch of people that are moving about, as well as "faith walk" as a metaphorical kind of indirect idea, denoting living life step-by-step while having difficulties applying one's beliefs to one's habits, both could be valid topics for Wiki pages. This redirect helps with neither of those things, as it stands, and it should just be squashed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can have your faith and I can have mine, I'm an apathist. All I do is every morning I get up and say I have to put one foot in front of another. I get one foot in front of another and then well the third and the fourth and the next I know I am entirely lost. That's how you do it. You have to put one foot in front of the other. You can be in any religion and do that. The Way to get started is to get started. Jimbo started it and look where it has got us the most respected and looked up and FREE encylopaedia in the world. All you have to do is get started. One foot in front of another. Whether whatever religion or no religion you are, that is all you have to do. One step at a time. Si Trew (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with CoffeeWithMarkets. I don't mind what faith you have but if this makes no sense or rather is very ambiguous it should be a WP:REDLINK to encourage creation of the article. Thanks for the second check. I doubt myself sometimes. Si Trew (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CoffeeWithMarkets. As with prayer request it is a term used in churches, but does not have a notable Wikipedia article as with other terms like Altar call or Laying on of hands. The company used that for its name. If that company is being PROD'ed for non-notability it makes sense its subsidiaries should as well. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very generic term that doesn't deserve to get redirected to a single book. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Liz (disambiguation)[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, noting that this is no longer a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is blocking a page move, but a speedy deletion was declined. Liz as a personal name (a list I will create) is the primary topic. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close as out of our jurisdiction: "If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here." Create the name page first elsewhere (e.g. at Liz (name)) and then propose a multi-move at WP:RM. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note this only out of procedure but User:Liz is an administrator who has helped us a lot at RfD and might have something to say. Si Trew (talk) 08:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see why it was speedily declined. The problem with "Elizabeth" is you have about fifty-seven varieties of the name. Bess, Bessie, Beth, Bet, Betty, Liza, Lizzy, Liz, Erzebet, Elisabeth, and so on. So you can't really do a name DAB on it sensibly. Si Trew (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create Liz (given name) first. The nomimator is proposing that what will be created at Liz will a subject that could be placed at Liz (given name). Without the page already existing, there is no sufficient way to determine whether or not it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Steel1943 (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creating the name set index first and then opening a requested move discussion was my advice when I declined the speedy deletion. Fences&Windows 18:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_19&oldid=1088109099"