Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 26, 2016.

Olympicdaero[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 Olympic Boulevard Expressway. --BDD (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why we have a soft redirect to Korean Wikipedia instead of a redirect to the corresponding English Wikipedia article, Olympic Boulevard Expressway. Stefan2 (talk) 22:36, 26 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.

Sciencephoto.wikimedia.gr/2016/02/21/awards-ceremony-espc2015/[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedily deleted as G6 per this discussion -- -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This cross-wiki redirect seems useless for English Wikipedia. Stefan2 (talk) 19:47, 26 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.

Cengiz Onural[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really keep local redirects to articles on Turkish Wikipedia? Stefan2 (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we do have that in English or it is blue for me. That makes no bloody sense either but pisses on my bonfire. Si Trew (talk) 01:37, 27 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.

Klimax[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 2#Klimax

\376[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These escape sequences represent the bytes 0xFE and 0xFF, which together are the UTF-16 byte order mark, but separately are just bytes and can mean anything. Delete as too vague. Gorobay (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you can think of other meanings for those escape sequences, by all means we should convert the redirects to disambiguation pages linking to all possible meanings. Otherwise, removing the redirect is just doing a disservice for the readers who are actually looking for the meaning they currently point to, so I see no upside to deletion. I can be persuaded otherwise, but for now my position is Keep. --Waldir talk 08:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 0xFE and 0xFF are not byte-order marks. They are just single bytes. They could just as well have been redirected to Design of the FAT file system or Extended Display Identification Data or ISO/IEC 8859-5, which use these bytes too. It would be impractical to list all their possible meanings. I would not want to delete \376\377 or \377\376, because those byte sequences are notable as the UTF-16 BOM, but half of a BOM is too vague to redirect anywhere. The upside to deletion is that the current target is confusing for readers who are looking for any of these bytes’ many other meanings. Gorobay (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see your point, but disagree that directing readers to one possible meaning is less useful than not directing them to any. I'd support converting the page to a disambiguation or a stub, but not deleting. --Waldir talk 02:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a clear case of WP:XY, and the byte-order mark is not, in fact, a possible meaning of either of these terms. Gorobay (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget \377 to 255 (number)#In computing, since writing octal numbers with a preceding slash is a convention in a variety of programming contexts (not just Unicode), and that particular target actually discusses uses in computing. Delete \376, since 254 (number) doesn't have any similar content. (At risk of violating Wp:BEANS: please don't go and add a Wp:TRIVIA list of every single use of those two numbers in every file format or encoding on earth to the two number articles). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't object to deleting \377 either, seeing as we don't have the far more common 0xFF (same number in hexadecimal). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If its a WP:XY problem and we currently have unhelpful uncertainty, it makes sense to just get rid of both redirects. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:21, 28 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.

Iranian Revolution of 2009[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) 14:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simply there had been no revolution. WP:RFD#DELETE#4 seems to apply here. Mhhossein (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - I feel like if a revolution, revolt, social movement, etc is attempted and fails miserably, with no or little results achieved, then that isn't necessarily a reason to avoid using those terms in redirects. Redirects don't have to be strictly neutral or strictly accurate, they just have be helpful while meeting guidelines. Yes, Yoda did say "Do or do not, there is no try", but most political moves to get rid of a government end up as "Try or try not, there is no doing it". Failed Iranian Revolution of 2009, Failed Iranian Protests of 2009, Iranian Regime Victory of 2009, 2009 Iranian Wave of Oppression, and the like don't exist but those would be far better wordings. I still think the present redirect is helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep roughly per CoffeeWithMarkets. The creator has a bad habit of making up BS names for wars & protests by bad analogy to other events, but judging from Google News/Books this one (and "2009 Iranian Revolution") is actually used in a few reliable sources, though often with the adjective "abortive" or "failed". 210.6.254.106 (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Revolution is "an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed". No such things happened in 2009. I feel this redirect is an attempt to glorify the 2009 incident. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel this redirect is an attempt to glorify the 2009 incident well, that's likely a correct assessment of the creator's motives, especially given this recent failed move request, but it has little to with whether we keep the redirect. WP:RNEUTRAL is clear: if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand. But even so, you yourself said 'often with the adjective "abortive" or "failed"'. That was partly my basis for what I decided. "Failed" and "abortive" are pretty much a synonym of "not a". —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:46, 1 June 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 Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn (disambiguation) (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 speedy delete. --BDD (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't put "(disambiguation)" twice in redirects. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn (disambiguation) already exists. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. (Apparently, I am the redirect's creator.) I have absolutely no idea why the "me of 2012" created this redirect. Anyways, I have tagged the redirect with a {{Db-g7}}. Steel1943 (talk) 17:27, 26 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.

Super Mario Buildings & Places[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably not a good target for this redirect where it could not be seen as ambiguous. Also, the edit history of this redirect seems to only refer to one "place": Princess Peach's Castle (which is a redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Super_Mario#Settings, but the way the search term is phrased makes it an unlikely search term. I would Rename the redirects to Super Mario locations or List of Super Mario locations. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC) updated 14:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I wouldn't use buildings. They don't really go into buildings. Maybe for certain games, yes, but most seem to be worlds or lands. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I can't see anyone typing this in the search box. shoy (reactions) 13:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are various settings of interest in the games, but the use of the word "buildings" throws this off. Honestly, since people aren't going to search this and the wording is so clunky, best to just get rid of the redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:11, 28 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.

Wikipedia:AN/K[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 convert to soft redirect. Deryck C. 15:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a user typing WP:AN/ ... into the search box has reasonable expectation that will end up on an administrator's noticeboard. NE Ent 19:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I guess what I don't understand is the context, not the reference. Seems to me like an inside joke. If so, and there aren't any competing uses, then I think it's harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Anyways, with all that being said... Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add a bit of back story here. Waaaaayy back, a bunch of people including myself used to hold informal discussions quite frequently about random things on Keeper76's talk page, and at some point the redirect was created as a joke. Nothing there was ever official, and it was never intended to be. From my point of view at the time, Keeper76 and the other people on there were quite level-headed compared to the crazy impetuous youth I was then. So I would often run things by them, and join in various discussions, etc. This brings back quite a few memories actually... With regard to the actual subject at hand, I have no comment on whether the redirect should exist or not. J.delanoygabsadds 21:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that's a very different redirect discussion, and this is never going to be used by general readers. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeper, because it reminds me of a happier, more enjoyable Wikipedia community. Although User talk:Drmies kind of fulfills this "watercooler of the sane" purpose now, WP:AN/K was much better (sorry Drmies but it's true). Admittedly, reminding me (and other even older oldtimers) of better days is a relatively small benefit, but the theoretical confusion of someone typing it / choosing it by accident and is even smaller. Lots of incoming links that won't make sense if this is deleted. Keep per WP:Not everything has to be boring, grey, and conforming. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep anything that prompts J.delanoy to edit again. Also per directly above. There's no evidence of any harm or confusion having been caused, and if it makes a handful of retired admins from another decade marginally more cheerful for a moment, then it's something worth keeping. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given there's no tracking of visitors search terms and subsequent behavior, there can be no evidence. The lack of evidence of a thing doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means reason must be used in lieu of deductive logic. There's no evidence of extraterrestrial life, yet reasonable folks expend money on it SETI. There was no evidence of a Higgs Boson between 1964 and 2012, yet clearly, as long suspected, it exists. NE Ent 15:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...that argument undermines literally everything that Wikipedia stands for. By the way, I can think of plenty of assumptions that have turned out to be wildly inaccurate throughout history. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:AN/K has 61 linked pages, and WP:ANK has 13. -- Tavix (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no active evidence of harm, per Floq, per Julian, etc etc. NE Ent, pretty lame attempt to delete this redirect without alerting me (after I linked you to it days ago). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Target article is not an administrators' noticeboard or other namespace page. Joke redirects and wiki abbreviations are not appropriate and set a terrible precedent. Softlavender (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As harmless; considerable latitude should be maintained on User pages. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert this cross namespace redirect to a soft redirect and mark as {{historical}}. I oppose a straight keep because I don't think the creation of redirects to the talk page of anyone else in this manner should be encouraged (it can reasonably be considered confusing). Given that users find this useful above, I don't think deletion is the way to go.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deprecate as outlined by Godsy. I'm all for having some fun while we work, but jokes shouldn't use the guise of something so official and serious. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The option of soft-redirecting and marking as historical was proposed recently. Is this an acceptable compromise?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:07, 26 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.

Neurolinguist[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) 14:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix) this is a queer one it is probably OK as {{R from person}} but need a second check. We also have Neurolinguists} so patently that will go as this goes. It's the "ic" at the back of the target that gives me the nagging doubt but this is probably fine isn't it? Si Trew (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - "Neurolinguist" looks improper to me, but searching finds exactly this sort of spelling being used by reliable sources even if it is non-standard even in terms of technical English. Yes, it's a Neelix redirect, but I'd just let it be. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:43, 1 June 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.

South country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are other things known as "south country" and the search engines looks capable enough of listing them. I thought about dabifying but it looks like the entries would be either partial title matches or too trivial. Neelix redirect, if that makes any difference. Uanfala (talk) 13:20, 26 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.

FOOT[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 retargeted to Foot (disambiguation) per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think readers searching for such a common human anatomy topic are likely looking for an obscure airport in Gabon. In fact, this redirect receives more page views than the airport. SSTflyer 12:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I could not find any proof that "FOOT" is a stock symbol for anything, meaning that the capitalized "FOOT" doesn't seem ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 14:00, 26 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.

German languages[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 Germanic languages. --BDD (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the most appropriate target for this redirect? It is too ambiguous and could easily be confused with the specific language called German. It could redirect to German language, but it could also redirect to High German languages, the branch of the West Germanic languages that includes German. Or it could be a disambiguation page - who knows what the community will decide is the most appropriate course of action, but this term is, in my opinion, too ambiguous for its current topic. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is fine User:Some Gadget Geek. I can see where you are coming from but we do have Germanic languages and so on so this is absolutely fine. It could redirect to Old High German or whatever, but leave it where it stands, people translating use this to tag as translation when they put the translation tag on as {{translated page}} but are not sure exactly what variant of german it is. Absolutely fine. Si Trew (talk) 12:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am talking bollox. Retarget to German language. I am not sure if {{R from plural}} is appropriate. Si Trew (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep retarget as above. I am not sure about the {{R from incorrect name}} that is a tough call. Si Trew (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hadn't seen it before, and the one paper I found (after some searching) seemed to be coming from the periphery of the linguistics scene. Uanfala (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tricky one User:Uanfala because we are all actually here speaking a West Germanic language in one sense User:Uanfala (ie. English) with an added dose of French but I am not sure it would be useful to put that on. I think best not to put it on, some cunning linguist can tag it later. Si Trew (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Germanic languages. Not exactly accurate but I think readers might be thinking of this article when they search using this term --Lenticel (talk) 07:35, 27 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.

Categorisations[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) 14:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix) Are these OK? By definition to categorize something is to well take it out of being plural.to stick it in a box where it is singular. I can see this does no harmn but does it do any good? Are these OK? Si Trew (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK. One may repeat the action of sticking a thing in a box multiple times. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK' speedily keep withdrawn by nominator. I am not sure whether to put {{R from plural}} makes sense does it? Cos really it is a concept noun, There were others far worse than this that I took to CSD. Si Trew (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A penetrative punctually employed
To undulate a filament by traction
Will in its exectution thus avoid
A treble triplication of the action

(Or, A stitch in time saves nine), Si Trew (talk) 12:35, 26 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.

Double nickel (highway)[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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix) there is probably a point to this but I don't see it. It's not at the target as far as I see and a double nickel is a dime, I guess this was what you had to pay on the toll road but I just don't see it. Si Trew (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - "double nickel" as in two fives, I guess? Apparently well known slang in the southern US. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep speedily withdrawn by nominator. Yep I see it. In English bingo slang "two little ducks" (quack quack) are 22 and "Two Fat Ladies" are 88. I see it now. Si Trew (talk) 15:09, 26 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.

Ipod (refurbished)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

implausible redirect not recently created so it does not qualify under WP:R3 Flow234 (talk) 09:55, 26 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.

Computer notepad[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous. Could refer to a laptop or one of the versions of the Microsoft program by this name. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Unhelpful vagueness. A disambig page could be an option, but I'd rather we just let people search the words. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:51, 26 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.

Notepad software[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 2#Notepad software

Universal Publishing and Distribution Corporation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 2#Universal Publishing and Distribution Corporation

South (country)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:R#D8 since Tonga isn't known as "South" in English. In many Polynesian languages, Tonga literally translates to South, but Wikipedia isn't a literal translation dictionary. (See also: the RFD for Peaceful sea) -- Tavix (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

more of Si Trew's poetry, not actually a comment on the discussion
It's hard to say oligalukanuchichichi
But in Tonga that means "no"
If I ever had the money
Then to Tonga I should go
For each lovely Tongan lady there will gladly make a date
And by the time she's said oligalukanuchucichichi
It is usually too late. Michael Flanders

Si Trew (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - ambiguous. I believe there are other countries known as "South" in other languages, and also per nom as we're not a translation service. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You try doing about a hundred Neelix redirects a day and see if you don't want to sing or shout about them. I'm sorry about that but I am trogging through them, nobody else is, and sometimes I just have to let off steam. This was one of them. It is more relevant than you realise because this was first ssung on 1956. Which under the copyright law, makes it sixty years old but not after the death of Michael Flanders. So it was not brought completely irrelevantly it was brought as test case. I do have my wits about me sometimes. Many Neelix redirects are definitely infringing copzright but that is just perfectly OK is it. Stephanie Flanders his daughter is a financial journalist. Si Trew (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here I go being told off again. You try doing them then. I am doing them nobody else is. And I am the one who takes all the rap. That is rap with a capital C. I try to list at CSD with a bit of doggerel because it must be as boring for the closing admins as it is for me going through them. you try doing it, then you can come and bitch about it. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent as Wittgenstein said, or in plain English if you don't know shut up. Si Trew (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector, The poetry might be irrelevant to the discussion but it does add much needed colour and light to this otherwise expectedly dull and drab place. Uanfala (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: no offense intended, just keeping the place tidy so that everyone can participate. Uncollapse it if you like. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken. I do about a hundred today and try to twist the CSDs while making them accurate, just it must be as boring for the admins at the back end as it is for me listing 'em. By this rate I reckon I shall be done by Christmas 2019! Si Trew (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Finchley tried to fix the electric light
Himself. It struck him dead, and serve him right
It is the duty of the wealthy man
To give employment to the artisan.
If I didn't do these little twists when going through the Neelix lists I think I truly would go mad. They were made in good faith but they screw your head up after a while. I can't remember who wrote that but I remember Dorothy Parker reciting it. Si Trew (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate as a list of all 'South' countries like South Africa, South Korea and South Vietnam. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since there are no countries known solely as "South", creating a disambiguation page would result in partial title matches, which do not belong on disambiguation pages. Steel1943 (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't disambiguate per Steel1943. The list which Stefan2 suggests already exists: List of countries with directional names. However, I really doubt editors would insert a link to "South (country)" from another article, and it's even more unlikely as a search term because of the parenthetical. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943 WP:PTM, which has an example of exactly this: "It is entirely proper to include such place names in disambiguation pages with the specific title (North Carolina is properly listed at Carolina (disambiguation)); but only exceptionally in the generic title (we don't expect to see North Carolina in North (disambiguation), " — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngusWOOF (talk • contribs) 14:40, 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.

Apple CEO[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. 17:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY. Per {{Apple celeb}}, there have been seven people to hold that title, and it cannot be assumed to mean "Current Apple CEO." I could see this being retargeted to a list of Apple CEO's, but I wasn't able to find one in mainspace. -- Tavix (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I picked up and read the hardback authorised biography of Steve Jobs in a Hungarian second hand clothes store, because they do it by weight I think it cost me about one US dollar, 300 hungarian forint if you please. This is about how notable that personm is let alone the other six or seven. I don't think Tim Cook is mentioned there but Steve Jobs was a very self-centred person. Delete' not notable. Just because you are the CEO of something does not make you notable. Delete the f- target in my opinion, just because you have a job does not make you notable. I know many binmen who have jobs and they are not notable. Si Trew (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-methodical way of giving information. For a large part, order and method governs Wikipedia. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:41, 29 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_26&oldid=1146310013"