Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 31, 2016.

Medial section[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 disambiguate. -- Tavix (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) Shouldn't this be better at Golden section. Stacks of kinda geometry ones to do. Si Trew (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But Golden section is itself a redirect to Golden ratio. Uanfala (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it appears to be a synonym for Golden ratio, according to the OED. There does appear to be another use of this term, as revealed by a google scholar search, to refer to a middle section in technical drawings. I'm not sure if there's a suitable wikipedia article to link to. Even less sure if anyone is actually going to search for this term and expect to find it here. Uanfala (talk) 03:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Amongst my few talents I studied technical drawing for many years (and that's not my ear, mine had a pencil behind it). I am just not sure on this one. I usually use a technical A2 drawing board and do everything by hand just like I do at Wikipedia. I don't really sure on this one. Si Trew (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn into dab page The golden ratio and anatomical targets are well justified by a search. The drafting sense seems restricted to patent drawings, but the GScholar search above shows the usage is real. --Mark viking (talk) 22:25, 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 best short films in the world[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, noting that the creator does not object to deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the section referenced in this redirect no longer exists, and since this redirect no longer seems to target a subject with its name as a title, this redirect now seems like an unnecessary WP:NPOV violation. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from nominator. The only retargeting option I can see in the current article target that may work is Indy Mogul#Former staff since the subject in the redirect is mentioned there, but that may be a little bit obscure. Steel1943 (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the Indy Mogul show is over and not coming back, I don't object to the deletion of this page. Mblumber (talk) 04:01, 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.

Matthias Schwab[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) 21:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. The target article is about a 19th-century organ builder who was an apprentice of a Matthias Schwab. Searching Wikipedia for this name brings up eight results, referring to four different people: four results for a golfer, two for a gymnast, one for a sound designer, and just one – the target article – for the organ builder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phinumu (talk • contribs) 21:28, 31 May 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • I checked on the German Wikipedia too. de:Matthias Schwab is an Austrian hockey player; "Matthias Schwabe" redirects to de:Karl Epting, a Nazi writer who used the Schwabe pseudonym. --BDD (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no discernible target. MSJapan (talk) 03:09, 3 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.

Soyuz-st[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 03:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect. Correct spelling Soyuz-ST has some usage. — JFG talk 10:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as {{R from other spelling}}. No harm in it. Considering that English speakers may not be familiar with Russian, and this does not block anything, I cannot see it doing any harm. WP:RFD#K5. Si Trew (talk) 14:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sure, keeping it does no harm, but the point of this nomination is that we already have Soyuz-st, Soyuz-ST and Soyuz ST pointing to the same Soyuz-2 article, so the misspelling is already taken care of and it will do no harm removing the lowercase version, which happens to be orphaned -- just tidying up a little. — JFG talk 16:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep I see your point. Since I have been trogging through god knows how many redirects that have odd punctuation and stuff I am hardly entitled to put me foot down on this one (struck my keep). if this inhibits people from finding where they want to go it should be deleted if it helps it should stay, it is very much borderline User:JFG don't you think? Si Trew (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't help nor detract apparently; it's just useless and unused, so I'd kill it for the sake of æsthetics. Side note: I appreciate your poetry on all those Neelix thingies. — JFG talk 23:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
more doggerel really but it must be as boring for the closing admins as it is for me so a bit of wit for the sake of it I don't think does much harm. I'll try to take some more this afternoon. Si Trew (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:07, 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.

The Masonic[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 which is the most plausible result given the opinions below. Deryck C. 21:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently someone had targeted this as a redirect for Nob Hill Masonic Center at one point, but it originally served as a redirect to Detroit Masonic Temple. However, it's too vague. "The Masonic" what? Building, Center, ritual, etc.? We don't know, and therefore it's not a helpful redirect. There are probably hundreds of potential targets. MSJapan (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth going through the entire list and see which of these are common named The Masonic? Then this can be DAB'ed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, as it seems to be too contextually sensitive. I'm familiar with the Detroit Masonic Temple as a concert venue, and it is never called "The Masonic" on ad flyers, for example. I think the issue is that it's closer to saying "the pub"; if you know what it is, it makes sense, but is unclear otherwise. MSJapan (talk) 03:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too broad, too vague.--The Traditionalist (talk) 07:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per The Traditionalist - too broad and vague to redirect to a single building. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Patar knight: And to many other Masonic things, too. It is too broad for a redirect of its own.--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Traditionalist: As far as I can see using the phrase "The Masonic" by itself is usually used to refer to Masonic temple buildings (e.g. Detroit, SF). Maybe a hatnote at List of Masonic buildings to Freemasonry? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to Freemasonry (the target of Masonic). "The Masonic" could refer to things other than temples, so Freemasonry would be the only target that makes sense to me. However, at this point I don't see that gaining consensus, so deletion would be my next choice. -- Tavix (talk) 21:47, 7 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.

Servicer[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. Thanks Patar knight for his research. Deryck C. 11:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suffice it to say that if I had my way I would speedily del this, but I cannot tell his, a person who services is not a servicer, is this just Neelix (I'm not a good versifer) Si Trew (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A person who provides service is a server or servant. Does this make sense? I don't think it does but not 100% sure. Si Trew (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. I don't think this is used in British English (and I mean strictly British, I am not talking about spelling) but if you say so, then fine, better than where it goes now. I don't quite know what you mean by "add {{redirect}}". Si Trew (talk) 07:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete irregular noun form uncommon use and certainly not redirect to loan servicing. A "servicer" is usually known as a "server" and it's a disservice to the English language to keep this as a redirect.--Tom (LT) (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:32, 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.

Allegoric[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. The discussion has established that this form of the word is obscure but in use. Deryck C. 11:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this all right. The usual word is allegorical but I can see this being kinda all right (neelix redirect). Probably OK Si Trew (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't appear in Webster.com's [3] Keeping this around would just encourage articles to have typos as the search would show allegory. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obscure synonym at best per AngusWOOF's findings --Lenticel (talk) 01:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Maybe someone, somewhere, actually used this word seriously rather than just happening to make a typo. Even if that's the case, I still think the redirect should be flushed. I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after seeing the term used sometimes seriously, I'm changing my mind more to neutral rather than anything else. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Educated people who use wikipedia may know the correct form but if an uneducated person tries to use it he may think that allegoric is the right thing to say. If you delete it's like you discriminate towards these people's uneducatedness which ic racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.133.34 (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, how would it be racist? It is rather racist to assume that uneducated people are from a particular race. I certainly never suggested that. I know people good friends of mine of various races (and yes I mean races not countries) who have never been to school but speak three or four different languages every day because they are essentially autodidacts. (bizarelly we do not have self educated we have to do it in Latin, Why is it racist? It's whether it's useful is what we have to decide. Si Trew (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per wikt:allegoric, it's a synonym of allegorical. There are mainspace incoming links, which is evidence of it being used, so this is WP:R#K5 useful. -- Tavix (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:30, 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.

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all for now, without prejudice against speedy recreation if information about specific instances of these song contests are added to the article. Deryck C. 21:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of these contests never took place, and the redirects are rather pointless as nobody is likely to be searching for an event which didn't happen. Wes Mouse ✒ 09:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Asiavision Song Contest 2009 and Asia-Pacific Song Contest 2009 as exact title matches for the event project that had a lot of effort behind it yet didn't go through. Delete the others. I don't think that trying to do something media-related and ending up failing makes the project inherently non-notable, nor something that people wouldn't be interested in. Look at the losers of various Strictly Come Dancing, Pop Idol, The X Factor, et cetera type programs as a great example; hell, even look at rejects from said programs unable to even get into the competitions that achieve large scale interest. Speaking of music, releases stuck in 'development hell' such as Chinese Democracy will get attention even though various promised events connected to them fail to happen. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - none of the events are even mentioned in the target article, so they are not helpful redirects. MSJapan (talk) 03:14, 3 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.

Iron_Island[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 make new disambiguation page.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect serves no purpose, its one of many game locations. If someone were searching for it, they wouldn't end up at wikipedia anyways as a top search result. another point being, there are relatively nobody searching for game locations on wikipedia which is a rather broad encylopedia. Please delete this, its just clutter and its not going to help anyoneNerfmaster8 (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not mentioned at target page and certainly without an underscore. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - that's not even relevant to the discussion, all you are doing is intentionally trying to get this off topic. Nerfmaster8 (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nerfmaster8: all you are doing is intentionally trying to get this off topic that's entirely uncalled for, kindly WP:AGF. YOu may also wish to see WP:ONEBLUELINKDAB. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 06:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentwait a minute, are we seriously going to create disambiguation when one target is currently acting as a redirect? Nerfmaster8 (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the page. It's not just the one redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:16, 8 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.

Obstructor[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 Obstruction. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I have taken Obstructors to CSD as a neelix redirect that is getting in the way the target of that currently is Pilgrim Jäger. While technically this is a Neelix redirect, I can see sense in it going to the USS ship. But I can also see sense in it being deleted (and I think it quite ironic that the biggest obstructor of letting readers get where they want to go was the creator of this redirect). Si Trew (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft retarget so obstructor and obstructer go to Wikitonary (they're valid words by themselves, not in relation to the ship, but I don't know if there's a reasonable enough single target here) CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now and use {{Redirect}} and add Obstruction as the disambiguation page, which would include the ship's entry. I don't know if Pilgrim Jäger uses Obstructor as an official term, but if so then you can redirect to Obstruction and create redirects for Obstructor (ship) and Obstructor (Pilgrim Jäger) . AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've created those in the Obstruction dab page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far, far too generic a redirect to deserve to be redirected to said weapon, and too complicated a topic to go to a redirection page. What about protests, that process of talking your way out of doing anything in the US senate, double dissolusion elections in Westminster parliaments, boycotts etc? DELETE. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Obstruction per Angus's logic. -- Tavix (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 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.

What Can We Expect to Find[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) 15:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno what we can expect to find but possibly not a book about Christianity Si Trew (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is a subtitle for the Reaching book, and not a more common name for the book. If the original title was subject to disambiguation then sure. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above - only a subtitle, and a very generic term that doesn't deserve to direct to a single book. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as overwhelming primary topic using this exact phrase. [4] Deryck C. 11:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DeryckChan's reasoning. Most plausible search term is the target article. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I question if this generically worded subtitle wouldn't be possibly confusing in comparison to other things, and it's also not as if the book is primarily known either for its full title. I don't think this is particularly helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Steel and Deryck. -- Tavix (talk) 21:26, 7 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.

3 Questions No One Asks Aloud[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) 15:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix) this is kinda just about all right. I have already speedily kept and rcatted some others but with the 3 at the front I am wondering about others. I can think of 3 other questions I am not asking aloud which is

  1. Why Did Neelix make these. (Because in good faith Neelix thought they would be useful redirects)
  2. Are they useful any more (not sure)
  3. Why can I never find a handkerchief when I need one? Si Trew (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Three Questions No One Asks Aloud is the subtitle of the book Disappointment with God. It is possible that a reader would want to know more about the book, but then only remember the subtitle. There are also other examples of subtitle redirects on Wikipedia (e.g. How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb redirects readers to Dr. Strangelove), and I don't think this is particularly harmful. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's the number at the front that is bothering me really. If it said Three Questions No One Asks Aloud that is fine. But the book title does not have the numeral. It is kinda wrong but probably harmless. Si Trew (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The book isn't referred to by its subtitle as with the Dr. Strangelove example, and there aren't multiple books with that title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as the subtitle. Plausible search term if they are looking for the book. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Unlike the similar case above, this subtitle doesn't seem to be used often to refer to the book. Deryck C. 11:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I question whether it's useful to have subtitle redirects such as these when they're not just inaccurate (it's, as pointed out, Three Questions No One Asks Aloud with no numbers in there) but also not particularly helpful. The contrast with something like Dr. Strangelove is telling since, in that case, the subtitle itself is uniquely notable as a part of the film's fame. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NCFF, noting that there isn't a big enough difference between 3 Questions No One Asks Aloud and Three Questions No One Asks Aloud to keep one and not the other. -- Tavix (talk) 21:25, 7 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.

43rd People's Choice Awards[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) 15:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move from AfD, original motive by CCamp2013:

The text for the title is the incorrect title. It states 43nd instead of 43rd. CCamp2013 (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's trivial that should not affect our decision. Why do you think we write 1st 2nd 3rd. Or rather why do you think we call ordinal numbers "first, second, third". Two are English and the middle one is French. That's a triviality. Si Trew (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

—  crh 23  (Talk) 10:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and also delete the "43rd" redirect which I've added, both per WP:CRYSTAL. Readers won't find any information about next year's awards at the target article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete 43nd obvious typo and unlikely search term. Put the 43rd in crystal for now until something can be written up about it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sending 43nd to CSD. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep 43rd as a reader would be able to get some information from the target page (e.g. the date that the event is usually run). WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply to redirects except in some commonsense, IAR cases, which this one, as the next scheduled iteration of an annual event, isn't. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 43rd. Although the exact date and location has not yet been determined, from past trends this will likely be in about 8 months time. That means the whole debate will be moot soon when there will be enough information to create an article. Deryck C. 11:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK until a proper article can be created. -- Tavix (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both and we wait until the actual event is happening or whatever to write the appropriate article CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion's header has been renamed "43rd People's Choice Awards" since 43nd People's Choice Awards has already been deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reiterating my delete rationale from above: the only information which can be found about this awards show is that there is no information about it. Not a useful redirect; past consensus suggests that redirects from specific instances of future serial events to general articles about the series are unhelpful, even when the approximate date is relatively certain (c.f. 2032 Summer Olympics, United States presidential election, 2024). We have a redirect from 59th Annual Grammy Awards (next year's show) to Grammy Award, but there is at least one tiny bit of information at the target about the eligibility period. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:17, 6 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.

Byword (saying)[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) 21:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean with the "(saying)" on the back. I am no byword where lexicographers foregather, neither is my name dropped in bibliographic circles. Does this mean anything with the (saying)" on the back? {{R from unecessary disambiguation}} I guess but we really don't need it I think WP:NOTDIC. Weak Delete but not 100% sure. Si Trew (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Wikipedia stats are useless on this kind of thing they tell us nothing. Because someone clicked through it means it came up as an option in their browser. What you don't and can't know is what came up if this were absent. The stats actually are well above noise level, about ten a day, but considering that we have Byword as a DAB it is probably just clutter that the search engine offers first instead of the more simple way around. What you can't do from the stats is predict what people wanted to find. Si Trew (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to DAB at Byword. Si Trew (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why, so that you can click on it a second time? This doesn't need to be fixed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You missed on this one I think User:Ivanvector. It does not go to the DAB it goes to Proverb. Would it not be better to R it to the DAB at Byword? Si Trew (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. If you have a disambiguated wikilink in an article, and that wikilink takes you to a disambiguation which lists the identical meaning that you just clicked on, then you've had to click twice for no reason. Apple (fruit) doesn't go to Apple (disambiguation). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are both coming to the same conclu but I am doing left hand driving and you are doing right hand driving. I see where you are coming from, on the wrong side of the road, but it still seems to me that the most sensible thing is to take it to the DAB. If the problem is then at the DAB we can fix the DAB. We have to sort out the redirect first. (I am still using a left handed screwdriver to try to get my paint tin open, it is a lovely colour striped paint but I need to put the lid back on with a long weight) Si Trew (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect doesn't need sorting out. There is only one kind of saying listed at byword, it is entirely unnecessary to disambiguate from byword (saying) because we have only one article on a kind of saying known as a byword. The redirect byword (saying) is 100% unambiguous. The disambiguation page does not need to be fixed, because the redirect linked from it to this target is unambiguously correct. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still think landing it at Proverb is a WP:SURPRISE. Land it at Byword as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Si Trew (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment counts show byword (saying) at about 1% (10 hits) compared to Proverb which is about 1000 hits. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we just delete it then. It's probably only getting those hits because the Wikipedia addons and so on will bring it up and people hit it accidentally. Maybe it is just better off deleted. We must guess. We do not have stats for saying when someone lands on a page whether they want to be there (actually I would like to see a kinda feature to say how long someone stays on a page as that would help, but that's for the Wikimedia folks and is probably very hard to implement because HTTP doesn't work like that, that in itself would be a guess although the admen seem to be able to use it. Then, an adman writes the prose and cons, the opposite of what we do here). Si Trew (talk) 08:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a potentially useful redirect with a solid target. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:19, 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.

Antisigmapi[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. 21:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can do this. You wouldn't have antisgmapi like that. Not at target WP:RFD#D5 nonsense but it would be antisigmapata no would not but well this makes no sense you can'tmake any sense of it in greek because it is not greek it is the literal back translation from greek which is fine as it stands but you can't then go on whacking I presume a latin plural or attempt at (yeah all latin plurals end in i like I am both reginae sheabae) to this. I am pretty sure this is nonsense but neelix didn't just run things through a translate engine when creating them, so was maybe in the article once. One main reason I dislike this kind of translation is that it ends up on google translate (I am not saying this particular one) because it is at Wikipedia. It worse if it is cross linked to other wikipedia. Google translate works as a statistical translation engine which when I studied machine translation many years ago I did a study thesis on this but we did not have the computing power at the time. But if you have wrong translations you will nowadays get them everywhere. c'est pas mal, c'est pire, it is not bad, it is worse. Cleaning up bad translations actually makes a translator's work a lot harder Si Trew (talk) 11:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free any other editor to combine and add section for #Names I am just standing off because another editor is also listing and we will get conflicts. I am just asking the cognoscentos for their opinion. I can't put me finger on it but this don't sound right to me. Si Trew (talk) 11:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha. I thought this would go to a Criticism section of Sigma Pi (there isn't one). --BDD (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I remember, this unusually comprehensive article was researched and developed by a wikipedian trying to clean up the massive hoax mess left throughout all language versions of this article a few years back. Why would a troll pick on an obscure ancient letter and spend so much effort on it is beyond me. Nothing should remain of this past state, however. And as the current article says at some point, "A related term was used shortly after Scaliger by the French author Montfaucon, who called the sign "ἀντίσιγμα πῖ" (antisigma-pi), "because the Greeks regarded it as being composed of an inverted sigma, which is called ἀντίσιγμα, and from πῖ" ("Graeci putarunt ex inverso sigma, quod ἀντίσιγμα vocatur, et ex πῖ compositum esse").[43]" And that means keep. Uanfala (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can quite imagine that User:Uanfala but the result of a lot of cleanups is a lot of detrirus, I don't need to add for your benefit that the Latin etymology there means "In Greece it is called the inverse S, which we call ἀντίσιγμα, and from that we get πῖ". So what we have is an English kinda etymology of a Latin etymology of a Greek phrase. That kinda double switch does not work so well, WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 01:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how Latin, or English, get into the etymological picture here. What we have is an alternative name, and there's a source for it. From my own(feeble) understanding of Latin, I'd go with the quoted translation above rather than your rendering. Uanfala (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because exactly what you said User:Uanfala. I translate it one way and this etymology is not reliably sourced. What you have is it being unreliably probably Google Translated back from Greek through Latin to English. That makes about as much sense as my pig latin does. Si Trew (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really struggling to understand your reference to google translate. What we have here is a quote from an 18c. treatise on Greek epigraphy (written in Latin) that says "antisigma pi" is what the Greeks call it. And I don't see any etymology involved: just a mention of an alternative name. Uanfala (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per "[a] related term was used shortly after Scaliger by the French author Montfaucon, who called the sign "ἀντίσιγμα πῖ" (antisigma-pi), "because the Greeks regarded it as being composed of an inverted sigma, which is called ἀντίσιγμα, and from πῖ" ("Graeci putarunt ex inverso sigma, quod ἀντίσιγμα vocatur, et ex πῖ compositum esse").[ref in article]". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid historic name. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:30, 4 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.

San pi[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. 10:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is too far away same target Sampi#Names. WP:NOTDIC and not a translation dictionary and since n (nu) and m (mu) are distinct in Greek I cannot see that this is anything but simply a mistake that has never been corrected. Neelix I think but Neelix only added translations ,when they were in the article (in my experience) so probably the article was corrected but the redirect not Si Trew (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's quite a phenomenon (DOOO DOOO DE DOO DOO) sorry is that just a British thing from The Muppet Show the Mnaman'ahs. Who were I suppose essentially the backing group to Floyd the rock guitarist but any time in the UK someone says phenomenon if they are about my age and someone says phenomena you can guarantee the other will reply DOO DOO DE DOO DOO. 1976-1977 the great Jim Henson tried to have the show made in the States but nobody wanted to take it so he made it in Elstree Studios in England instead. Very determined chap. I can't believe Miss Piggy lived only twenty miles from where I grew up! Another person who brought more pleasure to more millions of people than I can ever do. I can only do it one at a time. I can do it well, one at a time, or even four at a time, but I would never be able to do that. I rescued a hedgehog this morning have a flower in my buttonhole every day and can bring pleasure to those around me in my "weird englishman" way but I would never be able to do that I would not know where to start. All you have to do is tip your hat at a lady of mature years and she has a smile on her face for a minute in the day somebody noticed I exist. But I couldn't do it to millions of people on the old bairdy. Si Trew (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(pssst since I have used it twice today I am waiting to see when bairdy becomes a synonym for television outside wikipedia, piped both times. Don't tell anyone, just our little secret). Si Trew (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article "Its current name, sampi, originally probably meant "san pi", i.e. "like a pi", and is also of medieval origin." so keep. Is this namespace indexed by search engines? I think you should try the bairdy experiment in an article. Uanfala (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I should try that in an article. There is one thing with all the clever fellows and ladies at RfD being able to make those kind of inferences but in an article it would be simply wrong we must stick to RS there. I am also waiting to see if the web spiders pick it up from other namespaces. I bet you one week. Si Trew (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the wonderful palaver here at RfD wasn't deemed worthy of mention at Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing, so we're in dark as to whether the spiders will crawl here. But judging from the things that are excluded (AfD, Talk pages etc.) I'd be surprised if this weren't included either. As for san pi it's discussed across several well referenced paragraphs at Sampi, I was just quoting from there. Uanfala (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominating rationale. I understand that this was once a term used to refer to Sampi, but I don't think we should be redirecting all possible etymological terms to said article, and "San pi" is a generic pinyin term that will probably have far more relevance to other articles here on WP. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a historic name. Per the article: Its current name, sampi, originally probably meant "san pi", i.e. "like a pi". -- Tavix (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per target: "Its current name, sampi, originally probably meant "san pi", i.e. "like a pi", and is also of medieval origin." Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix and Ivanvector. Valid historic name. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:30, 4 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.

Into You (song)[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 for now without prejudice against turning either this title or Into You into a disambiguation page. Deryck C. 21:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think such a redirect creates more trouble than good. We have two topics named "Into You", both of them songs, and a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC exists. Which guideline is the most relevant here: WP:TWODABS, WP:XY, or WP:PDAB? SSTflyer 15:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Note: check the history of this redirect, because I retargeted it at one point. SSTflyer 15:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep We wouldn't want someone to come across Into You (Ariana Grande song), see Into You (song) as red, and move the article there considering it over-precise disambiguation. Yes, they should check the base title first, but they might not—I confess to making mistakes like this in the past. So as long as the other song is the primary topic, the status quo is correct. That said, even considering WP:TWODABS I don't think there should be a primary here. I would favor moving the target article to Into You (Fabolous song) and making the base title a disambiguation page. (There could be a See also, including, for example, I'm Into You.) This would probably be better settled at WP:RM, though. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD. Turning it into a dab page is a practical solution. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:55, 4 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.

Fenerbahçe F.C.[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 21:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Fenerbahçe S.K. (football). The Traditionalist (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Implausible typo. If someone knows enough to be able to spell the Turkish ç on English WP, they're not going to mess up and call it an FC after the fact, considering that the first GHit for "fenerbahce" on Google is Fenerbahce SK for football. MSJapan (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MSJapan: Why do you say that? “Fenerbahçe F.C.” is for “Fenerbahçe Football Club”. I proposed to retarget it to the football team instead of the Sports Club.--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know what it means and where it supposed to go, but the target is not called "Fenerbahce FC" (and as a matter of fact the target page is already #3 on the dropdown on WP if you just type "Fenerbahce"). Therefore, my point is that if someone knows enough Turkish to write it in Turkish, they're going to know it's SK, not FC (so they're not going to call it Fenerbahce FC), and even if they don't know Turkish, they're going to hit the search result they want prior to typing that far. Perhaps most importantly (and I should have looked there first) there are no incoming links to the term other than in talk pages and RfD, which means no one else is using it in articles either such that it needs to be redirected. It's simply an implausible and unnecessary search term. MSJapan (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. FC is a common abbreviation for "Football Club" so it would make sense for it to target the football club, instead of the multi-sports club. -- Tavix (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as above, possible search term for the football club. GiantSnowman 14:15, 7 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.

Trinacria Linux[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) 21:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable minor distro, not valid {{R from another name}} - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 08:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not mentioned and unlikely to ever be mentioned in the target article. SSTflyer 16:02, 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.

Sealbrown[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 keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This apparently is a likely search term, declined by User:Patar knight. So is greenisholives. What colour is sealbrown then? Si Trew (talk) 07:59, 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.

Blessed fault[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix) Declined by User:Patar knight, it is not really a reasonably translation. The most common translation of the sacrament (I am not a Christian) is "my fault, my fault, my most grievous fault". To translate this as "Blessed" is well can you show me where it is "just less used"? Felix kinda would usually mean lucky, not blessed (culpa means fault of course as in mea culpa or culpability). Si Trew (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, did you bother to read the first line of the article?--The Traditionalist (talk) 14:51, 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.

R. Wolf[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) 21:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix) this is a tricky one. It's at the DAB at R. Wolf (disambiguation) (first entry) and hatnoted thence from the article. However there are only three entries at the DAB so this is kinda "blocking" the others, or perhaps setting an example for them. We don't usually list people just with their initial do we? I mean if they do themselves, like we had e. e. cummings the other day or J. K. Rowling then fine but it is not our usual practice is it? Si Trew (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and delete the dab page too, or PROD it or whatever. I see no evidence that "R. Wolf" refers to this individual as a primary topic, nor anyone else, and listing everyone on the dab page who might go by "R. Wolf" is redundant and silly. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right of course but I am not sure what order I can take that in. If I take R. Wolf as WP:G6 (which I have every "right" to do) that leaves the dab and the hatnote high and dry. But then what to PROD? The DAB itself I guess is the thing to PROD then the others follow? Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see you've already done it. That would seem the best way to unwind it. Si Trew (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If one doesn't actually promote himself as "R. Wolf" and the wording isn't attached to him by others either, then this just seems to sow confusion. I'd also flush the redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:02, 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.

PS TNI[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. I have reverted the move as this is page move vandalism, noting that User:GunturIrawanSub has been both blocked and locked. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:GunturIrawanSub has been doing a lot of destructive edit in many articles, including changing the title of this page. I want to revert the page's title from Indonesian Army Football back to PS TNI. However, since the old title has been a redirect page, I can't revert it without deleting the redirect page. So, I would like to ask the administrator to delete the redirect page so that I can revert the page's title as before. Thank you.

Sorry for my bad English. (I am not so fluent in English, btw). Tiktomoro (talk) 12:18, 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.

BeritaSatu Media Holdings[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 as this is page move vandalism. I'll check User:GunturIrawanSub contributions for other page moves. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:GunturIrawanSub has been doing a lot of destructive edit in many articles, including changing the title of this page. I want to revert the page's title from Elovii back to BeritaSatu Media Holdings. However, since the old title has been a redirect page, I can't revert it without deleting the redirect page. So, I would like to ask the administrator to delete the redirect page so that I can revert the page's title as before. Thank you. Tiktomoro (talk) 12:32, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_31&oldid=1138581214"