Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 4
May 6 >

May 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 5, 2016.

File:Terminology.png[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 per {{Db-redircom}} by RHaworth. The page with this title on Commons is now visible. Steel1943 (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, overly vague/ambiguous redirect FASTILY 21:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and maybe blacklist the title for being too vague. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:22, 6 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.

Spirit lamp[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 converted to article, then merged to alcohol burner. Something of a procedural close, but if there are issues please contact me. Mangoe (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it best formally to include this in the discussions today for #The Spirit of the Lamp and so on. This was created by Neelix, but was a sensible creation, not a silly one, so I don't feel it should speedily go via WP:G6 Neelix concession. (I only noticed it was Neelix who created it when listing here.) We haven't petroleum lamp, but I guess we have something. Gas lamp I feel would be worse, Gasolier goes to Chandelier which I may nominate seperately. Primus stove is perhaps better. Si Trew (talk) 11:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget both to Kerosene lamp. Kerosene spirit is red, though. Si Trew (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hmmmm... as much as I would find going to kerosene lamp inherently reasonable, it looks like historically such lamps have so often used various combinations of methylated spirits or otherwise been jerry-rigged with something else that it might be misleading. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I change mine to delete, below. I tried my best to find something. I asked my partner, for whom English is a second but fluent language, deliberately avoiding the words so as to get her answer, she said immediately "oh, that is that kind of lamp you put petrol in". She did not mention Alladin or any other genie, but then perhaps that allusion would not have occured to her. Si Trew (talk) 08:11, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as is. Kerosene lamp makes mention of using mineral spirits, but no mention of a spirit lamp or similar. Portable stove, on the other hand, has an entire section devoted to spirit stoves, which is a different but very similar term. The current target makes more sense than the proposed change. BTW, I'm the one that targeted this redirect to its section. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought I had added the sections. User:Oiyarbepsy you over-egged the pudding with Portable stove#Gravity-fed spirit stoves#Gravity-fed spirit stoves I think. No big deal. Si Trew (talk) 08:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I thought' you meant you added the sections to the RfD discussion, not that you added them to the redirects themselves. It was me that over-egged the pudding when I added the sections to the listing here (Twinkle doesn't add sections to the listings, so I added it manually afterwards.) Si Trew (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Stoves are indeed not lamps, and honestly there should probably be some kind of a separate article created. Red text would promote that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Si Trew and CoffeeWithMarkets. Even if the mechanics are similar, someone looking for a lamp that finds out about a stove is probably going to be ASTONISHed. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:REDLINK as a spirit lamp is a kind of alcohol-fueled wicked heat source used as a poor-man's Bunsen burner. Mangoe (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I have begun converting this to an article. If people approve we can close this out. Mangoe (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have done the tops and tails of the article but I can't do the fiddly bits. This is now an article not a redirect so Procedural Close please. Si Trew (talk) 22:32, 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.

Reticulatum[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. There's consensus that the current target is not viable, but the retarget proposal to the general page List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names didn't gain sufficient consensus. Closing as "no consensus, default to delete". Deryck C. 09:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second part of a Latin binomial. It should be deleted because not only is it a partial title match, but there are lots of species articles that use this particular one. Xezbeth (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonTrew: ah, but plant names governed by the ICN have to be (botanical) Latin, so whatever the origin of the word, it's treated as Latin if it's a specific epithet, so it's neuter. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, @Peter coxhead:
To nouns that cannot be declined
The neuter gender is assigned:
Examples fas and nefas give,
And the verb-noun infinitive.
But what good is that in English WP? I must admit I had assumed without looking that a Vaccinium reticulatum would be some kind of suppository. Why would it be called a cow's anthing, the article doesn't give any etymnology. was it one of Linne's? The references for the name are not very helpful (and most require subscription). Si Trew (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was due to Linnaeus. As noted at Vaccinium, the derivation is considered obscure by reliable sources, but may be derived from bacca, berry. B/V changes are relatively common in Indo-European languages, c.f. Castilian Spanish and Modern Greek. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of the BV distinction. I am a bit of a cunning linguist and speak usually roma hungarian and engish every day, before I get a loaf of bread. That doesn't help us decide what to do with this one. Si Trew (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is my preference. There are hundreds (maybe even a few thousand) of these redirects from ambiguous species epithets to a randomly chosen species (or species abbreviation dab page) scattered across Wikipedia (e.g. Argentinus, Scandens). The vast majority are the work of three accounts with a very similar patterns of edits overall. Oiyarbepsy has been doing excellent work with List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names, but I question how big that list could get. There are easily thousands of Latin/Greek words that are "commonly used in systematic names". And then there are the redirects that couldn't be said to be commonly used; there are only two species of plants (see here) with berberidifolium. Granted, only one of these is represented on Wikipedia at present, so maybe that's not a big deal right now. "Reticulatum" is probably used frequently enough in systematic names to be represented on the list, but at some point we're going to have to figure out how frequently a term is used to merit inclusion on the list. I dislike WP:RFOREIGN as an argument; scientific names appear in English texts, as well as Spanish, Arabic, Russian, etc. They're universal. Better to focus on the ambiguity issue (even if some redirects of this type aren't ambiguous for multiple Wikipedia articles now, they may become so in the future). Plantdrew (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:06, 5 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.

Jinn lantern[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 Aladdin. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These various redirects point to the article Jinn, but there is nothing in the article Jinn to indicate why they are redirected (e.g. there is no clear connection in the article between "Jinn" and "Magic Lamp". The redirects are therefore confusing and if they cannot be targeted properly they are confusing to readers and should be deleted Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

  • 'Comment. Well the spirit of the lamp is usually methylated spirits. We haven't Lamp spirit or Lamp spirits. I think we can do no better that retarget to Genie. Si Trew (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for bulking these up and tidying up my error. Don't retarget to Genie: Genie redirects to Jinn! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blimey does it really. I would have thought that was primary. Who opened the bottle (or the Pandora's Box :) Si Trew (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Spirit lamp R -> Portable_stove#Gravity-fed_spirit_stoves. Si Trew (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 13:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was also thinking of The Lady of The Lamp, Florence Nightingale, the inventor of pie charts. That would be a bad place to put them too. Si Trew (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spirit lamp" and "spirit of the lamp" are entirely different concepts. I see little possibility of any reader confusing the portable stove for the Aladdin myth. I also note that the connection between the Jinn and lamps occurs only in the legend of Aladdin. (That story is mentioned in the Jinn article though only briefly.) Therefore, retarget all to Aladdin. Rossami (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course they are different concepts which is wy I listed #Spirit lamp separately today. If somoene were searching, without the pedantry (from a reader's point of view) typing "of the", I a not sure where they would expect to end up. Pro~bably at Alladin; te problem with #Spirit lamp is it doesn't really describe what a spirit lamp is at the target (you would think it would). I hadn't thought of Kerosene lamp until now. Si Trew (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apologies if I read too much into your opening comment. Nevertheless, I think Aladdin remains the best retarget for these. Rossami (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Aladdin - just seeing jinn / djinn / genie together with lamp makes me think of only one thing, the Aladdin story. They seem entirely valid as plausible search terms. "Spirit of the lamp" similarly is probably also Aladdin's djinn; it is certainly nothing to do with kerosene lanterns, which would call for lamp spirits or some such. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Aladdin as it seems that the clear primary usage of all of these terms is in reference to that story CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:50, 18 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.

Gainsay[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 18#Gainsay

廬州[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 Lu Prefecture (Anhui). Deryck C. 10:51, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other language. In my opinion, Korean article redirect will be in Korean Wikipedia, not English. ... Lhealt (talk) 16:30, 5 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.

Last name[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 surname. I'm working on the merger; that will take a while. wbm1058 (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which article more adequately covers this topic, Family name or Surname? Or should this redirect be converted into a disambiguation page? SSTflyer 15:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or should Family name and Surname be merged? There are discussions on their talk pages about that.
  • wikt:family name: A surname. Synonyms: last name, surname
  • wikt:last name is so called because it is in English written last, after the given names. However, in many other languages and cultures this name precedes the given name; in these cases, the terms surname or family name are more appropriate. Synonyms: family name, surname
  • wikt:surname: The name a person shares with other members of that person's family, distinguished from that person's given name or names; a family name. Synonyms: family name, last name
If we can't better define the distinction, it looks like a WP:content fork to me. We should merge them to the most WP:common name.
Per the Google Ngram "surname" is the winner from the long-term significance standpoint, and is just barely hanging on from the current, most recent use standpoint, with "last name" coming on strong. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge family name to surname, and retarget there. Per wbm1058, there isn't enough distinction between the two to have separate articles. -- Tavix (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Wbm1058 and Tavix: See Talk:Family name#Merger proposal. There's already consensus for a merge, but ... it seems that the merge never happened as this discussion was closed two years ago. Steel1943 (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there you have it. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him merge into it. If you want something done around here, you have to do it yourself. I wish the WMF would give me a budget so I could hire a few editors... ;) wbm1058 (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as above. Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 5 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.

Cork, Republic of Ireland[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 Cork, Ireland. JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is ambiguous. Should it be retargeted to Cork, Ireland, a disambiguation page? SSTflyer 15:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Cork, Ireland per nominator. Uanfala (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Cork, Ireland as that page helps readers with the details CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as above, this is kinda a disambiguating redirect that is not (currently) disambiguating. I believe the official name for the country is just Ireland but in the UK and Ireland people do often use the term Republic of Ireland to distinguish it from Northern Ireland (they might also say "the north" or "the south" or other disambiguators like that). As far as I am aware to say "The Republic of" has no particular political leanings (and I am aware) it is just a shorthand to distinguish in this case it is redundant of course. Si Trew (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia uses Ireland to cover the island and Republic of Ireland to cover the country of Ireland (the official name). Legacypac (talk) 03:25, 6 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.

Apis maculata[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Plantdrew on that user's talk page said do you know where they are on the Neelix list (that user did not put it in those words, those are my words). THere are stacks of them and this is one of the first. I couldn't find it on the list so am trying to give Plantdrew any way in because I happened to have left this open on my screen. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a breath It means literally a bee that has macula but the target is a wasp. No doubt that is correct, but there are stacks and stacks that make less sense than this. Lots more are less sensible than this one. I would have thought literally it means bee with teeth (sorta) mandibles and of course well the back maculata can mean to mash or to chew up. No problem with this one but there are stacks far less sensible. Si Trew (talk) 09:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this should go as keep based on current practice, but I see no harm in deleting. It's an obscure synonym of Anthidium manicatum (which I would call a bee rather than a wasp). The synonymy isn't adequately referenced in the Anthidium manicatum article, and I'm not having much luck finding modern databases to support the synonymy, but there are some 19th century books on Google Books that could be used as sources ([1]).
I still haven't seen any scientific name redirects that Neelix has done wrong as the G6 Neelix criterion goes. He's screwed up stuff based on bad content of Wikipedia articles (as with Pelidnota lutea), or hasn't accounted for ambiguity already present on Wikipedia (numerous cases, but Roscoea lutea for one).
The larger question (Neelix aside), do we need redirects for scientific names that never appeared in print in the 20th century outside of contexts where they were listed as synonyms, and which are largely unlisted in 21st century databases? I'm all for including obscure synonyms in taxoboxes, but in the unlikely chance that somebody searches for an obscure synonym, the taxobox mention will be sufficient to get them to the article. Creating redirects for these is pointless. I'm not suggesting that we should necessarily delete existing redirects of this type, but they may end up needing disambiguation (Roscoea lutea again, @Peter coxhead:). I'm not sure that creating redirects from every obscure scientific synonym should be encouraged. Plantdrew (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My position remains that it's fine to put even obscure synonyms in taxoboxes, but only those genuinely likely to be used should be redirects, so I favour delete. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:35, 6 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.

List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frivolous title; no such list in target page, only a description of Stephen Colbert's live criticism for comic effect. — JFG talk 07:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Target is not a list. Done for humourous effect and I bet Colbert will be delighted it has been noticed and got deleted, he can add that joke to his stockpile, I think he is quite a funny man although we don't get so much of him our side of the Pond, so even if kept it is WP:WORLDWIDE and rather an in-joke for those who watch the Colbert Report or whatever it may be called these days. Si Trew (talk) 07:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert Legacypac (talk) 03:19, 6 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.

Teston d'argent[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) 21:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an entirely different coin from the Livre tournois. French wiki has an article at fr:Teston

Also nominated:

- Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm Teston is a village in Kent. Testons does indeed go to the Livre tournois. In fr:Teston links back with Wikidata to Shilling_(English_coin) and so we have a lot of nonsense going on here. A livre (a pound) patently is not a shilling. So on the whole these should be deleted as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense to break the roundabout triangular links saying this coin in 18th Century France is the same as that coin in 20th century England and so on, it is all a bit nonsense. Although born after decimalization on 14 February 1971 I think, I used regularly to get shillings (5p) and two shillings (10p) as pocket money, so although no numismatist I can tell you for a fact they weren't Livre tournois, Si Trew (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ISTM Wikidata is wrong here, except for an etymological connection: according to the French article the teston started out worth a little over 10 sols (notionally equivalent to shillings at 1/20 lb. each) or half a livre, and reached 19.5 sols by the time it was discontinued. Based on the silver content I expect it would have been worth at least 2s in contemporary English money. The original English testoon, ancestor of the shilling coin, seems to have been similar in size & weight but of much lower purity. Comparing the values of old currencies is complicated and names can be deceiving; for example the Scottish pound declined so much WRT the English that it was exchanged at about £0.08 (1s 8d) on discontinuation.—Odysseus1479 00:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou that is all very nice. I told you I am no numismatist, but I think that currently to link a livre to a shilling is a bit nonsense. That would be a bit like linking the French horn to the cor anglais. Perhaps because I speak French it is more confusing to me than to others, though. Si Trew (talk) 02:17, 6 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 is a GMO[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTFAQ The Traditionalist (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete away - NiD.29 (talk) 01:59, 5 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.

Ἀνάλυσις[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep. This is a marginal case: we can all agree that the modern English word is derived from the ancient Greek word and the latter is mentioned in the article. However, the modern English word's meaning is now substantially different from the original Greek word's meaning, and the article predominantly deals with the modern sense. Various editors have recommended keeping and deleting based on the above findings and there's no consensus either way. Deryck C. 10:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There in nothing particularly Greek about analysis Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/neutral True, but the word is Greek...--The Traditionalist (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, affinity with Greek via its etymology as well as being mentioned in the article: "the word comes from the Ancient Greek ἀνάλυσις (analysis, "a breaking up", from ana- "up, throughout" and lysis "a loosening")." -- Tavix (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Etymological rootword of the word is dictionary material. The topic of the article is not highly related to any language. -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is there in the lede. Unlikely a modern greek would come to English wikipedia to find what it meant in ancient greek but it does no harm. Should mark as {{R from original language|grc}} probably. Si Trew (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Liz speedy deleted this, but I have asked for restoration at her talk page. Please don't close this until this is resolved. -- Tavix (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most English words have some non-English root or origin. We don't create redirects for all these. This word has no special affinity to Greek in modern usage. Legacypac (talk) 19:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, IP 70… and Legacypac: a very large portion of our scientific & technical vocabulary is derived from classical Greek, which etymologies are cited in a great many articles and can be found by searching anyway. Use–mention distinction: the word is Greek, but not the topic as described in the bulk of the article. (@Legacypac: I think “most” may be an exaggeration, but I‘m pretty sure we don’t want redirects for the Old and Middle English forms of ‘native’ terms either: all that sort of thing belongs in Wiktionary.)—Odysseus1479 20:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)'[reply]
True, depending on what you count. As English is a newer language every word came from somewhere. German, Vikings and French all heavily influenced the language. [2] Legacypac (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Legacypac, a lot of our words are derived from various European languages, and thus we have no need for this page/article. Newrunner769 —Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 9 May 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix and Simon Trew.--The Traditionalist (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Legacypac. I'm disinclined to agree to redirects like this for languages that have contributed so much to English—I'd put French, German, Greek, and Latin in that category. How many English words have roots in one of them? I don't know, but it's a lot. I'm inclined to require a connection of substance to the language or its culture, per WP:FORRED. I might allow more wiggle room for languages who are less often involved in English etymology, such as Finnish. Most of the time there will be a connection in those cases anyway. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 12 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.

Naywords[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) 21:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix speedy denied by User:Amakuru saying "Nayword does mean proverb http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nayword". Amakuru got one word wrong - mean should be replaced with meant. Its use to mean proverb is noted as Obsolete. Merriam-Webster uses this word to mean that there is zero evidence of any use since 1755, 311 years. The word still is in use, but for a completely different meaning. It's bad enough to have redirects from former words, but even worse when they have a completely different meaning today. All that said, delete.

Nominated here:

- Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been absent from RfD lately so I may need a bit of a résumé concerning this gentleman, Neelix and why are redirects created by him considered a unique type of redirect and, thus, classified as "Neelix redirects". Thank you in advance.--The Traditionalist (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC) P.S.[reply]

I would be delighted if @SimonTrew: could give me his own version of the events.--The Traditionalist (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @The Traditionalist:Neelix made more than 50,000 redirects in his time here, and some were incredibly ludicrously stupid and made no sense whatsoever. I think he got banned from making any more, and there are so many, that we agreed that Neelix redirects are speedy deletable. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at CSD with this rationale:
Neelix is a byword we use at RfD
for words that he made up like Nayword, now do you see?
So this should go to CSD as nayword isn't wratten
in any text we know of (do you start to get the pattern?)
  • Thanks for letting @The Traditionalist:in on it . Quite right to bring to RfD if in any doubt of either the process or what to do with them. (Naywords also goes to Proverb). For example gainsay I don't know if that is red or blue yet but is a proper English word, but I think these are not. (and WP:NOTDIC anyway, and Proverb is a pathetic target for either so WP:RFD#D5 nonsense.) Delete here if they don't go red by CSD. Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way on my talk page you will see that I was complimented by a CSD roving admin for the style of my redirect nominations at CSD so I am making them ever more elaborate in the hope it will amuse one or other of them. They have a tough job deleting them too and get bored of them so I try to make the nominations correct but amusing, lately I have been doing it in verse. Probably rather than CSD G6 well it is still G5 I should have said result of previous discussion, now I await there fate (that would be great!) Si Trew (talk) 07:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Ha ha! I missed you, old fellow! Nice clerihew, that one! Actually, strictly speaking, it is not a clerihew. It is more like a Balliol rhyme.--The Traditionalist (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me while I put on my Queen of Sheba costume. Ahem, now I am the Queen of Sheba. But then, the little poem was only iambic tetrameter and who's going to worry about a foot or a meter. Oh {{convert}} does. Si Trew (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've processed tens of thousands (not kidding) Neelex redirects. You can check out and join in looking at the unprocessed ones on 5 massive lists linked at User:Neelix/talk. Legacypac (talk) 03:11, 6 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_5&oldid=1164050757"