Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 17

September 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 17, 2014.

Russo-Ukrainian War[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 find the delete voters' arguments, that this is a novel, POV-pushing term, most convincing. --BDD (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig page with zero valid entries. The only plausible entry proposed was 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. That article does not use the term "Russo-Ukrainian War", and English language news sources conspicuously do not apply the term Russo-Ukrainian War to this conflict. Alsee (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not a valid disambiguation page, as one will see if one reads WP:DPAGES. This is an implausible name not used by any articles, disambiguating things that do not need disambiguation. RGloucester — ☎ 02:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RGloucester. There has never been a Russo-Ukrainian war in the past, nor do any RS use this naming convention. There is no such war unless someone is privy to a crystal ball. Nothing to disambiguate = no disambiguation page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. Alsee (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect, not disambig. page. A correct title would be Russian-Ukrainian War (currently a redirect page). Quickly looking at results of Google books search for this title [1] one can see that a disambing page for "Russian-Ukrainian War" (not Russo-Ukrainian War) could be required in the future because this term was used in the literature to denote different events. I would suggest keeping Russo-Ukrainian War as a redirect, rather than a disambing page for now. In addition, this talk page should be kept for future reference and possible development of the subject (this war is currently developing). My very best wishes (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishesThe literature you've pointed to in your google search discusses either WP:CRYSTAL scenarios, or "Polish-Russian-Ukrainian War", or "Russian-Ukrainian 'war of decrees'". Only one discusses 1917 to 1920 as being a Russian-Ukrainian war. This doesn't merit a dpage being set aside. Should the term come into usage in the future, there's no difficulty in setting up a new dpage under whatever the correct WP:COMMONNAME might be. I see no argument for keeping such a page for its 'just in case' value. In fact, doing so contravenes multiple policies and guidelines. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, we can have articles about imaginary scenarios, such as World War III, if these scenarios are notable and described in multiple RS. That does not mean WP:CRYSTAL. There are multiple uses of the term under discussion in literature (one should also look Google news etc.). My very best wishes (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand the disambiguation page guidelines, which I've cited about fifty-thousand times at this point? Disambiguation pages are only to be used when multiple articles use the same name. Here, we have no articles that use these names, anywhere. Hence, no disambiguation page. It is not that hard to understand. "Russian-Ukrainian War" flies in the face of traditional naming guidelines for wars, which always use "Russo-", a combing form, unless "Russian" comes second in the name of the war. One will see this if one visits Category:Wars involving Russia. Regardless, none of this matters with regard to the deletion of this page. This page should be deleted because it is implausible, is not used by reliable sources, and is WP:CRYSTAL. RGloucester — ☎ 18:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested to keep it as a redirect page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? RGloucester — ☎ 20:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to what? Your example of WWIII is completely WP:OFFTOPIC. The WWIII dabpage exists because there are notable uses of the term related to literature, music, etc. There are no notable uses of Russo-Ukrainian War. I can't understand how you fail to comprehend this reality. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine obviously, just as Russian-Ukrainian War redirected right now. My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't tally with any sourced English language usage, so who in the English-speaking world would be using this as a search parameter? I know Ukrainian Wikipedia has an article entitled Російсько-українська війна 2014, but that doesn't mean that it is automatically a precedent for a naming convention in the English language. English language sources simply haven't and aren't using such a descriptor. They're not using "Російська-українська війна" either. I've never had any problems in following your logic in the past, and I know you to be a logical thinker, so I'm really confused as to why you believe it to be a verifiable and reliably sourced disambiguator. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How come? Simple google search shows that it has English language usage [2]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you taken a careful look at what your search yeilds? One Huffington Post op-ed, numerous blogs, and countless articles from Kyiv Post (who also call the pro-Russian forces 'terrorists', which Wikipedia does not use). None of these are deemed to be WP:RS, but are WP:BIASED sources which we can use if attributed and in a consensus-based context. RT, VoR and other biased sources are used in the same manner, but they do are not used to inform Wikipedia as to WP:NPOV language for WP:TITLES, WP:DPAGES or neutral terminology to be used in the content of articles. The only reliable source use in your search demonstrates that 'Russo-Ukrainian' or 'Russian-Ukrainian' war is, again, to be found exclusively in op-ed pieces discussing the potential of this scenario to play out. That is, quite simply put, WP:CRYSTAL. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said that term is currently in use in English language. Therefore, a reader may use it for search, and the corresponding redirect is convenient to have. This is just a matter of convenience, nothing more. The reliability or neutrality of sources is not really relevant for redirects. It only matters that term exists in language. WP:DPAGES is about disambig pages, not redirect pages. WP:TITLE is about regular pages. My very best wishes (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading WP:RNEUTRAL and show me the case for multiple reliable sources. Multiple = more than 5 instances of the term being used (including blogs) as current, plus a few speculative WP:CRYSTAL pieces about the potential for such a situation. This has become absurd. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RNEUTRAL tells that non-neutral redirects are allowed, exactly as I said. It also tells that some redirects can be deleted, for example under reason #3, i.e. as offensive (for example, redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" [3]). Do you mean that this redirect is offensive for you, RGloucester or someone else, and you therefore insist on deletion? My very best wishes (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant exactly what I said about multiple reliable sources, be they offensive or not. That is why I pointed out that there are only a handful of biased sources. "The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, 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." It's that simple. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have time for this, but you gave such examples yourself (above): "Huffington Post op-ed, numerous blogs, and countless articles from Kyiv Post". In particular, Kiev Post qualify as RS. According to policy you quoted, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". And I do not think Kiev Post is especially biased in any aspects, just as certain independent Russian newspapers (i.e. Novaya gazeta). Being "Russian" or "Ukrainian" does not dis qualify automatically any source. My very best wishes (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Again, POV-deletion-campaign by a couple of users to remove and hide as much as possible of Russia's participation of the war it started against Ukraine. Entries keep being removed by same users claiming there are none. removing disambig page creates confusion and in other languages there are more then 7 entries for Russian–Ukrainian War. Deletion in complete ignoration of sources, making misuse of the reality that it is much more work to write articles then to organise removal of content on wikipedia.--Niele (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no entries, because none of articles use that name. None. Please read, for the final time, WP:DPAGES. RGloucester — ☎ 18:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Niele, do not accuse editors of being involved in a conspiracy. You are arguing for the retention of a dpage based on the use of languages other than English (LOTE). Russo-Ukrainian War has not been used in the English language in English language sources. You are making things up as you go along. Please desist from continuing your tendentious editing practices. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the same place that Russian-Ukrainian War redirects to. What's the difference between "Russo" and "Russian"? Wbm1058 (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Russo" is what is called a "combining form" (they are usually derived from Latin or Greek). There are many similar extant combining forms. For example, "Anglo", "Franco", "Sino", and "Italo". Traditionally, when naming wars between two countries, the first country's name takes a combining form, if one is extant, and the second one follows standard adjectival conventions. This has been the standard convention for centuries and centuries. I do not see it changing anytime soon. In other words, there can be no such thing as a "Russian-Ukrainian War". It would be "Russo-Ukrainian", taking the combining form for "Russian". RGloucester — ☎ 16:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That does not matter. Both "Russian-Ukrainian War" and "Russo-Ukrainian War" exist in English language sources and therefore should be present on-wiki at least as redirects. This is merely a simple technical question, and it is not worth starting an AfD discussion. Just ignore. My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the combining form is correct, but nonetheless I expect that the incorrect form, which most people would take as synonymous, i.e., two ways of saying the same thing, is a frequent search term. We want to help readers find the correct article, and redirects are cheap. Is anyone claiming that this "military intervention" is not a war? The Russians are just on a "peacekeeping" mission? I think that the POV that this is a war, even if that POV is not correct, is sufficiently widespread that "war" titles should redirect to the "military intervention", err, "peacekeeping" article, in order to help those misguided souls who think that it really is a war find the article that they are looking for. As to the need to disambiguate this from the Ukrainian War of Independence, the articles on that portray it as a civil war, not an "intervention" or invasion, and the fact that Russo-Ukrainian War, Russian-Ukrainian War and Russian–Ukrainian War were all created in July or August 2014 speaks volumes about how frequently the 1917–21 sustained warlike conflict is referred to as a Russo- or Russian-Ukrainian War. A hatnote to the Ukrainian War of Independence from 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine should be sufficient, as clearly the latter is the primary topic.– Wbm1058 (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I've already said on the talk page numerous times that I'm fine with a redirect. Regardless, there is nothing to disambiguate. No hatnote is required. That war is never called "Russo-Ukrainian". RGloucester — ☎ 19:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, save the debate over whether to hatnote or not for another day. In the meantime then, can you change your vote above from delete to redirect, please? Wbm1058 (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine per Wbm1058 —PC -XT + 07:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was originally listed at WP:MFD and moved to the correct venue in process. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-POV-pushing in full effect.--HC PUNXKID 17:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate there have been several conflicts between Kiev and Moscovy. Thus a disambiguation page should exist. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

? What epoch are we talking about? Please name at least one instance of a war between Kiev and the Muscovites. This is English Wikipedia, not an encyclopaedia of Slavic pejoratives. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was pointed out in another of these RfDs, that an article on the Ukrainian–Soviet War exists. The period I would suggest a disambiguation page covers would start with the establishment of the Kievan Rus and Moscovy (so 12th century) through to now (21st century) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:OFFTOPIC for the disambig under discussion here, and would need to be discussed within the correct context/s (i.e., articles where it actually applies). As you're arguing it, it is far too generic a disambiguation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2014 (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.

Russian–Ukrainian War[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 find the delete voters' arguments, that this is a novel, POV-pushing term, most convincing. --BDD (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Disambig page with zero entries Alsee (talk) 02:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Alsee (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, redirects should be discussed at WP:RFD, but this could probably be speedied with {{db-g8}} if the disambig page is deleted. —PC -XT + 06:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC) 06:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Again, POV-deletion-campaign by a couple of users to remove and hide as much as possible of Russia's participation of the war it started against Ukraine. Entries keep being removed by same users claim there are none. removing disambig page creates confusion and in other languages there are more then 7 entries for Russian–Ukrainian War. Deletion in complete ignoration of sources, making misuse of the reality that it is much more work to write articles then to organise removal of content on wikipedia.--Niele (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to confirm Niele's accusation of a "POV-deletion-campaign". Not only have I nominated Russian–Ukrainian War for deletion, I have voted in support of deletion of the opposite-side-POV-push "Ukrainian Coup" redirect page. None of these terms are considered valid by English News Sources. We should not permit Wikipedia to be used as a battleground by either side. I'm not a fan of barnstars, but I would proudly wear a "POV-deletion" barnstar. Alsee (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having a redirect from Ukrainian Coup is fine (the term is currently in use [4]), just as having a redirect from this page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google news gives 11 hits, nearly all are English editions of Russian language sources, and the remaining are appallingly fringe. That's hardly what I'd call "in use". Alsee (talk) 06:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- No, Google gives 12,000+ hits [5]. Not all of them are reliable sources, but more than enough to justify having the redirect (or possibly even a disambing.) page (see also discussion for "Russo-Ukrainian war" above). My very best wishes (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the same place that Russian-Ukrainian War redirects to. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine per Wbm1058 —PC -XT + 07:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect – For the same reasons I mentioned at the discussion for Russo-Ukrainian War. RGloucester — ☎ 23:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This was originally listed at WP:MFD and moved to the correct venue in process. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-POV-pushing in full effect.--HC PUNXKID 17:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the same objections I've raised at length for Russo-Ukrainian War (above). I even went as far as to consider this as acceptable per WP:BIAS (unlike Russo-Ukrainian War which is simply ridiculous), but the results that turn up in google searches really are either representative extremist POV or plain silliness. There's a lot of 'stuff' out there, but that doesn't make it of encyclopaedic value or relevance. As for the allegations of POV pushing by those who want to hide 'the truth' about Russian intervention, I'll accept these redirects so long as there are matching redirects for the various convolutions on 'US backed wars on Russia via puppet governments' as descriptors for redirects. They're out there in cyberspace, too. The fact of their existence doesn't make them any more acceptable as redirects. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, redirect you suggested produces zero Google hits [6], unlike both terms under discussion that produce many thousand hits, including a number of RS. Therefore, your suggested redirect would be indeed an indication of significant bias and inappropriate. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention to what I've written. 'Various convolutions on' means whatever variants on the theme that could also be proposed. It doesn't make them useful or informative, just POV. See google for Ukrainian puppet government. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We already have article 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Providing a redirect "war between countries A and B" to existing article "military intervention by country A in country B" does not really mean any POV, unlike your example. My very best wishes (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I mean, why not ? Q: Is / was it a war - obviously yes (eg War in Donbass. Are Ukraine and Russia major involved parties? Also pretty obviously yes. So again - what is the question doubting this redirect ? 149.172.3.238 (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate there have been several conflicts between Moscovy and Kiev, therefore a disambiguation page should exist. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2014 (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.

Oh Cecilia (Breaking My Heart)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Procedural close. The redirect has been converted to an article, and is thus no longer in the scope of this discussion. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Cecilia (Breaking My Heart) → Meet the Vamps (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Cecilia (Simon & Garfunkel song) is one of my favourite records and I do not believe there is enough original content in this song to classify as an original record. Therefore, this should be redirected there rather than at Meet the Vamps. Laun chba ller 18:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At present I would agree with you, but once it is released as a single there will probably be enough information (tracklisting, chart positions, etc.) for it to have its own article like the other singles from Meet the Vamps, so it wouldn't need to redirect to either of the other two articles. It might just need a temporary redirect for a few weeks. Richard3120 (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

retarget per nom. The redirect can be overwritten with an article (with a hatnote to the Simon and Garfunkel song) if the single becomes notable enough for a stand alone article. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Vamps song has already charted in Australia and New Zealand and in all fairness is a new song with its own lyrics. Parts of the music are also new and rearranged as being independent of the original. I have now created a whole article based on The Vamps song putting a hatnote to the Simon & Garfunkel song. Those interested can add more info to the new page werldwayd (talk) 11:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Retarget~~ per above. One of my favourites, too. Si Trew (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If I saw the phrase "Oh Cecilia (Breaking My Heart)", I would indeed think it referred to the Simon and Garfunkel song. But I would never search for it under that title. Is there any evidence that the classic song is actually known by this name? I don't doubt that it's the better known of the two, but I strongly suspect most readers using this search term will be looking for the Vamps song, and retargeting is just going to frustrate or confuse them. All else being equal, we should assume a search term is not a mistake. A {{redirect-distinguish}} hatnote might alleviate any potential confusion. --BDD (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Change my notvote to Keep, with BDD's reasoning, and I think hatnoting would make sense. Si Trew (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close no longer a redirect Siuenti (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2014 (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.

Waze & Odyssey[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, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Waze & Odyssey → Bump n' Grind (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

WP:UNDUE Laun chba ller 17:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to be mentioned at target. Anyone using this redirect would be misled into wasting their time looking for discussion of the topic. Siuenti (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Siuenti. Si Trew (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2014 (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.

Template:Ky-geo-stub[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. Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ky-geo-stub → Template:Kentucky-geo-stub (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Orphaned redirect, uses non-standard stub tag name, Ky isn't even a standard abbreviation for Kentucky (KY is, in all upper case). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ky is the AP abbreviation for Kentucky, and even if it weren't, it's simply a lowercase variant of the more common KY. This is doing no harm, and may do some good. --BDD (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ky is a perfectly standard abbreviation and is the automatic reformatting of lowercase ky. — $Llywelyn II$ 15:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does no harm. I think the "perfectly standard" abbreviation was set by the US Board of Geographic Names (as part of the United States Postal Service), which according to Bill Bryson could not even decide what to name itself (Geographical or Geographic, etc). But patently this is how it has settled down in real life. A quick Google Images search for "I love KY" amply demonstrates this.The caps, as hinted, is simply how WP does it. ("I love WP" seems to be rarer.) Si Trew (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2014 (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.

Feisbuk[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, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feisbuk → Facebook (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Appears to be some uncommon internet slang - The ChampionMan 1234 10:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Facebook calls itself that in some languages, it seems, (I don't use Facebook but did a quick search). Oddly the Google search gave me it for Italian and Spanish (at es-es.facebook.com and it-it.facebook.com and tried en-en.facebook.com, but that last does not work; I imagine you could find many others that do).

My suggestion is that Facebook has registered or injected into search engines any possible likely misspelling. That doesn't mean we have to encourage it. Si Trew (talk) 10:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I asked the missus, and she has never heard of it being used in Hungarian, Croatian, Slovakian, etc. If nothing else it is a neologism, and we are WP:NOT a dictionary. Si Trew (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it seems to be some sort of fb variant according to my search. Still, I don't think it warrants inclusion since it's too obscure.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:49, 26 September 2014 (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.

Mikhaylovich[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhaylovich → Michael (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

There are lots of people with the patronymic Mikhaylovich (or rather Михайлович). I'm not sure if this should be turned into a dab page listing those or just deleted so that people can search for the right person. Directing to "Michael" seems to be the worst choice, even if that's the origin of Mikhaylovich. ospalh (talk) 07:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC), edited 08:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to Mikhailovich.ospalh (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with Ospalh. "-ovich" means roughly "from the family" or something like that (hard to translate exactly) doesn't it? Michael is definitely the wrong target, Michelson would be better, but sorta worse as more misleading. Hence delete and let the search engine do it. Si Trew (talk)
I think I forgot to sign the previous. On second thoughts, the DAB at Michelson cross dabs to Michelson (disambiguation) (why?) and Michaelson (disambiguation). There are too many DABs going on there, DABs to DABs are surely a sign of slack thinking. But I bet they have a hidden past. Si Trew (talk) 09:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs linking to dabs is not a problem if there are two many entries to cover on a single page or they are conceptually related ambiguous terms. Linking to a (disambiguation) redirect is correct per WP:INTDABLINK. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but I don't think that's the case here. I am on a laptop which is 1024x768 screen, I have a wider screen etc. But even on the small one I can see all the entries. For if not, what are scroll bars for? Si Trew (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have -vich either. That's probably a worse omission. I wouldn't be qualified to write that. Could maybe go to Russian declension or Russian name? For example "Anna Karenina" means "daugher of Karenin" and in many languages is just "Karenin" but because in English we don't have these agglunitative suffices we have to kinda back translate them. For example because we don't have the Russian diminutive, we have to say "Little child" or "Little woman" etc which is a bit false but the nearest we can get. -ette for example is an R to diminutive. Si Trew (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment Mikhailovich (the more common romanization) also redirects to Michael. Mangoe (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find. Si Trew (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just more generally for the pattern – not particularly for Michael. I was thinking of e.g. One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. (Yes, I have read it.) There, The "-ovich" just means "descendant of Denis", doesn't it? e.g. we would probably transliterate to Dennison"(or Denison). Perhaps family name is nearer the mark. I don't want needlessly to multiply examples; but I am not qualified to write the "-ovich" stub. I suppose we could ask at WP:Requested articles or something. I note Russian name is a R to Eastern_Slavic_naming_customs], where it is tabulated as a patronymic. I am not sure that is entirely satisfactory for English. Middle name would be vague. We don't have guess -wicz or -itz or -son either so I presume there is a reason for that (WP:DICDEF maybe?). Si Trew (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2014 (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.

Mangga[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 21#Mangga

IPhone 6C[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) 14:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone 6C → IPhone (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Nonexistent product which there hasn't even been rumours about. - The ChampionMan 1234 04:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. Not mentioned at target. I see no point in retargeting it (e.g. to iPhone 6, deliberately I am not linking so as not to get false positive hits), since there is a proliferation of these Rs. Did you know the Sinclair ZX82 never came out either, even after all the success of the Sinclair ZX81?! (It did, but was called the Sinclair Spectrum. Example to show CRYSTAL. Apple might suddenly have a fit and call it the MyPhone or Blower or DogAndBone or the Pangalactic Gargleblaster VII or whatever, for all we know.) Si Trew (talk) 07:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas above. Cult of Green (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seriously, can we start salting these redirects after they are deleted until a valid page is created in the "Draft:" namespace? This is getting a bit ridiculous. Steel1943 (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rather than salting all these potential titles, it may be better/easier to use an WP:edit filter to prevent the creation of articles entitled "iPhone <number>[letter]" (any capitalisation) by non-administrators except in the user, user talk, draft and draft talk namespaces. If this is possible? Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: I'm going to post my response to this on your talk page so that the possible discussion that may take place doesn't clutter this RFD. Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for the purpose of this discussion ... even if it is possible, I would oppose the idea of an edit filter for these titles since it would basically act as preemptive creation protection of the titles, which from what I understand, is against some sort of long-standing consensus. Steel1943 (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've responded on my talk page, but regarding your comment here. Pre-emptive creation protection does exist for some titles, see MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. I guess that would be better than edit filters. Thryduulf (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: I discovered that page literally right after I posted the comment here, but thought that page was more for abusive titles. But, anyways, per my comment on your talk page (sort of), should another discussion be started somewhere to get this title combination added to MediaWiki:Titleblacklist? I'm not sure if this RFD is the proper venue, so maybe MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist? Steel1943 (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, it is for abusive titles and titles that have been abused. The MediaWiki talk is probably the best location, it's advertised here, and it'll also be worth dropping a note about it on the talk pages of the iPhone articles. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonexistent —PC -XT + 01:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:25, 28 September 2014 (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.