Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 21, 2015.

Randi[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 for two reasons: 1. An article specifically about the given name "Randi" has been created here. 2. This discussion has devolved into a requested move of Randi (disambiguation) → Randi, and those discussions should take place at WP:RM, not here. I have no prejudice against that discussion being created there. (non-admin closure) Tavix |  Talk  21:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We may need to delete or modify this redirect in light of this development (Doesn't seem to be a hoax or joke). Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep unless the article for this "development" can be referenced during the course of this discussion. Doing anything preemptively without an article or subject in a section of an article is similar to WP:CRYSTALBALL. Steel1943 (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wasn't proposing immediate deletion or other urgent action, I added this to the list because it may become a problem in the near future. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ceannlann gorm: I clearly understood your nomination. However, in practice, redirects are supposed to direct readers to what existing article they are trying to locate. Until something gets added to Wikipedia in "article form" about this subject, trying to change this redirect or start a discussion at the present time about the possible future need to change the redirect is a bit premature (since no new outcome would be able to be established in the usual 7-day period which RfDs run due to no new targets existing.) I'd say that this discussion would best be reinitiated once the article for the subject referenced in the nomination is created. (In the meantime, it may be advisable to check out WP:PRIMARYTOPIC prior to another discussion happening to see if the discussion is necessary.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Status Quo): In light of the points raised, I would like to withdraw the nomination for now, if possible. Thanks. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have taken WP:BOLD and done what 65.94 said, which seems like the obvious solution: just after I closed it. It was not technically an {{ec}} but I would not have closed it had I seen 65.94's comment before: so I just wanted to comee, as my usual clean hands doctrine, to let you know that. But it seems like the best solution. Si Trew (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reopened the discussion. This is a good faith discussion that should not be speedily closed, per WP:WITHDRAWN. We should try to reach consensus on the correct target. - Eureka Lott 14:09, 22 April 2015 (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.

Wii arcade[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) 17:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this is not an official term for its target (specifically the section at Virtual Console#Wii), and the fact that this redirect once targeted WiiCade, it may be best if this redirect is deleted so that readers can decide for themselves where they want to go if they look up this term. Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2015 (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.

Vc games[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 1#Vc games

User:Thefierydutch1212/Nike quickstrike[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was convert to soft redirect to Nike, Inc.. Deryck C. 20:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect that doesn't qualify as WP:R2. Redirects from userspace to articles are inappropriate regardless of target. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • i think it does, it is more WP:RFD#D5. makes no sense, and WP:CNR as you say. I have managed somehow to make my font incredibly small so I have to fix that. Si Trew (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a redirect left from a userspace draft which was moved to mainspace and then merged into a better article. If Thefierydutch1212 has some use for it that's fine, if not then they should request WP:G7 deletion. Redirects from main space to user space are inappropriate regardless of target, but going the other way is generally fine. Ivanvector (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could understand this point of view if a page move didn't take the contribution history with it. However, a page move does take the edit history of the former page and moves it to the page history under the new name, so retaining important edit history isn't an issue here. What it leaves is a redirect that is not at all likely to be used and serves no real purpose. (This applies to all the redirects I've listed on this page that follow this pattern, but I didn't want to put the same response in too many different places; I would just merge them all but discussion has occurred under each of them and I'm not sure what to do about that.) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I agree these discussions shouldn't be merged. What I'm saying is that it's normal for a page to be drafted in user space, and when it gets moved to main space a redirect is left behind. The resulting redirect is harmless (casual readers will never see them) and is in user space (users can do what they want with their user space, mostly). There is a remote possibility that the user has some use for it, and absent a better reason to delete my preference is to just leave users' spaces alone. I am interested in what people who have been around RfD longer than I have think about these cases though. Ivanvector (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tended to draft DABs etc for RfD in Draft namespace, but that is kinda new (at least to me, which probably means a couple of years) and I don't think every editor would know about it. Even so, if it is accepted here i move it but it leaves the trace with a redirect, which I tend to take to WP:CSD as WP:G7 author requests deletion, with a brief explanation referring back to the discussion here and why I made it in draft (as if I was noted for brevity!). But it seems entirely reasonable to me to create drafts in user space because that is what we were always told (though I forget which exact guideline that would be). Si Trew (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to soft redirect I tried to describe treatment of pages like this the other day at WP:RFDO#From userspace. For my part, if Thefierydutch1212 showed up and said, "Yes, I want this to remain as is," I would agree to that. He or she hasn't edited in over five years, however, so that's unlikely. In the meantime, this redirect would confuse or mislead those who stumble across it, though I grant that that number might be rather low. Converting it to a soft redirect, IMO, preserves the user's intent at least somewhat without ASTONISHing others.
Regardless, if this is going to be a soft or hard redirect, Nike, Inc. should be the target rather than the current dab Nike. This page became an article, Nike Quickstrike, which was redirected (not merged) to the Nike page, which occupied the base title at the time. The Quickstrike isn't mentioned in the Nike article, and was thus brought up at RfD in 2012. It resulted in no consensus based on an editor's opinion that a merge should take place. That seems questionable to me, but perhaps we should resolve this case before looking at Quickstrike again in earnest. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's important that you stay on topic. --BDD (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, nicely done. That was just a joke of course, but I don't see the harm in sticking in a joke every now and again. I do try to stay on-topic, but sometimes I ramble because it gives others (and myself) kinda lateral thinking and every now and again, not often, we come up with a completely new but perfectly right retarget or something that will help our readers. I'm not saying in this case, of course, but every now and again, maybe 5% of the time. Si Trew (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...You rang? Steel1943 (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to soft redirect at Nike, Inc. per BDD. Soft redirects solve the WP:CNR problem without (significantly) messing with people's userspace. Tavix | Talk  03:44, 1 May 2015 (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.

1-800-OOPS-JEW[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 Recurring segments on The Colbert Report#Atone Phone. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a trivial joke from the Colbert Report. If it isn't notable enough to be mentioned in the article, it shouldn't be notable enough to have a redirect. Tavix |  Talk  15:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • It actually looks like the phone number is 1-888-OOPS-JEW and not 1-800-OOPS JEW... Tavix |  Talk  14:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2 nonsense: What would 1-800-00PS-JEW look like? I do appreciate this programme is satirical, and very funny, and no offence was actually meant to the Jewish community, but I think this harmful from the pont of view of an encylopaedia. It's not mentioned at the target. Si Trew (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not nonsense, it is a variant on the toll-free phone numbers used in North America, traditionally, 1-800, but lately 1-888 due to exhaustion of 1-800 numbers, therefore a very likely term. And as the segment prominently pronounces it as "OOPS" and not "zero-zero-PS", that's a likely spelling. The phone number 1-888-OOPS-JEW is covered in the Recurring_segments_on_The_Colbert_Report#Atone_Phone section. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, and stats (for the redirect) show it gets one hit a day at least, sometimes two or three, so Keep as useful. Wrong, but useful. Si Trew (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2015 (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.

శ్రీ లంక మాతా[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) 17:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sri Lanka’s languages do not include Telugu. Gorobay (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep it seems that a population of Sri Lankan Gypsy people do speak Sri Lankan Gypsy Telugu. However, I don't know if said variant is close to the main Telugu language. --Lenticel (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn’t know about that language. Google does not reveal any non-Wikipedia results for “శ్రీ లంక మాతా” or “శ్రీలంక మాతా”, so I am not sure this even is valid Telugu. Gorobay (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it's not so much the language as the alphabet, they may not use that alphabet, so it may not make sense. I try to find out but Wikipedia kinda blocks these things cos all roads lead to Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have it at te.wikipedia.org after it jumps through a redirect. Perhaps we should do a cross-namespace redirect? Si Trew (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are forgetting the last word, “మాతా”. Gorobay (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gorobay: yes but when I checked, it may have changed, the full title te:శ్రీ లంక మాతా was a redirect to the shorter title I gave above. I think it still is, but it Telegu Wikpedia does not say so. (and te:ప్రస్తుతం ఈ పేజీ ఖాళీగా ఉంది is even longer). Si Trew (talk) 08:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you are getting at. Neither of those pages exists. Moreover, it doesn’t matter whether they exist if Telugu is not especially relevant to this topic. Gorobay (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Was just doing research. They exist at Telegu Wikipedia and appear blue to me, I am not saying that they exist at English Wikipedia (or should), just whether this is [[tlx|R from incorrect name}} as well as {{R from foreign}}? But without a Telegu speaker I don't know how we would discern that. Si Trew (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as foreign script redirect. Seyasirt (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as potentially misleading since we can't verify if this is indeed an actual native name of the target article. --Lenticel (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2015 (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.

Waadi Animations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is senseless. Waadi Animations is an animation film making company, and the user redirected it to a film distributor? Delete this page so I may create it properly. UBStalk 12:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The redirect does not have to be deleted for you to create an article. You can just overwrite it.--The Theosophist (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, you can just go ahead and edit over top of the redirect, it doesn't need to be deleted first. Ivanvector (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overwriting a redirect dont give you credit here. Does it? UBStalk 04:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it that important? Plenty of people have adopted articles/redirects, overhauled them beyond recognition, and not gotten recognized as the creators of these articles through what amounts to a mere technicality. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the nom wishes credit then they might be interested in creating the article and then submitting it to WP:DYK --Lenticel (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Waadi Animations is mentioned at the target page. Regardless of who "gets credit" for creating an article on it, the question we should be asking here is whether Waadi's connection to ARY is significant enough that this redirect is helpful. It may be replaced by an article at any point. I encourage you to think of readers first, your own recognition second. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's the business about getting credit. I can quote from The Hangover in Question (a parody of Body in Question) by Alan Coren that it says in second para "Thenceforth shall thy mouth be as a wadi, and thine eyeballs as twin coals, and the fruits if thy loins go about on all fours, even unto the tenth generation". And I can do that without even looking it up. Wendy Cope] has a nice poem, "Ten Green Bottles, Put em in the bank, Ten green bottles, what a lot we drank, and with ten green bottles, then yesterday's a blank" I forget the rest. Si Trew (talk) 10:21, 22 April 2015 (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.

EyePhone[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) 17:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My search for "EyePhone" brought up a few Futurama references, which is great, but probably more important is references to new technologies combining phones with something eye related. Examples include [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. My point is that people searching for "EyePhone" probably aren't wanting the plot of a Futurama episode. Tavix |  Talk  19:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the concept of a mobile device which interfaces directly with the eye does not seem like it's going to become notable enough in the short term for WP:REDLINK to apply, and there's little reason to believe that it would (or that Apple Inc. would allow it to) be called "EyePhone", thus at the moment, the current target is neither misleading nor harmful. Ivanvector (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2015 (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.

Don Quijote Project[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 both. There is consensus that the redirect should be changed, with a thin majority preferring deletion over retargeting to Don Quijote (spacecraft). Deryck C. 20:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't figure out what this is supposed to refer to. No mention at the target page (now or when the redirects were created), no relevant history, no clear results from Google. --BDD (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I mainly found various school projects that students did about the book. They are NN and redirecting these titles to anywhere may generate WP:SURPRISE. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Depending on your teacher, in English you may pronounce it "key hot" or "quick sote", but you would never spell it with a J. WP:NOTENGLISH. Quixotic is a DAB, and apparently we hace quixotism, a word I have never heard. Poor old Miguel de Cervantes must be turning in his grave. Si Trew (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above or Weak retarget to Don Quijote (spacecraft) which is technically speaking, a proposed project. --Lenticel (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Don Quijote (spacecraft), per User:Lenticel who is right as always.Si Trew (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I only read it in Catalan never read it in English. I have hidden shallows. Over at hu:Don Quijote we have it thus, and es:Don Quijote is a bluelink that is an R to es:Don Quijote de la Mancha. Can't find anything in Catalan, but we also have Don Quijote (store) in EN:WP, with apparently 160 stores in Japan and three in Hawaii (they're back again). Si Trew (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget per Lenticel. I'm a bit disappointed that it's not one of those silly pseudoscience groups organizing resistance to a wind farm. Ivanvector (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unhelpful. "Project" in this sense is extremely ambiguous. This could refer to any number of songs, films, books, etc. called "Don Quijote" (see Don Quixote (disambiguation) for the full list). If you must retarget, I'd suggest the DAB, but I think it's best in the off-chance someone searches for it to be taken to the search engine. Tavix  Talk  19:21, 29 April 2015 (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.

John Kennely[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) 17:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable pervert from the To Catch a Predator series. The redirect should be deleted per WP:BLP as he isn't mentioned or sourced in the article. Tavix |  Talk  16:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggeting the two are different things? (cynicism) Si Trew (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heck, even I'm laughing at these comments. (But, I'll keep this vote here.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, he was by far one of the strangest cases on the show but unusual ≠ notable. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was leaning towards redirecting to JFK, but L and D are a hell of a long way away, so it seems a very unlikely typo. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • D and L are close by on Colemak and adjacent on JCUKEN and BÉPO keyboard layouts. In other news, Colemak, JCUKEN, and BÉPO keyboard layouts exist. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I bow to your better knowledge, was unaware of those layouts. Colemak → Keyboard layout#Colemak, it still seems quite a distance to me but I touch type so would not be using the same fingers and would not miss in that way. JCUKEN I think is irrelevant as that's a Cyrillic layout. BÉPO also → Keyboard layout#BÉPO, and indeed on that one they are adjacent. So weak keep. Si Trew (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to weakly keep John Kennely at To Catch a Predator because it is a plausible typo to John Kennedy on a few obscure keyboard layouts? Tavix  Talk  17:38, 26 April 2015 (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.

Giordano Orsini (Senatore 1241)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 12:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination of a WP:PRODded redirect by Alessandro57. The rationale was: "error in date." Tavix |  Talk  16:32, 21 April 2015 (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.

Lisa Falkenberg[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) 17:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be blanked because the target has no content about the redirect subject TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll take this to CSD as WP:BLP but with little hope of success. Si Trew (talk) 06:33, 22 April 2015 (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.

Fusion–fission hybrid reactor[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have a ndash, non-ndash version exists Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not understand your proposal. Are you saying the redirect should be deleted because the spelling with ndash is an "unlikely search term"? I do not find this sufficient reason to delete a redirect which is otherwise perfectly correct and does no harm. I even think "Fusion–fission hybrid reactor" would be the preferable title: it should either be "hybrid fusion-fission" or "Fusion-fission hybrid reactor", but "Fusion–fission hybrid" is nonsense (hybrid is an adjective and refers either to reactor or to fusion-fission. The expression "fusion-fission hybrid" makes hybrid a noun, but there is no such thing as "a fusion-fission hybrid"). --dab (𒁳) 13:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep differences in dashes are an excellent reason for redirects, which sort to use where is often either not known or not remembered. Thryduulf (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Mark as {{R from alternative punctuation}} if sensible to do so, but the WP:Manual of Style mandates en dashes so it does not seem unreasonable to use them in titles, to me. I don't know how one would type it, but others do frequently, in article I see all the time (I write – because that' just quicker for me) so I don't think it at all unreasonable. Si Trew (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep variations on dashes should all have redirects -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I understand this: our policy is to include every possible variation of punctuation, spelling mistake, dashes, etc. because someone might type them in, no matter how unlikely (or impossible) and that the system will find the correct article anyway? We admonish editors to remove trivia from their articles, and then support useless cruft like this? I am flabbergasted. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Maury Markowitz: No, that isn't correct. We only keep plausible variations because they are useful as a navigation aid and are generally harmless. This is different from articles because people aren't going to be reading the typos, but the can still make them when searching for the article. For more information, see WP:RTYPO (which isn't a policy, but it's more or less what we do.) Tavix |  Talk  15:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd back up what Tavix said. It's not that it is right but that it's written. Sometimes we get a WP:SURPRISE that an unlikely misnomer (coming as a virgin) actually gets a lot of hits: but this isn't one of them: the stats are 0 until this discussion started, but I found one the other day where to my surprise there were about 40 a day, even though initially I think I !voted to delete it (and changed my mind). Si Trew (talk) 13:34, 23 April 2015 (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.

Hybrid Nuclear Fusion[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

non camel cased version already exists, and I can find no reason to have two Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is not actually camelcase (that would be HybridNuclearFusion) but just a standard other capitalisation redirect. We keep those unless they are in the way of something else as many methods of searching and browsing Wikipedia are case sensitive. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Does no harm, sends people where they are likely to want to go. Si Trew (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this uses standard title case ; what titles normally look like when it's not Wikipedia -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there is such a thing as Standard title case (we do have Title case}, but not lettercase butletter case: we have majiscule and minuscule and i imagine but have not checked Miniscule as an {{R from misspelling}}). since I think it varies very much between publications, and their own editing style, but we have WP:STYLE to say how we write it here, and this is WP:SNOWBALL surely. 11:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Plausible title variant. --Lenticel (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2015 (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.

Nessie the Dragon[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 Loch Ness Monster. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect without mention in article or assertion of why/what. Seems a ringtone of no encyclopaedic merit. Widefox; talk 10:22, 21 April 2015 (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.

Amefuto[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) 17:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this is the Japanese Romanization of "American football." As such, it should be deleted per WP:RFOREIGN. Tavix |  Talk  04:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. No affinity for this language by this topic, which is a native English-language topic, therefore not having affinity for any language other than English -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look up Amefuto in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
  • Delete per WP:RfD#D2 makes no sense: I explain why. Wiktionary has it and perhaps we could do something about that, but I think its definition, which is a stub, is all in katakana, which is used for foreign words. But since this is a word only in Japanese and not in English it is a native word, so should be in kanji not katakana, and this is a back translation: it don't exist in English, (yet). It says it is "Romanization" (Romaji) → Romanization of Japanese, but it is not, it is Katakana. Trust me learned a bit, not much, of Japanese at university. Nihon-go benykyo UMIST-daigaku shimasu'. Si Trew (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: That's true, this redirect patently is a romanization. THe odd thing is, at Wiktionary, it is not romanized(at the target) but in katakana, which is used for foreign words in Japan. My problem is that it's not a foreign word, but a Japanese neologism/translation, so it doesn't belong in English Wikipedia at all in my opInion. I'll mark it {{R from foreign}} if not already done, without prejudice to this discussion, of course. Si Trew (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2015 (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.

Flood lyrics[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) 17:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 19#Flood chords. Wikipedia can't be a lyrics site due to WP:COPYVIO which makes this redirect unhelpful. Tavix |  Talk  04:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nominator. Unlike the chord redirect, there is no ambiguity over what this is about and it is clear that we do not have any appropriate content for this search so it is misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTLYRICS. Ivanvector (talk) 19:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2015 (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.

Proof that Nazis deliberately killed six million Jews[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) 17:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was created as an essay, but was quickly redirected. I don't think this is a good target for this redirect as it is kind of the opposite of denying the Holocaust. Frankly, I don't think this is useful anywhere and should be deleted per WP:RFD#D5 as it makes no sense. Tavix |  Talk  04:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, WP:POV, not to mention that it's a pretty specific search term that isn't likely to be used. While it's pretty clear that the Nazis performed the Holocaust, this was probably created out of (understandable) spite for the target. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is an entirely inappropriate name for a redirect. It does not match any of the purposes of redirects. Zerotalk 10:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - horribly POV. Should have been deleted in the first place, not redirected. Ivanvector (talk) 19:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. A bit too specific and the target doesn't contain the proof anyways. --Lenticel (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. If someone wants to search this way, they can do so by using the search engine. Nuremberg Trials could just possibly be a retarget, but that is a legal proof and not an everyday what people believe proof. Si Trew (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Now I shall probably be told off for saying everyday instead of every day (i.e. diurnal), even though it is correct. I love it when people correct my English. I am English and learned to speak it from quite an early age. It's not my fault that on the front of shops it says "open everyday" when it should say "open every day", that is just reality. Si Trew (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a lot of crazy ideas from grammar nazis, but the idea that everyday and every day have two different meanings just takes the cake. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTBATTLE. This is clear trolling because it must be obvious to almost anyone that it is an implausible search target. Fleet Command (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2015 (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.

Penn Leads the Vote[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) 17:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 28#Lead the vote. This seems to be a student-run voting initiative at the University of Pennsylvania. There is no reference to it at that target, however, and therefore should be deleted as unhelpful and confusing. Tavix |  Talk  03:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tavix and the previous discussion. I bet there are many others, an active campus it seems, which is good, but not Wikipedian. Si Trew (talk) 06:27, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you have hit the nail on the thumb there, @Lenticel:. Si Trew (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2015 (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.

Hot ham water[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a joke. "Hot ham water" seems to be humorously associated with the target in a show called Arrested Development. Not mentioned in article. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Could this possibly be a lake or river in the UK or US for which this is blocking? My first thought it was kinda a jokey stereotype of a Chinese person trying to say Tottenham Water, but I don't think there's any rivercourse there they would say so (although I think the River Fleet does run through there). Si Trew (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete target is not about pork soup, pork broth, pork bouillon -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I was wondering if it could go to Gammon (meat), which is often boiled (sometimes roasted of course). Si Trew (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading. The closest target that I got is broth. --Lenticel (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inclining to delete, but what about Pork butcher → Charcuterie? Just casting around in my usual way. Si Trew (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2015 (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/2015_April_21&oldid=1136083180"