Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 26, 2015.

201x and beyond in film[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. Please note that since the 2014 edition has over 5000 revisions, I need to get a steward to delete it; I haven't overlooked it. --BDD (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misleading and inaccurate. 201x in film only contains one year, it doesn't deal with anything "beyond" that year. Any notion otherwise is confusing. Tavix  Talk  23:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as confusing. It may even be misconstrued that the target article covers everything about films from 201x onward.--Lenticel (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - misleading, WP:CRYSTAL, etc. Ivanvector (talk) 16:46, 27 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.

Man of the Philippines[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. Just Chilling (talk) 02:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an implausible search term and confusing: I originally thought this was an award or a competition. Tavix  Talk  18:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I to would havr thought this would have been about a person or award, not about anyone who is citizen of the country.--67.68.161.47 (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this is a partial title match to Ten Outstanding Young Men of the Philippines.--Lenticel (talk) 23:34, 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.

반달리즘[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. Just Chilling (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vandalism is not Korea-specific. Gorobay (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete while there is vandalism in Korea the term does not have a strong enough connection to that country to make it a useful redirect for the English Wikipedia.--67.68.161.47 (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vandalism is a worldwide phenomenon that isn't native to Korea. Also since the Wiki isn't a translation dictionary. --Lenticel (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as cross-language redirect. Seyasirt (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. This is a general topic with no affinity for any particular language -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:40, 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.

Untitled-Vijay-Prabhudeva 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. --BDD (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This project is no longer untitled... Tavix  Talk  03:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with Tavix. Patently it has a title. We don't have Vijay-Prabhudeva Project fortunatelyl, so it seem an odd creation in the first place, but its time is up. Si Trew (talk) 07:56, 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.

Adam Orth Twitter incident[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 4#Adam Orth Twitter incident

Nippleman[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. Let's recreate this if there's ever an article on Batman & Robin's Batman, ok? --BDD (talk)

There is no significant connection between this term and Metallica. Tavix  Talk  02:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unlikely synonym. It seems to be a slang based on Supernumerary nipples. --Lenticel (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supposedly, Nippleman is a major character in a series of web cartoons written around the time that Metallica sued Napster, with the lawsuit as one of its major themes. The web series itself is non-notable, so the character is also not. This could have the potential to be insulting, so let's delete it. Ivanvector (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It sees there's an indirect connection between the two, but not enough of one for this redirect to be useful: people searching for Nippleman will be unlikely to ever find what they're looking for in the Metallica article. --Delirium (talk) 06:38, 30 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.

Late Quaternary[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Deryck C. 20:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not say anything about Late Quaternary A8v (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep unless anyone can come up with a better target. I don't think we have much to say about the Late Quaternary period; readers will find relevant information at the Quaternary article. — This, that and the other (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above: every boy is fascinated with dinosaurs and some of the best were in this period[citation needed], I think it is a likely search term. It's a pity we don't have a separate article, but what we have is as good as it gets right now untill some paleaontologist decides to edit Wikipedia. WP:NOTFINISHED, WP:NOTPERFECT. It ususally gets a couple of hits a day lately though in march there was a bit of a rise peaking on 10 March it got 12, then falling off in the days after, perhaps something on the telly? But this definitely gets hits above noise level so to delete it would be harmful. Si Trew (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you were joking about "some of the best dinosaurs" being in this period... Tavix  Talk  15:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was not exactly joking but taking the POV of when I was a seven year old boy, so being childish in that biggest are best as a boy playing with dinosaur toys etc. I wouldn't say joking exactly but that from the POV of a seven year old boy they are the best the great big ones. (Most dinosaurs were actually about the size of a starling, within a few inches here or there, according to the Natural History Museum, but of course they don't put that in their front entrance as it's not as impressive as a plastercast of – if I remember correctly – a brontosaurus (I think they changed the name of that but then changed it back). Si Trew (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Quaternary is a broader topic, which includes Late Quaternary, even though it doesn't specifically mention it. This redirect isn't misleading anyone, and creating eight redlinks wouldn't help anyone. Perhaps someone with knowledge in the field can advise whether "Late Quaternary" is a recognised term, or if the linking articles would be better coded as "late Quaternary". I've raised this question at WT:WikiProject_Geology#Terminology. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for finding the USGS link - I've added a sentence to the article to explain the meaning of Late Quaternary, with that as a reference. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome. I am open to changing my vote to "keep" if we can find other reliable sources which supports that informal term. --Lenticel (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Keep looks like Tavix found some cites about it. --Lenticel (talk) 06:29, 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.

Extinct bird dodo[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) 13:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect that is not of much use A8v (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as harmless. It gets hits, sometimes as many as four a day. That is four people in the entire world who found this a useful search term on that day. We're kinda defeated a little by the WP search engine plugin in that they may have just selected it that way, but it's harmless. It's not a great number, but I think four is better than zero. Si Trew (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's accurate enough. Plausible search term as kind of a reversed dab "Dodo (extinct bird)". 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible synonym since the bird is known for its extinction. --Lenticel (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People searching this would reach their destination even in absence of this redirect. And all redirects are harmless. In fact, I dare User:Si Trew to harm me with a redirect. Fleet Command (talk) 14:13, 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.

Former Turkish Province Of Yunanistan[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) 13:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Yunanistan" is the Turkish for "Greece" (cf. tr:Yunanistan) but Greece has never been a Turkish province. It was (excluding the Ionian Islands) part of the Ottoman Empire (of which Turkey is the modern successor state) - see Ottoman Greece for the main article on this period of Greek history. The Administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire fluctuated but based on our articles, there was no single province covering the modern concept of Greece. Those parts of the territory now forming Greece that were part of the Ottoman Empire were included in at least the following divisions: Pashalik of Yanina, Morea Eyalet, Salonica Eyalet, Ottoman Crete and Eyalet of Adrianople, most of which also covered land not in contemporary Greece. This, along with Google results, suggests that "Former Turkish Province of Yunanistan" is not a term used outside of a few discussions concerning Turkish Irredentism and/or suggestions to sell Greece to Turkey to pay off the former's debt (nothing even approaching a reliable source that I've found). There exists also the FTPOY acronym, a redirect that has been separately nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 24#FTPOY and that was how I discovered this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_26&oldid=1138579994"