Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 30, 2015.

User:TwistedAkai[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 redirect removed by the user page's user. Steel1943 (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only edits are to this page. Seems pointless. JZCL 22:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • convert to a soft redirect. Which keeps the link the user is apparently happy with while avoiding all the problems caused by a user page hard-redirected to another namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or less preferentially convert clearly harmful redirect, as someone clicking on the username, and then talk, will end up leaving talk messages to the user on the article talk page -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 00:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert into a soft redirect per Thryduulf --Lenticel (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix'd by myself. Old joke edit made by a friend. I won't pretend to know Wikipedia discussion policies, so I'll just leave this stuff here. TwistedAkai (talk) 02:33, 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.

To Remake You[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) 16:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any connection between the two subjects. It looks like an elaborate hoax because I can't even find any articles hinting that this would even be an album title. Author was later blocked. Tavix | Talk  22:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague. I can't find good cites for this phrase. Actual hits are simply accidental like: "...<foo> film company is planning to remake (the film) You...".--Lenticel (talk) 01:13, 4 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.

Friedrich Walter[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 no obvious retarget. (Previously I closed this as retarget to dab Frederick Walker but then realised the surnames are different. Sorry for the mistake.) Deryck C. 16:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDLINK. This appears to be conflating de:Walter Friedlaender and de:Friedrich Walter (Historiker). BDD (talk) 17:39, 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.

Ottarious[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 ... looks like relisting couldn't generate additional input so I'm making a call. Retarget Ottarious to List of Star Wars species (F–J)#Gorith; delete the other two due to the lack of a clear retarget. Deryck C. 17:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm listing this batch of trivial Star Wars figures separately because each of them is mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia, so there are possibilities for retargeting. They're still trivial enough that I'd recommend deleting them.

Ottarious is mentioned at List of Star Wars species (F–J)#Gorith and Tallisibeth is mentioned at Yoda: Dark Rendezvous or Star Wars Imperial Commando: 501st. The Teljkon Vagabond is mentioned at C-3PO but apparently features in one of the novels in the Black Fleet Crisis trilogy. --`BDD (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • REtarget Ottarious to the species page. Vagabond should redirect to the novel trilogy, if we kept it. Undecided about Tallisberth. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We'd want to mention Vagabond at that page, then. Such a redirect could easily be deleted at RfD on its own. --BDD (talk) 13:02, 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, Steel1943 (talk) 15:59, 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.

Withought[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, leaning keep, same result. Plausibility of a typo or misspelling can be in the eye of the beholder; in this case, there's evidence that this misspelling is used, but no evidence that it could refer to anything else. --BDD (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as implausible typo. Jeh (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think it is plausible. Lauren at Tumblr.com] seems to think so. Wrong but plausible. Without prejudice, I shall mark it in the meantime as {{R from incorrect spelling}}. Si Trew (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Yeah, there's a RS for you. Lauren also apparently thinks that "don't" does not need an apostrophe.) I think it is ridiculous. I think (based on other comments the creator has made) that it was created to fix an autocorrect error made by the creator's mobile device. Redirects are not supposed to exist for one user's convenience. Jeh (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that sentiment, and at school I would have been slapped over the head with the Concise Oxford Dictionary if I misspelled a word, but the fact is it exists: what we have to decide, is what to do with it? Just because something is wrong does not mean it is not useful. Si Trew (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And why should "Don't" need an apostrophe: I'm a big believer in banning the apostrophe, and I am not alone: I forget wheter it is the Independent or the Guardian that decided to abandon them. It was introduced in the 18th century essentially as a printer's mark, and at first only on plurals, to distinguish one St James from two St james's etc. You have picked the wrong man, I feel. Si Trew (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(As bit by infinitesimal bit, we decide that accuracy and precision in language do not matter, because they're just "too hard" for some people. Or something. Have you seen the movie Idiocracy?) Because "dont" isn't a word. btw I find no evidence that either the Guardian or the Independent have "abandoned" apostrophes. Here is the Guardian's style guide, which says "Don't let anyone tell you that apostrophes don't matter and we would be better off without them." Got a ref for the Independent? (btw: "whether") Jeh (talk) 01:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am a great respecter of the English language and have a bookshelf full of, er, books about it. But the fact is that people make mistakes and our job is to help them find what they are looking for not to act as a stern headmaster slapping on the wrist for misspelling something: the days of prescriptive grammar are long past, and most if not all lexicographers would call themselves descriptive grammarians in that the describe what people actually do rather than dictate to them like the Academie francaise (haven't the cedilla on this KB, sorry).
In any case, English is an extremely fluid language that is constantly evolving. Perhaps I am wrong about the Indie abandoning the appostrophe, but I think at least one editor mooted it. Perhaps I was thinking of this article about Birmingham City Council in that paper, that Brum abandoned the apostrophe on street signs:
  • Matthew, Cooper (31 January 2009). "Apostrophe catastrophe for city's street signs". The Independent.
If you think about it, we don't use apostrophes in speech (unless we are Victor Borge, so really they are unnecesasry. That's my stance, anyway. As you can see from the last sentence, I continue to use them (and correctly) but I am kinda a campaigner for their abolishment. How does "The cat's whiskers" differ from "That cat is yours", with no apostrophe? Why not "your's"? Si Trew (talk)
The difference is that "yours" is a pronoun, the possessive form of the pronoun "you". (See you.) All pronouns have possessive forms that do not use apostrophes (its, his, hers, theirs, yours). Whereas "cat" is a noun, and there is no inherently possessive form of nouns, so we add the apostrophe-"s". This form is necessary to distinguish it from "cats", which is simply the plural of "cat". If you propose getting rid of the apostrophe, how do you propose to make this distinction, other than by context? English has far too much of that sort of thing already. It's true that we don't use apostrophes in speech, but we get away with that because context is generally easy to determine during conversation; and if the listener is still confused, he or she can always ask for clarification. But you can't do that when reading text. Yes, you can usually figure it out, but when reading text you should not have to deal with such "speedbumps". Jeh (talk) 09:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of the rules, @Jeh:, but we are not here to teach people English grammar, we are here to help them find information. I ce (copy edit) loads of articles where I think the grammar makes something ambiguous or just nasty (I like "speedbumps", by the way), and what Fowler calls false scent. As for pronouns, it's purely a kinda omission when apostrophes started to be introduced (in the 18th century). Had the Victorians been thorough we would have had "your's" and "their's", possibly "hi's" (or "he's") and "her's". We have "one's", for example, and that's a pronoun. Si Trew (talk) 07:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the misspellings, the keyboard on this little laptop is far too small for my fat fingers,and the one on the BlackBerry is even worse for me, but I do know how to spell. Everyone can make a typo. Or should I say "Yes" instead of "Yeah"? It depends how formally one is speaking, surely. Si Trew (talk)
  • Keep and tag {{R from misspelling}} - plausible, based on search results. This is not a commentary on the sanctity of the English language, it just aids search results for what people are actually likely to type. It is what it is. Si, have you considered buying a full-size USB keyboard to plug in to your laptop? I had to do that for an old 7" netbook I was handed down a few years back. Ivanvector (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* As noted below, 350,000 ghits for "withought" vs. 3.5 billion for "without" shows an occurrence rate for "withought" of about 0.01% (i.e. 1 in 10,000) of "without". That's not "likely" by any reasonable interpretation of that word. This is not merely an "implausible typo"; it's wildly implausible. Jeh (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, 350,000 ghits shows that it is a common mistake and in exactly this context. However many hits there are for the correct spelling is what is irrelevant. Redirects aid navigation, they do not imply endorsement of illiteracy. {{R from misspelling}} is the appropriate use for this. Ivanvector (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your claim that the number of correct spellings is "irrelevant" and that a raw hit count can be used to support a claim of "common" can only be made in complete ignorance of the meaning of the word "common". Words like "common", "rare", "unusual", "frequent", etc., are terms that describe occurrence rates, and there is no such thing as a rate without a base: x cases out of y possible. Example: If 350,000 people in a particular country have red hair, that is an interesting number. But it's just a count; it's not a rate. We can't know the rate, and so we can't say that red hair in that country is "common" (or "rare" or whatever), unless we know the total population. If that total is only one million, then the rate is almost 1 in 3, which most would say is at least "fairly common"; but if the population is 300 million, then we have a rate of just one in about 860. I think you could go a long way before finding someone who would agree that something is "common" when it happens only a little more often than once every thousand cases.
In this case, the ghit counts for "withought" vs. "without" show an occurrence rate of just one in ten thousand. That is not "common", it is completely negligible. If I was talking about a hair color that showed up in one in ten thousand people and claiming that it was "common", then either I must not know what "common" means, or else I must be hoping my audience doesn't know what it means. (Of course, AGF requires me to assume the former of you.) The most polite response I could expect would be an admonishment to go look up the word "common", and rightly so.
This redirect was created in ignorance and should be deleted accordingly. Jeh (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've misinterpreted my meaning. People who misspell this word commonly misspell it this way, and we keep that sort of redirect. Or in another sense, if someone (mis)types this, it's not likely they were looking for any other page. You're right that it's not as frequent an error as, say, "color", but it's a mistake made often enough (versus random spelling errors, like "withput" or "qithout") and logically enough ("gh" is silent, it's spelled like it sounds) that it does no harm to keep it. Wikipedia doesn't need to be the language police. Ivanvector (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete highly implausible. Wikipedia should not cater to people who don't know how to spell "without". BMK (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think 350,000+ ghits for "withought" proves that it's plausible. I get over 200,000 by searching for it "-without" to filter out places where both words are used. I thought this was just an archaic way to spell it, although I haven't found any proof of that. Tavix  Talk  03:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, keep it, and we'll convert the entire encyclopedia to cater to uneducated and illiterate idiots. BMK (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • 350,000 hits for the misspelling sounds impressive until you put it in context: the number of hits on the proper spelling. That number is 3.5 billion. Yes, with a "b". Of which 350,000 is one one hundredth of one percent. That's less than half as likely as getting four of a kind in five-card poker (0.0256%). That's clearly not "plausible". So I seriously doubt that deleting this redirect is going to inconvenience very many users. And for those whom it does? They should learn from their mistake, not be accommodated. Redirects are great where there are multiple correct spellings (like color vs. the French-influenced "colour"). And, in some cases, for actual typos, which occur when the writer knows the correct spelling but happens to type it worng. But "withought" is not a "typo", plausible or otherwise. It's correct typography of a wildly wrong misspelling. It is not the proper usage of redirects to make such errors silently go away. Jeh (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah yes, the ghit (Google hit) fallacy. I was wondering when someone would call me out on it. You can take a simple number such as 350,000 and spin it any way you want. The only point that I'm trying to make is that it is used. Is 350,000 significant use? Probably not, but it depends on your definition. I am of the opinion that it used enough that a redirect is more useful than harmful. Tavix  Talk  15:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please. Presenting the raw number with no context is spin. Putting the number in context, showing the ratio of the wrong word to the correct word, is not "spin", it is a statistically valid representation. Your attempting to frame the latter as "well, you can spin it any way you want" is just an attempt at dismissal; it doesn't refute the point. But I'm curious: if 0.01%, one out of ten thousand, is frequent "enough" usage for you, then what ratio would be not frequent enough? Jeh (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, that was my point. I guess you're more interested in being dismissive than in answering a fair question. Jeh (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's just that I really don't care. Striking my !vote to neutral so that I can just let this play out withought my influence. Tavix  Talk  21:00, 27 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, Steel1943 (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The only question that matters for RfD is whether this spelling is a plausible search term to reach this target, and the evidence says it is. Whether it is correct or not is irrelevant. Whether people should know better is irrelevant (actually, by redirecting them to the correct spelling we educate them how to spell the word correctly - a Good Thing). How many people look for the correct spelling is irrelevant. All that matters is that people do use this redirect, so it's a useful redirect to have. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence has been presented that this is a plausible search term. The evidence of 350,000 ghits for "withought" vs. 3.5 billion for the correct spelling—that's one in 10,000—shows that this is absolutely not a common mistake. "thought" and "out" do not even rhyme, reducing the plausibility even further. The notion that the number of correct spellings is irrelevant is absurd. We're not here to cater to the mistakes of 0.01 percent. And as far as "educating them" is concerned, we'll serve them better by forcing them to type it correctly than we will by making their mistakes not matter. Jeh (talk) 23:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— Duplicate vote: Jeh (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
These aren't votes, remember? This are statements of opinion backed by reasoning. And anyway, we're starting over. Jeh (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Evidence has been presented that it is a plausible search term, or at least link term, in that it gets 350,000 ghits over some period: to say "no evidence has been presented" is rather dismissive when {@Ivanvector: presented exactly the evidence you asked for. Then you go WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We are not the language police, as said above, we are not the Academie francaise. I with others thought it would be an archaic spelling, and searched for it that way, but didn't find anything. Considering that "with ought", that is to say, "with nothing", is reasonably close to the meaning of "without" in one of its senses (without clothes, without shoes etc), I really don't see that this is a problem to keep it. The ratio for correct spellings should be, if anything, encouraging to you: but is irrelevant here. Si Trew (talk) 07:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit -added: Actually, nobody ever said it got 350,000 over any period. Only that that many pages exist on the web that contain that misspelling, vs. 3.5 billion that contain the correct spelling (some of those contain the correct spelling also). End addition Jeh (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's "rather dismissive" to claim that the ratio of incorrect to correct spellings is irrelevant. One way of judging an error's "plausibility" is its frequency. One error to 10,000 correct is not frequent. It isn't just implausible, it's ignorable. Jeh (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But again, you are relying on frequency (ratio) rather than the absolute number. The fact is, it gets a lot of hits. It doesn't matter that "without" gets lots more hits, because we are not discussing "without", but "withought", so whatever hits its target gets is entirely irrelevant. The redirect gets a lot of hits (no idea why, but it does) so that is the reason to keep, as a useful search term. Si Trew (talk) 08:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, "With ought" with the space, on a plain Gsearch, top result is for Wikipedia at Is-ought problem by the Scots philosopher David Hume. Si Trew (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not relying on frequency. (I misused the term above.) Frequency is a measure of how often something happens over a period of time (how "frequent" it is), and so far, no such metric has been introduced. The 1 in 10,000 ratio shows how many pages Google has in its index that use the misspelling vs. the correct spelling. One valid reason for deleting redirects is "implausible typo". An occurrence rate in the wild of 1 in 10,000 is more like "wildly implausible". But neither this nor the raw data (350,000 and 3.5 billion) have anything directly to do with hit rates on Wikipedia. I don't know where anyone got that notion.
Now if you want a frequency, take a look at this. "Withought" gets zero hits on some days, and so far no more than 5 hits a day, aside from the days when: it was created (the 15th); the day it was first CSDd (the 17th, with spillover on the 18th); and the day I created this RFD (the 20th). If we remove those peak days from the total (and from the day count) then we are left with not quite 2.2 hits per day since the page existed. And I'll bet at least half of the remaining are from people looking at it due to this discussion—or are from the original creator, who has since been indef blocked for sockpuppeting. Just how few hits/day would it take for you to agree that it's an "implausible typo"? We should not go down the path of creating redirects for every misspelling that anyone (or their mobile phone's on-screen "keyboard") can dream up, regardless of how little they are actually used. Jeh (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible (even the people asserting here that people shouldn't mess it up seem to be confusing "plausible" with "likely" - these are easy mistakes to make). Even being an implausible typo isn't much motivation to delete a redirect, it just makes it about on par with keeping. So, better safe than sorry. WilyD 10:12, 7 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.

Kinky boots (boot)[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. This redirect is harmless but, due to its short-lived existence, deletion is also unlikely to be harmful. Consequently. though this is not a !vote, I am not seeing a solid policy reason to override the clear consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect that was created over a year ago due to a move that was made against consensus. Don't see any possible value in having a disambiguation term identical to the term in the page title. Safiel (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It makes no sense at all. "Kinky Boots (boot)", sure, for footwear Kinky boots is fine and is WP:PRIMARY but not for the disambiguation. For the disambiguation, the parentheses, Retarget it to Kinky boots (disambiguation). No point deleting it as it might have incoming links, but no point ending it there either. Si Trew (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It doesn't have any incoming links. Boot Blues (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you know that? It may not have any internal link, but could have external links that aren't recorded. Stats show it had about 40 hits a day until the start of April, which is quite good for a redirect, though they are tailing of now. Si Trew (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do an anchor search on your favourite search engine. Boot Blues (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for the hits, they were likely because many links were piped through this redirect, but they are cleared out since then. Boot Blues (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But wouldn't you look at the DAB page I wear steel toecaps every day so I am good at winning an argument, but are we going to add every kind of footwear to a DAB? WP:IRL, never kicked anyone with them, I don't add insult to injury. I am probably the most gentle person in the world: my three rules of living are don't hit, don't lie, dont cheat.But being nearly 2 metres tall and built like a brick shithouse probably also helps me to avoid confrontation in that way. Si Trew (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that if I am searching for a topic I know or suspect to be both ambiguous and not the primary topic I will attempt to find it using a disambiguator so I don't have to go via the dab page - in this case "(boot)" or "(boots)" are the ones I'd likely try first. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point and I do the same, but I think that very much depends on what search engine you use and whether you have the Wikipedia search plugins installed in your browser. Surely one of the aims of redirects is that people do not have to guess. You and I can do it because we are old hands and know the conventions: others wouldn't. Even so, I would never think of disambiguating by sticking in "(boot)" and we don't have (I haven't checked yet) Kinky boots (footwear) which would seem the more encyclopaedic disambiguation. Si Trew (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a liar, as you see, we do have Kinky boots (footwear)→ Kinky boots (same target) . Will cast around for others, Kinky boots (shoes) is red, but Kinky boot → Kinky boots? which kinda makes sense as {{R from singular}} but who ever buys one boot, except my aunt who had a leg amputated (fortunately it was her right one, and in the UK the shoe shops leave the left boot outside so you can try it on before buying the pair, so she never had to pay for a pair of boots again, God bless her). Si Trew (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kink boots (footwear) makes sense, even kinky boots (boots) could make some sense, but I couldn't imagine anyone would seach for kinky boots (boot). Boot Blues (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is already a redirect at Kinky boots (footwear), this (boot) disambiguation term is unnecessary and illogical. Noone will search for it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎2a00:801:210:d5fa:38a5:188c:1621:964e (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is an amalgamation of natural disambiguation and parenthetical disambiguation. I did read comments by BDD and Thryduulf but they seemed like strained pretexts as opposed to actual arguments. It isn't the first time I see people trying to save a redirect at all costs. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's silly looking, and I wouldn't try to save this "at all costs". But there are good, solid reasons for redirects from unnecessary disambiguation. There are certain topics which will reasonably never lose WP:PRIMARYTOPIC—George Washington, say. But with many subjects, those lines can shift over time, and the ability to link to current primary topics with unnecessary disambiguation saves the hassle of cleanup if the topics move in the future. I see no such timelessness to "kinky boots". --BDD (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with everything between "there are good, solid reasons from [...]" to "[...] topics move in the future". But I cannot conceive a plausibly out-of-ordinary prospect of usurpation for this title. Can you? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very easily. If the song, or a cover version of it, is (re)released, used in a blockbuster movie, etc. and becomes a significant hit then it is distinctly possible for it to become the primary topic here. This is not about saving a redirect at all costs, it's about requiring a positive reason to delete something - i.e. the redirect stays unless it is harmful for some reason - and nobody has yet articulated any reason why it is. Thryduulf (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but it's not likely, and if so, it's not likely this would be the disambiguation term. A disambiguation term should preferably be a more generic term, not a part of the word itself. This redirect has one of the steangest disambiguation terms ever and is estetically unpleasing, thus harmful IMHO. Boot Blues (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand your comment. No, nothing will usurp "Kinky Boots (boot)" but this presently redirects to the base title "Kinky Boots" which may well be usurped. If that happens, then this article will require some form of disambiguation. It doesn't matter if that happesn, or what that disambiguation is if it does, as the only question we are asking here is "is it plausible that someone will look for this article at this title?" and the answer to that is firmly yes. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes you think that, when at least BDD, myself and 65.94.43.89 have indicated it is useful. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no need to keep this unlikely target. Skogsvandraren (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's actually not an unlikely target at all - if someone uses this (and that is far from unlikely) then there is nowhere else they could be expecting to go. You presumably mean it's an unlikely disambiguatior, but BDD and I above note that it is not. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant to "Kinky boots". We will worry about the future when it comes. Fleet Command (talk) 14:51, 28 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, Steel1943 (talk) 15:50, 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.

Octagóncito[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 9#Octagóncito

Color-ish redirects[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 all per Tavix. Deryck C. 19:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I have to save it before fixing it because this little laptop its touchpad is very sensitive, and my fingers aren't.. Si Trew (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment what is the reason for deleting them? They are not obviously problematic and you have not given a reason.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm guessing because they're kind of redundant. Whatever they target to is the redirect itself minus a few letters at the very end. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep blackish because it isn't a redirect to black, its target is a song sitcom. Not sure about the others yet Siuenti (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Pinging Si Trew to let him know that his nomination moved here.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure about the other but we should keep the redirect to the sitcom since that is a pleasurable misspelling.--67.68.209.200 (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, and thanks to whoever moved it. My rationale for deletion is that these are actually harmful, entries in an encylopaedia should be nouns not adjectives. I don't know if WP:TITLE covers it quite, but we don't want a precedent where anyone can put in "strangeish" or "oddish" and get a redirect: the aim is to countenance creation or maintenance of "-ish" words, which although used in vivid speech, are not very encylopaedic. We have ish as a DAB but does not really link to an article on the suffix, we do not have -ish. Si Trew (talk) 03:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-ish seems like they're good enough as is. They should point to "variations of colorX" articles variations of orange etc preferentially though. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why? We're not Dulux and have to invent new names for paints each year. Let's have Magnolia pointing to Beige or something. Drab (color) is also a colour used in the military (my whole house was painted in Drab, "Borrowed" from the British Army, with Olive Drab on the outside) but we don't have Drabish or Drabbish. We don't have Magnoliaish or Beigeish. These are just invented words and WP:RFD#D2 makes no sense. If someone wants to find out what Pink is, they search for Pink, not Pinkish. They could be afer Pinking (a WP:TWODABS for Engine knocking and Pinking shears) if you want, but not Pinkish. You have to get into the mindset of how people search for stuff, and these are harmful. Si Trew (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've got no problem with retargetting to the variations of articles per the anon (Si Trew's comments don't make sense to me as these are explicitly not inventing names for colours). Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because we are going to end up with Yellow-brownish and Creamish and what have you, in a combinatorial explosion. We can't do that. I know WP:CHEAP but it actually makes it harder for peopele to find the information they want: That's my argument. Si Trew (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "-ish" in this sense means "approximately" or "close to." It is typically only used for common colors when you're talking about a color that is is not quite blue (for example), but is the the closest color that you can use to describe it. Because of this, you're never going to hear someone say "magnoliaish," because that's a specific color and someone will therefore describe it exactly. Keeping that in mind, I do think that we should keep them, but retarget to the specific "shades of ___" article where applicable (because that's what ___-ish is). Specifically:
  • Retarget/keep per Tavix. I could see how these are viable redirects and likely search queries, and this makes the most sense to me. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Whiteish → White for consistency; keep all of the rest. Not to discount Tavix' suggestion, but other than whiteish I don't see that there's a strong need to retarget any of these other than change for the sake of change. They're fine as-is. Ivanvector (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:NOUN relates to article titles, not redirects. I don't see anything harmful about these redirects; they are valid words and potential search terms. I would be OK with the re-targeting that Tavix recommends, although I think keeping them as is would be most intuitive. Neelix (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget' per tavix, that is by far the best way to do it. I think I may have put a tilde or something in someone else's, but only minor, sorry about that. @Tavix: has hit the nail on the thumb with this one. Si Trew (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget most, keeping Blackish per Tavix. It's possible, though very unlikely that someone searching for, say, "Blueish", wouldn't think to search out Blue themselves. It's reasonable to suggest they may be seeking shades of blue instead. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: With the exception of Blackish, the consensus on the rest of the nominated redirects is still a bit "ish" and could possibly become less "ish" with more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as proposed by Tavix. Note also that Orange is a disambiguation page, not an article. bd2412 T 12:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I already went with Tavix, above, so won't !vote again, but note that Whiteish and Whitish go to different places. Completely agree that Blackish should be kept where it stands, I probably didn't make myself clear on that. Si Trew (talk) 08:23, 6 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.

Prussians[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 Prussia (disambiguation). This disambiguation page lists articles on all "Prussian" languages, peoples, and states, so it should satisfy all "retarget" and "disambiguate" opinions below. Deryck C. 16:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prussia is sufficiently well known that readers searching for "Prussians" are probably looking for people associated with it, rather than this older ethnic group. The redirect and its hatnote should move there from the current target. BDD (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I suppose Fooians and Fooian people are often an article-redirect pair. --BDD (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't include the language there; would anyone refer to it as "Prussians"? You certainly wouldn't call the German language "Germans". --BDD (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On a DAB page mixing singular and plural should be okay in this case. But I'm biassed, I love "odd" facts, and stumbled over the language decades ago, knowing nothing about the people until I read the page mentioned here days ago. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(answering User:Be...anyone) No, that's standard for how we write titles of languages, e.g. Old High German language → Old High German, because some language templates assume this. ({{lang}} I think does.) If the name of the language is Old Prussian then that is correct, even if there is not a newer Prussian (which is in fact New High German language → New High German). Si Trew (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And I am hoist with my own petard as New High German language is red, as you see. A gap there. Si Trew (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate, but no particular idea where. It has about 60 incoming links, but looking at their titles, they refer to different Prussians, not always to Old Prussians, and someone has probably edited it, saw that it was blue, and gone oh that's OK without checking the target: so a reader clicking through would get a WP:SURPRISE in many cases. A DAB isn't perfect there: it's still a bit of a surprise to click through to a DAB, but better than clicking through to the wrong article. (And bots will inform the original contributor when a link goes to a DAB page, but I guess they only sniff when the article is updated, not the link?) Si Trew (talk) 07:10, 5 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.

List of featured articles[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, hardly used cross-namespace redirect. There was some minimal discussion before creation, but I don't think enough reason was given to create this redirect. Relentlessly (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The target page is clearly targeted towards readers, and with cross-space redirects, that is what really matters. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless. Si Trew (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I created the page I can't comment, but I'll say that although I now use shortcuts (WP:FA) to navigate around the site, before I knew you could use them I would type in list of featured articles to try and reach the page. I feel others do too. Neuroxic (talk) 05:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Neuroxic: so your way of not commenting is by commenting then? :) Of course you are free to comment, but quite right to declare an interest. Si Trew (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not used ≠ wrong. It's there in case we need it, and if someone's searching for this there is little else they could mean. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I'm not a fan of WP:CNRs of this type, because it allows casual readers who don't know the interworkings of Wikipedia to "fall" into the project-space and get really lost or confused. Since this isn't in Wikispace, we can't just be thinking about Wikipedia here. Wikipedia isn't the only form of media that has "featured articles." It's a fairly common journalistic term that refers to an in-depth narration or investigation. It's also known as a feature(d) story (which is the title at which we have an article for). Is it likely that someone would use this redirect in this fashion? Probably not, which is why I am only weakly advocating for deletion. But it is something to think about... Tavix  Talk  03:33, 27 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, Steel1943 (talk) 15:10, 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.

"Betray us"[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 between the "delete" side's "unlikely search term" and "generic title"; and "keep" side's "no surprise when you see the target" and "plausible". Default to do nothing ("keep" for now). Deryck C. 17:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the precedent set at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 7#"Richard Rossiter". It's an implausible redirect because it's enclosed in quotes. Tavix |  Talk  04:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a confusing generic redirect. Quotation marks might also cause searching issues.--Lenticel (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Augh, I just argued at WP:VPP that we don't make "precedent" arguments here, now you've made a fool of me. :( Delete because this phrase is an overly-generic partial title match for the topic (should be "General Betray Us", "betray us" could have multiple targets), and also because the quotes are irrelevant. Ivanvector (talk) 01:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I deleted my original reason. I don't want other editors to look down on you just because of me :) --Lenticel (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete oooo I remember this controversy...absolutely disgraceful. Anyways: yeah, I find it hard to believe any significant number would be searching for it that way. And if they did, how many more redirects do we need for that? Other redirects to consider: "Betray Us", 2007 General Betray Us Controversy, Betray Us, Betray us. First 2 are equally unlikely search queries, last 2 might be worth keeping. ― Padenton|✉   04:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was a good find. I added the first one because it is enclosed in quotes just like the one I nominated. I think any of the others would/should have to be nominated separately because the rationale would be different (enough). Tavix  Talk  18:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is eight years old, and the arguments for deleting are weak at best. "Not a likely search term" should only apply to new redirects. It is immediately obvious from the target page why the redirect goes there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC).
  • Keep A redirect with the name of a phrase goes to the article describing it. That's exactly what redirects are for. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning keep here. This is a phrase, so I don't think the quotation marks are inherently problematic. If it were double 's, that would be a big problem because it would interfere with markup. "Richard Rossiter" isn't a great precedent because it fell under CSD. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 21#"swimmer" is a closer case, though there really weren't any redeeming qualities to that redirect. Also, Ivanvector or others, what else could "betray us" logically refer to? The phrase is vague on its own but may still be unambiguous in an encyclopedic context. Still, it might be better to keep that discussion separate. All of the betray us redirects could be discussed on their own if we just stick to quotation marks here. --BDD (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: "Richard Rossiter" was a speedy delete, but I interpreted that as WP:SNOW rather than an actual CSD due to the "implausible redirect" and the deletion summary basically saying "per RFD" instead of "per CSD". I can't look up how recently it was created, but would it be an R3 then? Pinging SarekOfVulcan as well. Tavix | Talk  14:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, either way, as with "swimmer", quotation marks make no sense there. They definitely make sense for songs and TV episodes. Maybe a bit less so for phrases, but there's still some logic there. Random words or personal names, sure, definitely not. --BDD (talk) 15:02, 30 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, Steel1943 (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral The Rossiter deletion was definitely a CSD, because there was no reason to quote the guy's name. I can definitely see an argument for leaving it quoted here, although I'd probably come down on the delete side if pressed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible, unless you assume the average reader has read all the guidelines on Wikipedia's titles and redirects a few dozen times, which is an implausible assumption. WilyD 10:15, 7 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.

MacacaGate[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 Controversies of the United States Senate election in Virginia, 2006#Allen's Macaca controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deryck Chan (talk • contribs) 19:12, 9 May 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:RFD#DELETE 3, 8; per WP:LABEL. "The suffix ‑gate suggests the existence of a scandal. Use these in articles only when they are in wide use externally (e.g. Watergate), with in-text attribution if in doubt. Rather than describing an individual using the subjective and vague term controversial, instead give readers information about relevant controversies." I was only able to find the use of the neologism 'macacagate' in [1] [2] [3]. The 3rd is a brief mention in a list of terms ending in 'gate' discussing the impact of the watergate scandal.

Reasons WP:RFD#KEEP criteria don't apply (by number):

  1. Was previously an article, redirected per AfD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MacacaGate). Most policy-based votes in the AfD were easily supportive of outright deletion, but the closer decided to compromise towards a redirect. (To be clear, I am not contesting the closing) The afd was over 8 years ago, but the last time the target article even briefly mentioned the macaca incident was in 2008. +States+Senate+election+in+Virginia%2C+2006&text=macaca. The only WP articles describing the incident appear to be macaca (term) and George Allen.
  2. The term is rarely used for the brief controversy in non-self-published sources. The only links to it are in the above mentioned AfD and another AfD occurring at the same time Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macaca (slur). The redirect has only 75 views in the last 90 days ([4]), 2-3 of which were me. Disclaimer: Before making this RfD I did remove one of the links (I changed the link in Sepia Mutiny per WP:LABEL), this is also likely where a decent amount of the traffic came from.
  3. See #2.
  4. This might be what kills this RfD. But, as I explained in 2, the only links to this redirect are 2 AfDs 8 years ago and logs where they're transcluded, and a brief mention in the talk page archive here Talk:George_Felix_Allen/Archive_2 by a confirmed sockpuppet blocked indefinitely (with the username Maca and Macaca, suggesting single-purpose account). (also note the disclaimer listed in 2).
  5. Based on the traffic stats I listed in 2, it's difficult to believe this is found useful by any significant population.
  6. Doesn't apply. ― Padenton|✉   16:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Weak keep'. @Padenton: I think reason 4 is what kills your RFD, that it has been around for a long time (8 years) and we don't know what incoming links might be to this, but it does no harm. My first two ghits actually have Macaca-gate with the hyphen, which we don't have. However, extremely well reasoned and I take my hat off to you for that and will happily change my vote if others agree. Si Trew (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, soddit, Padenton done all the work, Padenton knows what (s)he's talking about, Padenton has gone through every means to try to get it deleted, so I think this should be Deleted on trust. Padenton has put a lot of effort into this. Si Trew (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the fact that it isn't even mentioned at the target article and the fact that it is potentially harmful. Tavix  Talk  02:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Retarget, fairly strongly. The term is used in reliable sources (cf. MacacaGate -wikipedia), is unambiguous, and WP:RNEUTRAL specifically gives two similar -gate redirects as example of acceptable non-neutral redirects. Climategate and Attorneygate may have been more common, but that's hardly a reason to delete this one. --BDD (talk) 14:49, 30 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, Steel1943 (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, that's where the controversy is discussed. I'm also adding a capitalization variant to the nomination. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with adding it to the article for this purpose is that WP:LABEL explicitly says we should only refer to it as '-gate' if it's in wide use externally. It's not. I linked above the only 3 WP:RS articles I could find (someone else is more than welcome to try and find some more) 1 of which was a brief mention in an article discussing the impact of the watergate scandal. Another was a blog (WP:PRIMARY), leaving the Salon article. If someone can find wider use, maybe then, but I'm not seeing it here. It also seems it would be a violation of MOS:NEO for us to be attempting to increase the usage of the term in such a way. Articles on neologisms are frequently deleted because they are attempts to increase usage of a term (said in policy WP:NOTNEO), and I think for the same rationale it would be inappropriate to add 'macacagate' to the prose of the article (or a related article) with this goal. Again, this is based on my only finding 1 secondary WP:RS providing more than a brief mention. If someone can find some more, perhaps there will be more reason for these alternatives. ― Padenton|✉   21:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LABEL and the like are all good reasons to leave it out of the body of the article. So no wonder the phrase itself doesn't exactly appear. Navigational aids like redirects are a different matter; that's sort of the point of WP:RNEUTRAL. --BDD (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think you're right on this one. I struck out my bit on adding it to that section, but I don't think having the redirect poses a major problem. Tavix | Talk  02:42, 2 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.

Last ice age[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/disambig to Ice age (disambiguation). Deryck C. 18:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I gather that there's a discrepancy between scientific and common usage with this phrase. This is a former title of the article now at Last glacial period, and I believe most readers searching for this term would be looking for that article rather than the current target. The hatnotes at both pages adequately explain the difference, IMO, but I think we'll do more good than harm by retargeting. The uppercase variant initially redirected to Wisconsin glaciation, so a disambiguation page is not out of the question, though I think it it's not the best solution here. --BDD (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without prejudice, I am going to add Thrydullf's find little ice age to that DAB, since that seems useful regardless of this dicussion's outcome. Si Trew (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Without prejudice, I am not sure I like my one-liner description, could be better, Si Trew (talk) 22:43, 4 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.

Competitive gaming[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. Also, gambling is competitive by nature, isn't it? It's certainly zero sum, unless I'm misunderstanding the terminology. --BDD (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not a synonym. E-sports have nothing to do with most pro-gambling -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This isn't gambling, this is gaming, and I think it may be useful in some way. Raymie (t • c)
  • Keep per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. While "gaming" by itself can refer to quite a few things, "competitive gaming" overwhelmingly refers to e-sports; indeed, "competitive gaming" appears, in boldface, in the first sentence of the Electronic sports article. Sideways713 (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: competitive gaming almost always refers to electronic sports competitions. Esquivalience t 16:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think this is not WP:WORLDWIDE, it would seem to me a synonym for Gambling, and an evasion of various gambling rules. It is well-known that in Nevada it is legal to gamble, which is why they put Las Vegas there, but on the other side of the pond gambling rules are completely different. I have always tried to make a comprehensive set of articles of Gambling in the United Kingdom, for example, but it is quit hard to do, even though my grandfather was a bookmaker's runner, it is hard to get WP:RS on it, strangely. Considering the amount of advertising there is for wasting your money you would think we would have a lot of RS on how to run a book (accountancy is exactly how you do it, but that is a far stretch, my books are never short) so if you want a lecture on odds I am the man to turn to, because I can tell you the frac on neves a vier from a burlington, as I have said before, but this is just nonsense. For places that allow gambling, see both Places that are Not the United States and Gambling in the United Kingdom. As I said, WP:WORLDWIDE. Si Trew (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I use Places that are not the United States as a bit of a synonym for WP:WORLDWIDE, I hope in humour. I have had the pleasure and privilege of living and working in the United States, so it is simply the point I am making, nothing against the country. Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 4 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.

XHCAR-TV[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 9#XHCAR-TV

American Delicious[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is actually a cultivar of apple. According to List of apple cultivars, there are two types of "Delicious": Red and Golden. Delete as either a hoax or per WP:REDLINK. Tavix | Talk  03:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it seems to be an actual apple variety although quite old (19th century). I suggest deletion to encourage article creation. --Lenticel (talk) 05:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? We have Red Delicious, an American apple. I am not sure that is the same but could be closer. I think this is just a misnomer or perhaps a disambiguator from that awful apple the French Delicious or Golden Delicious. Si Trew (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No those are different apples. This is one of the books pages that I got. --Lenticel (talk) 00:06, 5 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.

Awaken (Kendrick Lamar album)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON. Looks like someone was trying to guess at his new album. (Turns out it was called "To Pimp a Butterfly") Tavix | Talk  02:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless it can be reasonably demonstrated that Awaken still has anything to do with To Pimp a Butterfly. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:37, 6 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.

List of Kendrick Lamar feuds[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. Not the most straightforward discussion, but the outcome seems clear enough. The first two have already been speedily deleted. --BDD (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Kendrick Lamar article doesn't mention any feuds, especially not a list of feuds. Tavix | Talk  02:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I must agree that these pages are to be deleted cause I accidentally created a redirection of these two names to the original article. It was by mistake. DBrown SPS 14:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @DBrown SPS: In that case, I marked them WP:CSD#G7. Would the same apply to the other "feud" related redirects you just created? Tavix | Talk  15:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: Yes, of course. I would also like to apologize for all the fake pages and unsourced material I made. I wished it didn't happen until now. Go on ahead and block me from editing. DBrown SPS 15:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DBrown SPS: Hey, I don't think you should be blocked, they were created in good faith. There's a big difference between vandalism and what you did. I'll look through all of them, but a bunch of those are actually salvageable. We have a List of Drake feuds, so the one you created about Drake works. 50 cent has a few notable feuds so it makes sense to create the redirect about him to his article. The Jay-Z and Nas redirects probably could be retargeted to the article on their notable feud. The exception here is when there isn't any information about any feuds, as is the case with Kendrick Lamar. Tavix | Talk  15:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: Thanks. I really do appreciate it.
@DBrown SPS: No problem! You've got a lot of good edits, so keep up the good work! Hip hop feuds is a fascinating topic, I'm glad to see someone looking into them. I took a look at all of the redirects and did the following:
  • I do want to note that Jay Z also had a feud with Jaz-O (Jaz-O#Feud with Jay-Z), and Drake (List of Drake feuds#Jay-Z) although they aren't mentioned at Jay Z's article. If it develops to the point where Jay Z has a "feud" section or article, this should be re-retargeted to where ever that information is compiled.
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.

"Certainty"- the 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. --BDD (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this redirect is all kinds of implausible as a search term: the title enclosed in quotes, no space before the hyphen but there is a space after the hyphen, and "the film" afterwards. I can't see this being useful to anyone. Tavix | Talk  02:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible redirect. JZCL 19:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible misspelling. --Lenticel (talk) 01:09, 4 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.

네모네모 스폰지밥[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) 14:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. SpongeBob isn't Korean. Tavix | Talk  02:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Spongebob is an English-language product, therefore has no affinity for Korean -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Lenticel (talk) 08:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IP. JZCL 19:47, 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.

Weight earth[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) 14:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was an essay that existed for 4 minutes before it was redirected to Earth. It should have been deleted then because it isn't useful as a redirect. Let's get this one right now. The word "weight" isn't even used in the targeted article... Tavix | Talk  02:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom OR Weak Retarget to Earth mass. --Lenticel (talk) 05:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm also leaning towards "delete" on this one. The possibility for a retargeting to Earth mass is only validated by the fact that Earth weight currently redirects there. However, the issue I see is that weight is not mass, but rather mass times gravity. Steel1943 (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, force equals mass times acceleration. But gravity itself is just acceleration, as Einstein pinpointed out, which just leaves us with mass on one side of the equation and force on the other side. C'mon, this is schoolboy physics, not tricky, even an idiot like Steely understands it. (Force = weight by the way, I should have said that.) Si Trew (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think there's a way to retarget this without violating WP:NOTFAQ. Ivanvector (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can see this as a FAQ as Ivanvector suggests, "How much does the earth weigh", to which the answer (without looking it up but as a simple statement from Newtonian law) is that the Earth weighs exactly zero. What its mass is, is a different question, and we have Earth mass as essentially a unit of measure to do exactly that. So Earth has 1 earth mass and has weight 0. Does that answer the question? Si Trew (talk) 21:52, 4 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.

Quadruple (computing)[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. You could call it no consensus for quadruple and tetrade, but the effect is the same. I recommend sorting this issue out on the article talk page, and individual nominations if any of these are to be renominated.
By the way, German Wikipedia has parallel redirects for quadruple and tetrade; in my limited experience there, they don't seem to have many redirects in general. The lede of the German article on Nibble includes German versions of each of these terms except for quartet. --BDD (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete four unsourced non-notable WP:NEO redirects. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Be..anyone (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Half-byte" viable search term, and not a neologism, since it is literally half a byte, where "byte" is defined as 8 bits, instead of as a machine word. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep half-byte and quartet, delete quadruple and tetrade. A nybble is half a byte; bytes are also called octets and a quartet is half of that. Both terms are mentioned at the target. The other two are mentioned at the target but unsourced, and don't seem to be in common use from what I can tell (and one is misspelled). Ivanvector (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (4x). These nominations are invalid, All four entries are perfectly valid redirects (per WP:REDIR, in particular WP:POFRED and WP:CHEAP) to an article discussing them. They would continue to be valid redirects even if the article would not discuss them specifically, but a closely related topic (which it does). Although it would be possible to bring by references, redirects do not need to be referenced by themselves (references may be added to the article, but this is completely independent matter of affairs). While many redirects (including these) are notable, we do not apply the same notability criteria to redirects as we do to articles. After all, one of the main purposes of redirects is to guide a reader to an article or contents in another article discussing the topic s/he is looking for even if s/he may use less than perfect (sometimes even downright incorrect) vocabulary. We even have (and keep) redirects for sometimes obscure and unlikely misspellings (something I do not personally propose, but it demonstrates the extremely wide spectrum of and low threshold for valid redirects). It would be absurd to keep misspellings and delete valid terms. Finally, none of these terms is a neologism, quite to the contrary, but even if they were, this wouldn't be a reason to delete them, either.
Octet and quartet are established terms used in the telecommunication industry to avoid the historical ambiguity of the terms byte and nibble (which do not always mean 8 or 4 bits in all contexts). I'm familiar with them for about 20 to 25 years, but their usage are probably older.
Quadruple (Quadrupel in German) is a term found in various places in the net and is listed in other Wikipedias as well. I have, however, not seen it being used in recent academic literature, so it might have felt into disuse (which doesn't render it invalid, anyway, as Wikipedia covers topics regardless of if they are modern or historical). I have seen it being used to specifically mean a quantity of 4 bits in the early 1980s already - even before I learnt about the existance of the now much more common term nibble. Semantically, nibble commonly (perhaps even universally?) refers to either the upper or lower half of a byte (but note that some authors use(d) the term nibble also for bitcounts different from 4, similar to a byte not always holding 8 bits historically), whereas I do not remember quadruple being used in exactly the same way - the (- per nom - strictly always) 4 bits of a quadruple could also be located somewhere in the middle of a byte/word, so it appears to be used in a more general context - but it's fine to discuss this in the context of the nibble article and does not invalidate the redirect.
Tetrade is a very old term as well, dating back to when BCD computing was still common. It defines the bits holding a BCD digit. I have seen the terms tetrades and pseudo-tetrades being used in academic papers in the 1980s and 1990s, but always in conjunction with either BCD math and data representation or logic optimization, so it appears to be used in a specific context only, but this doesn't make it less valid.
Half-byte should be really self-explanatory.
All these terms are also mentioned in various other Wikipedias.
To sum it up, all four terms are perfectly valid redirects per WP:REDIR. None of the criteria for deletion WP:R#DELETE applies, while most criteria for WP:R#KEEP apply, thus they should be kept. It is possible and desirable to even expand their coverage in the target article.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am staying out of this one since I know what I am talking about. Nybble should be an R I imagine. The size of a byte varies depending on the computer architecture, a PDP-11 had 9 byte computer words, according to the VAX/VMS computer handbook I have here on my desk, the successor to it... pseudo tetrates means pretending to be four, oh learn some Greek and learn some computer science, otherwise, as Luttwig Wittgenstein said,"thereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent". Or put another way, "if you don't know, shut up". Si Trew (talk) 21:34, 4 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.

American egg throwing[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, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL, it's a pejorative term that isn't in widespread use. It's also ambiguous because it could also refer to Egg tossing, Egging, or even Egg dropping. Tavix | Talk  01:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as vague and possible slur since American football is sometimes called "handegg".--Lenticel (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 'Handegg' may be widely used, but American egg throwing is a bit of a stretch. ― Padenton|✉   16:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pejorative does make sense for those who call the sport (and rugby and Australian rules) “handegg”, and when I read the term I felt redirecting any pejoratives is legitimate, but when I added the redirect I did not realise it could refer to other activities. luokehao — Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 3 May 2015‎
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.

Nolan 3[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 created the redirect Si Trew suggested, though it doesn't look like the Nolans were ever a trio. --BDD (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing due to its extreme ambiguity. In this case, "Nolan" refers to the director Christopher Nolan and the "3" refers to the fact that it's his third batman movie. However, this could refer to anybody at Nolan and you could make the 3 mean just about anything you want it to mean. Tavix | Talk  01:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as vague synonym. --Lenticel (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a long stretch, but the three Nolan Sisters were very famous singers in the UK and Ireland (they are from Ireland). Would that at all be a likely search term? Was what I first thought of. Si Trew (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually as you see Nolan Sisters is red but we have The Nolans where the term is mentioned in the first sentences of the lede. We should probably add that regardless of the outcome here, but I don't like doing so when things are under discussion. Si Trew (talk) 21:43, 4 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.

A Airlines[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) 13:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this redirect is equally plausible for a lot of other airline companies, i.e. This term is altogether implausible. - TheChampionMan1234 00:06, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_30&oldid=1136083167"