Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 12, 2015.

Arceusism[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) 23:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. This redirect was formerly an article and the subject of an AfD, but as it currently stands, the term is not described in the target article, and is thus misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Seems to be a fan made term for the religion in the Pokemon world --Lenticel (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The term doesn't even particularly seem to have a consistent, logical defintion among fans in the first place, or really be advocated by that many fans... I don't think this redirect is helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The subject doesn't even have an entry on the Pokémon Wiki or Bulbapedia which tend to be reliable in covering this franchise. The only article I could find was on PokéFanon Wiki, a self-described "non-canon encylcopedia" (encyclopedia) which features "fan-made Pokémon, regions, games, cards, stories, theories and other fanfiction". Their goal is to create and preserve "all the Pokémon fanfiction". Last I checked we do not specifically cover either fan fiction or fan art. Our category on "Fan fiction works" only has 14 articles and we do not even have a category on fan art. Wikipedia is simply the wrong resource for anyone searching for information on such subjects. Dimadick (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe could be WP:RFD#D2 confused with Archaism, Si Trew (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as is not mentioned at target article. Rubbish computer 10:52, 15 August 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 Digimon[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 those that remain, except for the last three. I'm not familiar with Digimon, but I'm assuming the list is comprehensive, or at least purports to be. If that's not the case, please let me know. --BDD (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no such lists at the target article, and recreating these lists is probably a WP:NOTWIKIA violation. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as confusing. --Lenticel (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but I would take exception to "All digimon"/"Every digimon" since someone typing that could very well not be expecting a list. I'm not sure, but I feel like those would be helpful in the same way that "The digimon" is. If I was reading an article, and it read {In the history of dancing in the 1800s, some Russian immigrants to Canada would hold up sings saying "Will dancing For All potatoes".} (silly, made up on the fly example) then I would naturally expect the link to take me to a page generally about potatoes. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I "procedurally closed" the first entry in the list, List of Digimon, due to restoring a previous version of it as an article. I will also close List of digimon due to boldly retargetting it to List of Digimon. Steel1943 (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but those leading to a restored list. We do not have relevant information here. Steel1943, isn't a bit strange to have lists of nothing but names with no other information whatsoever? Aren't there Digimon individual characters to be covered like the human characters? Dimadick (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dimadick: It looks as though most of these redirects, including the ones that used to be list articles, were created during Wikipedia's infancy before the project decided that information like this did not belong here (WP:NOTWIKIA). Steel1943 (talk) 16:36, 13 August 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.

Pea-sized[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) 22:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not explained at article. This redirect's existence makes as much sense as Whale-sized or Atom-sized existing. Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as ambiguous since there's no consensus on how much "pea-size" really is. I was thinking of putting it to List of unusual units of measurement but I'm not sure where. By the way, according to this journal article, pea-size means 0.25 g--Lenticel (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per what Lenticel said. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Beethoven's autopsy, unfortunately no longer available online, in its opening line says his liver was "enlarged to twice the normal size and covered with pea-sized nodules", although I guess that is a translation from the German, but was published in the Journal of Alcohol and Alcoholism (a publication to which I do not subscribe, which makes me wonder: if I don't, who does?), as Alan Coren remarked in a weekly piece for, I think, The Times (I forget which paper he was writing for the time, might have been Punch (magazine), of which he was an editor for many years) entitled Go Easy Mr. Beethoven, that was your Fifth!, the editor was a Dr. Madden if I recall correctly. I did try to add this at one point to Death of Beethoven but it got rather quickly reverted. So, "pea-sized" could be well sourced as I have just attempted, but still seems rather a nonce word and WP:VAGUE.[ George Orwell somewhere remarks about the expression as like as two peas somewhere that why people would say that when peas are very individual. Si Trew (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIC, specifically we don't define it and if we did then we would violate this policy. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, because I have no idea what "pea-sized" is and the article doesn't help me figure that out. -- Tavix (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, "pea-sized" must refer to the size (wavelength) of light reflected by peas. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I thought it referred to the width of the letter "P"... -- Tavix (talk) 21:38, 13 August 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.

Tyrphobiont[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) 22:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship between these words and "bog" is not clear in the least. I have been doing some research via search engines, and cannot find any connection of these words to anything in particular. (Though "tryphobiont" returned results for "trypophobia", but that is too unlikely of a misspelling.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • German website Lexikon der Biologie offers some clue. "Tyrph" supposedly derives from Old English turf; the suffixes -biont and -phile are easy enough to decode. Turf doesn't seem to refer to bogs in particular, but, well, turf. Conversely, this document reads: "The term tyrphobiont was coined by PEUS (1928) to define species living only in peat-bogs and mires." (F.) Peus is author of a cited source, "Beitrâge zur Kenntnis der Tierwelt nordwestdeutscher Hochmoore", most likely German. I don't see any evidence of this in much use by English-language sources, so I suggest delete per WP:FORRED as neither bogs nor creatures that live in them are exclusive to Germany, and I can't find a better target here anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look up -biont in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Delete per Orban Viktor sorry I meant User:Ivanvector. A peculiar mix of German/Old English and ancient Greek with then kinda a modern English circumcision at the end (though we have neither biontology nor biont, but Wiktionary has "-biont" just to mean a suffix for "a discrete living organism"). So perhaps it's best left to Wiktionary then, which hasn't this. A very odd portmanteau word. WP:FORRED. Si Trew (talk) 06:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector, You may be pleased to know I just Rcatted a few redirects to old Orbáan as {{R from native name}} and {{R from title without diacritics}}. Si Trew (talk) 06:40, 14 August 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.

Chiroptera?[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) 22:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question mark at the end makes this a very unlikely search term. Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unlikely and Chiroptera already exists -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It combines a valid search term with a question mark. I don't think this is a good idea at all. Dimadick (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, but as I mentioned before recently (I forget where), to my surprise WP:TSC (special characters) does not mention the question mark as "special" at all. Considering it separates parts of a URL I find that odd that there is no mention, even if to negate it (you know, something like "a question mark is not considered a special character"]]. Si Trew (talk) 06:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as seems implausible to include a question mark. Rubbish computer 10:57, 15 August 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.

Fromagier[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 19#Fromagier

Mixology[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) 22:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see a few issues with this redirect, and for that matter, retargetting options. For one, neither the articles Cocktail or Bartender seem to go into detail about this subject; this title is probably a good candidate for WP:REDLINK as a standalone article. And for two, all instances I can find online with this word used in text seem to be promotional. So, probably delete this per WP:REDLINK, (though it would probably actually result in "move Mixology (TV series) to Mixology" since that article exists.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. I can't find a proper target either. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I vageuly recall this being used in a UK ad campaign for some ready-mixed cocktail (alcopops of some kind), in the UK, from the self-styled "Department of Mixology". However, struggling to find that. Bartender has "mixologist" as WP:FIRSTSENTENCE, but I would dispute that (and I have worked in bars in the UK for waaay too many late evenings). Si Trew (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK last night I struggled, this morning typing "Department of Mixology" into a Gsearch gives me stacks. However none is particularly RS, in my opinion, they're all "bartending schools" as if you could learn how to tend a bar except by, er, tending a bar: there's a bit more to it than mixing a gin and tonic. (As from Alice in Wonderland, the quickest way to explain it is to do it. So....
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.

Enhanced babies[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) 22:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent promotional redirect -- see COI noticeboard DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Seems to be the case. Most of the hits I get is "Enhanced babies <insert product name>" --Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete that's not hte only way to enhance babies. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, POV and promotional. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a promotional redirect. Rubbish computer 11:02, 15 August 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.

Template:Commonwealth Games[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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has been moved around a bunch of times and now just points to the generic games template. I would think it would be better to point this to Template:Commonwealth Games years. However, the tools say that this has a bunch of transclusions, but when I go to the pages that supposedly transclude it I can't find it. So I don't exactly know what's going on here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've made a mistake here, Template:Commonwealth Games years is a navbox, not an infobox. Still, it seems like nonsense to have a Commonwealth Games template go to the generic template. It should go to a template with data for the Commonwealth Games, otherwise why does it exist at all? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I'm going to withdraw this. If someone wants to create a specific Commonwealth Games infobox, nothing is stopping them, and these are in use as infobox shortcuts. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:20, 12 August 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.

Lopado\xC2\xADtemacho\xC2\xADselacho\xC2\xADgaleo\xC2\xADkranio\xC2\xADleipsano\xC2\xADdrim\xC2\xADhypo\xC2\xADtrimmato\xC2\xAD[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. WP:INVOLVED close given the size of the backlog and clear consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought most of the old mojibake redirects from WP:TOPRED had been purged, but I guess we missed this one. BDD (talk) 15:01, 12 August 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.

Railroad District[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 without prejudice. The overwhelming sentiment is that the current targets are unhelpful. Retargeting or creating appropriate "set index" / list / disambiguation pages has been supported by most participants of this discussion, but that discussion remains inconclusive. So I'm deleting the redirects for now, leaving open the option of creating new lists or redirecting to existing lists. @BDD, SimonTrew, Ivanvector, Tavix, and Ezhiki: You guys have free reign. Deryck C. 12:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was created as a redirect to Zheleznodorozhny City District, apparently a translation of various foreign names; after it was blanked twice it was redirected to urban planning and then redirected to its current target by a bot fixing double redirects. There's no mention of "Railroad District" or anything similar in the current target page, or in the urban planning article, which has been moved and split; the version that existed when the redirect was made (revision 525885241) also contains nothing relevant. I'm not sure whether it should be redirected to its original target or deleted - it probably depends on whether the translated names would be used in English. Peter James (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Railroad District" is indeed the literal translation of "Zheleznodorozhny (City) District", just like "Railway District", a redirect which I also created. While toponyms are generally not supposed to be translated like that, we do create translation redirects because occasionally translations are used in English sources. That said, if someone can demonstrate what relation "Railroad District" has with the theories of urban planning, it would be OK to re-do the redirect as a disambiguation page. If no such demonstration is forthcoming, then re-instating the original redirect is likely the most prudent solution.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 4, 2015; 18:12 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget all to Railway town, to which Railroad town redirects (but not Rail town). To retarget to a particular rail town is too specific. Or, we have List of railway towns. As far as I can tell, this just means a district housing a major railway station or works: but that's not what I imagine an English-speaking audience would take it to mean.
So deletion wouldn't hurt per WP:RFD#D2 confusing: stats are all below the bot noise thresshold (less than one a week) and there are no links outside of this discussion. I'm not sure which is better. Si Trew (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This would actually be a little confusing—as I mentioned above, translated toponyms are occasionally used in English (example), making them a valid, if uncommon, lookup target. Any particular reason why you think a disambiguation wouldn't work instead?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 5, 2015; 12:09 (UTC)
  • Not to bias this discussion, I have retargeted Zheleznodorozhny City District to Zheleznodorozhny City District, Russia because it was the only matching title on the page (WP:PTM) and there were only two bluelinks (WP:TWODABS). I've already been reverted, so I guess I'll go sit in the corner for a bit. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mean to send you sit in a corner :) But one of those two links is not a partial, and the other was perfectly fine per WP:DABRL. What you thought a partial is simply a transliteration of the district's Ukrainian name. Transliterations of the Russian names for places in Ukraine are supposed to redirect to the titles transliterated from Ukrainian for historical reasons (Soviet legacy and its coverage in literature and all). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 5, 2015; 18:46 (UTC)
    You're entirely right, I had misinterpreted DABRL. You expanded the explanation of the alternate name in the dab anyway, so it's better now. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some confusion here is between a railway town which is an urban planning concept, versus what Ezhiki is referring to which seems to be districts which are l(iterally (or reasonably approximately) called "Railway District". I doubt that's unique to former Soviet client states, but at the moment I can't find any examples in other languages. I don't think that targeting a broad-concept English word to a very specific foreign language target is the best use. I suggest retarget all to railway town per Si Trew, with a hatnote to the Russian usage; whether that's Zheleznodorozhny City District or Zheleznodorozhny depends on the actual meaning of "zheleznodorozhny" which I don't know as I'm not Russian. The dab (or both dabs) can be expanded to explain the word's meaning to give it context for English users. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have two problems really: first to decide with search results whether the cap on "District" forms part of its proper name or that it is just capped because it forms part of a title, and second whether the WP:ENGVAR is relevant in the translated name. Si Trew (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea, I support that. I tried a regex search for this at the back but it timed out. @Tavix: can you try searching similarly for "Railway District", please? I couldn't find any, but perhaps I am searching the wrong way. Si Trew (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A set index, by definition, is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name. Here, we are dealing with a set of items that share the same or similar name, but which are of various types (a Russian city district, for example, is not at all the same as the railroad districts listed above). Only a disambiguation page can deal with such a situation properly. Also, set indices tend to be covered/maintained by a WikiProject; here, no one WikiProject is applicable.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 6, 2015; 14:10 (UTC)
  • Comment do we have an article on rail subdivisions (divisions of RR networks?) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to Set Index per Tavix's point. Rubbish computer 12:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just make a list. As far as I can tell, a "set index article" is something we entirely made up. Readers will rarely distinguish between them and disambiguation pages, and indeed the boundaries are often blurry. So just List of railroad districts or something. (I think a railroad district and a railroad town are fundamentally different, though they could go in each other's See also sections.) --BDD (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create a list (per BDD) and retarget there. Good points that a list wouldn't exactly be a set index, and because of different titles it's not really a dab, but all of that's kind of academic. We should just do it and figure out what it is later. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest creating the list at List of railway towns, because we already have Railway town as an article. I don't think the article is a good candidate for turning into a set index (or list or dab or what-have-you) because it has some decent prose sections already. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, that list already exists. I should use the preview button more. And I already suggested retargeting to Railway town above, so maybe I'm just repeating myself. I do think that these generic redirects should go to a generic target. It's a long stretch to say someone searching for "railway district" is looking for a list of specific and somewhat obscure locations in Russia. We might just as well redirect university town to London, Ontario, one obscure example of a city with a university in it (also a railway town, coincidentally). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a long stretch, but it's not unfathomable (see my example in the comments above). Having a disambiguation page of entities which may be referred to as "railway district" helps all readers make a choice. Arbitrarily redirecting "railway district" to a list which only covers some possibilities helps only some readers (those who are looking for entities in the list). Plus, picking only "the most likely" target for the redirect and ignoring other, if more obscure, options, smells awful lot like systemic bias, and last I checked we are supposed to fight that!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 12, 2015; 19:19 (UTC)
Of course! But conversely, choosing one particular rail district over others sounds like undue bias to me as well. If we already have a list of railway districts/towns, why create a new one just for ones with Russian names? Why not add them to the existing list? There are none there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because the existing list is for areas which can actually be described as "railroad districts" (and which may not even actually be incorporated as "districts", but just be vaguely defined areas related to a railroad in some way). The ones in Russia and Ukraine, on the other hand, are administrative entities whose names happen to translate into English as "railway district" (and which are occasionally referred to by their translated names in English and hence can conceivably serve as a search term). They are actually district-type entities, with "Railway" just being a translation of their proper name (sometimes bearing only a historical significance). I really don't believe the two concepts can be dumped into one list as if they were one and the same.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 12, 2015; 19:56 (UTC)
Okay, I'm coming around to this. Is it safe to say that naming things this way is a distinct artifact of the Soviet Union? I'm pretty sure other Marxist-Leninist countries don't. We could create a list of places (in Russia, or generally) which are (named for railways? have names that translate as railway? I'm not sure on this part) and there's justification for that to be separate from List of railway towns. If the "Railway District" redirects point to that list, I guess that's fine (I don't feel strongly enough about this to drag it out). But there should be hatnotes back and forth between this and Railway town. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the job is already mostly done. Russian city districts have their own set index, which is already linked to from a disambiguation page containing similar entities from other (post-Soviet) countries (at the time only Ukraine, but more can and should be added). A translated term ("railway/railroad district") has been redirecting to that disambig for years; but this RfD raised a point that other possible targets exist (a statement I completely concur with). Creating a disambiguation page at railway district (and a similar one at railroad district), where a link to the Russian/Ukrainian dab can be listed, as well as links to any other appropriate targets (such as railway town) would take care of all readers' needs, but somehow this suggestion got buried in a flurry of consequent comments :) And no, naming things this way is no more a Soviet artifact than naming a street in the US "Railroad Avenue" would be.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); August 12, 2015; 20:34 (UTC)
A railway district and a railway town are different, though. It's conceivable that a railway town could grow out of a railway district, but district definitely implies a section of town organized around the railway, as opposed to the whole town being so. --BDD (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that these two are all that different, actually. Only by the size of the organized area, and we may be inventing that distinction. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, is it a WP:ENGVAR? any small place in the US is called a "city" but in British English a town is a fairly substantial place, let's say 5000 to 150000 people, very roughly. A common misconception is a place in the UK can only be a city if it has a cathedral: but for example Cambridge has no cathedral yet was awarded city status in the early 1970s (it was a town before that). Si Trew (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're headed a bit off topic here, but US usage of "city" and "town" can vary widely depending on the state. In Virginia, cities are administratively independent of any county. That includes most of the largest and most important settlements in the state commonwealth as well as some rather small, not-so-significant places that remain cities for historical reasons. By contrast, in Idaho, anything that isn't a unincorporated community is called a city (e.g., Rockland, Idaho, population 295). Some states, I believe, don't even have towns as discreet administrative units. Of course, in the Northeast, you also get villages, hamlets, etc...
To come back on topic, though, I'm not aware of any place that uses "district" as coterminous with a city (ok, there are always exceptions). --BDD (talk) 17:55, 15 August 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.

Export (revolution)[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 as unhelpful. I've changed the incoming link from Export (disambiguation) to point to Export of revolution instead. Deryck C. 09:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

not needed. There's many exports, we don't need them redirected like this. No indication of any reason why this is an exception. It did target Revolutionary wave, now I've retargeted to Export of revolution pending deletion. Widefox; talk 08:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I thought it odd that Widefox retargeted this immediately before listing it here, so I investigated: and there's an innocent explanation.
  1. On 16 June 2012, the target was changed to a redirect by User:One-eyed pirate with this edit
  2. That day, soon after, User:AvicBot fixed the double redirect with this edit
  3. That day, soon after, On-eyed pirate's edit was reverted with this one.
  4. ...But this redirect was never restored.
After the bot's double redirect edit, this would not have appeared in the WhatLinksHere, so it's not surprising that unless the reverter User:Altenmann had prior knowledge of it, they made no attempt to fix it.
I don't know why Widefox writes that it is "pending deletion". Other outcomes are possible. Si Trew (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)o[reply]

Thank you for the invitation to join the discussion. Let me clarify the genesis of the articles of Export of revolution and Export (revolution).

  • 12:05, October 28, 2008‎ Altenmann (talk | contribs)‎ . . (947 bytes) (+947)‎ . . (I am not a political scientist and cannot write a meaningful text here, but I hope the wikilinks I am about to add will attract experts to fill the gap)

Following my promise, "wikilinks I am about to add" and being somewhat of Adrian Monk nature I performed a search over wikipedia and linked the term. Also, to avoid unnecessary wikipiping for phrases which contained the word "export", I created, wisely or not, the disambiguating redirect:

  • 12:37, October 28, 2008‎ Altenmann (talk | contribs)‎ . . (34 bytes) (+34)‎ . . (←Redirected page to Export of revolution)

Since I don't see it linked from anywhere, I assume someone smarter than me replaced its usage with better text.

Hence my vote, with typical arguments used by other for similar cases in the past:

  • Keep (see my remark above). Harmless, meaningful; will preserve wikinetwork integrity (no "red links") in the past versions of wikipedia. - user:Altenmann >t 14:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Named as it is, this redirect communicates the idea of "export, a type of revolution", or "export, pertaining to revolution". Both of those seem like nonsense. Revolution (export) would still be strange, but would at least be communicating the right idea. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's a type of revolution, but you wouldn't call it "export" alone. I'm not sure what similarity you see with your other example; this would be more like if we had a redirect Capital (punishment). --BDD (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. This would fall on the "nonsense" side of the spectrum and doesn't seem to be a plausible search term. -- Tavix (talk) 17:48, 24 August 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.

Turkishmenistan[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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invented name (sorry if there are multiple nominations or whatever TWINKLE is misbehaving itself today.It said "Invalid token") - TheChampionMan1234 03:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. WP:RFD#D8 (novel synonym). Clearly not a likely typo or misnomer; only 13 hits in past three months. Possibly WP:RFD#D3 (insulting or abusive) too, though it's hard to tell since basically only one person on the entire internet uses this term (a NationStates forum user). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to being an incorrect name that could represent multiple different topics. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minimal views, about as equally plausibly an error for Turkey or Turkmenistan. --BDD (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY - does this refer to Turkey or Turkmenistan? Implausible error for either one. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As stated above, this could equally apply to both countries as well as to neither of them, being a part of some kind of an in-joke or something, so I think it's best to leave the term red. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:24, 16 August 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.

Pangs (Buffy episode) Comprehensive synopsis[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. WP:INVOLVED close given the size of the backlog and clear consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the name implies, this began as a detailed description of the plot of this Buffy episode. It was redirected, not merged, back in 2006. Since this isn't the sort of thing that is ever supposed to be in articles (cf. WP:NOTWIKIA), it should be deleted as an unlikely search term. Misleading, too, as the synopsis at the target article isn't comprehensive, by design. --BDD (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The target article does have a decently-sized synopsis, but this seems irrelevant. I just can't see this as a plausible search term. We don't tend to have multiple articles for the same subject. Is this supposed to disambiguate it from all the other articles covering aspects of a single episode? Dimadick (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTPLOT we shouldn't have a complete and comprehensive synopsis on Wikipedia. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTWIKIA, WP:NOTPLOT and as a misleading redirect with no appropriate target. Rubbish computer 11:05, 15 August 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.
  • This was a bad decision. The redirect had existed for 9 years and it is quite possible that there are links to it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[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. WP:INVOLVED close given the size of the backlog and clear consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine this being used as a genuine search term. If so, what would a reader be looking for? They'll be able to find Wikipedia quite easily without it. In the past, this has been a cross-namespace redirect to MediaWiki:Tagline, which simply reads "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Would editing it change the tagline on every page? I'm not going to find out, and I'd expect that page would be protected if that were the case. --BDD (talk) 13:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, pending input from MBisanz who once tagged this that it should be kept for historical purposes, but I don't know why. I found two odd uses of this in mainspace, one at Berlin Declaration (1945) in a piped link to "High Command", added recently by Neutrality here, and at Family farm in a piped link to "Zimbabwe", added recently by Dbachmann here. Both seem to be mistakes rather than anything deliberate; I wonder if there's a bug in the visual editor? Neither of these are tagged as visual editor edits. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One step ahead of you. That tagging was when it was a CNR, for what it's worth. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 12 August 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.

ABC (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 nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are several alba called "ABC". Redirecting it to singles is not helpful. I don't know what to do with this one. Si Trew (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep This is a typical way of handling these titles—see {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. It allows readers to find desired topics more quickly than search results. --BDD (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are albums listed there too. Si, did you maybe mean to suggest a primary topic for this? None of those listed seem to be. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see no problems with this redirect at all. 71.170.209.55 (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw the nomination: can another please procedurally close. Si Trew (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -- Tavix (talk) 02:41, 13 August 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.

Wikipedia:HOWTO[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 Wikipedia:How-to into a Wikipedia disambiguation page, and retarget there, along with similar forms. --BDD (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:SURPRISEing cross-name redirect from editor space into reader space. WP:NOTHOWTO goes a completely different way, I was WP:ASTONISHed this didn't go where that goes. Since Wikipedia is not a how-to guide it is a bit odd that we have a category listing articles that are how-to guides, but that's another matter I guess and beyond our remit. We don't have to compound the felony, though. Si Trew (talk) 07:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabify I see three potential targets here based on the hatnote alone. That will hopefully solve the CNR issue while preserving the links to this cat. --Lenticel (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to list/dab/SI per Lenticel -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to dab or list per above. Rubbish computer 11:07, 15 August 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.

Hong Kong/Archive4[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete - obviously useless. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a search term. GZWDer (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:SUB. Subpages aren't used in this namespace. History goes back to 2006, doesn't seems to have any old history, or to be the result of a move.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:30, 12 August 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.

Nazi and gun control[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) 22:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created (within the last 24 hours) by a page move that was quickly reverted. Not grammatical and an unlikely search term WP:R#D8. Ambiguous and improper: however the topic is described, the title "Nazi and gun control" seems to imply this article is about a historical account of the laws, which it is not. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's called a Noun adjunct according to WP. Si Trew (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ungrammatical. No one is going to be searching for this topic at that title unless they are trying Boolean searches on the topic, at which point they'd get to the title anyway. Montanabw(talk) 09:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nazi gun control also goes there but Nazist gun control is red. Si Trew (talk) 11:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Both ungrammatical titles and simple typos are still plausible search terms. How many users from the United States are aware of the proper grammar of "Nazi" or that it is simply the short form of "National" in the terms National Socialism/National Socialist? So if a reader is searching for a connection between the "Nazi" (as a group name) and gun control, he/she will find this article. SimonTrew, the slang use of Nazi per Wiktionary is "One who imposes one’s views on others; one who is considered unfairly oppressive or needlessly strict." I am not thrilled with this use informing United States-related articles, but Wikipedia's NPOV is not supposed to prevent reporting of potentially offensive terms when they are relevant to our subject matter. Dimadick (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an implausible search term. Rubbish computer 11:08, 15 August 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.

Pronunciation of HKSARG[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) 22:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIC - TheChampionMan1234 01:10, 12 August 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.

Dinosaurier[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 open the door, get on the floor, delete. --BDD (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the guideline WP:R#D8. I'm getting hits that this is German. I guess it could be English as a comparative (eg: a crocodile is dinosaurier than a pig), but I would assume that to be a WP:NEOLOGISM. -- Tavix (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind but I've made that an internal link rather than go round the houses. I am with you. The lede there says it is a remake of a 1975 film de:Lina Braake oder Die Interessen der Bank können nicht die Interessen sein, die Lina Braake hat, which we don't have either. Si Trew (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yeah was me. Seems like I put one too many tildes and just got the time and not me sig. Sorry abt that, added with this edit. Si Trew (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There seems to be a clear consensus here and this could be closed soon. And, actually, I do feel like one could possibly make up {"dinosaurier" as a connoisseur of dinosaurs}, but that's a pretty huge stretch still. I think we'd both agree that it's highly unlikely to see actual publications doing that in writing, say. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs the readers to the article they're probably looking for with a high likelihood. I don't think the movie's a big deal. If we had an article on the movie, we could add a hatnote, but we don't, so it's a cow's opinion. WilyD 08:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So why would it not follow the precedents at e.g. prehistorian → prehistory, or archaeologist → archaeology,? (To which per WP:ENGVAR archeology also goes.) or paleontologists and paleontologist → paleontology? WP:ASTONISHing. that this should be kept as useful when it is WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. I don't know what "a cow's opinion" means, unless it is an insult: in which case it has no place here. Si Trew (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps all that was meant is that WilyD's last sentence made a MOOt point? – Painius  23:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. I have a particular fondness for cows just because they are so kinda trusting but let's face it are very stupid. I was thinking that it might be related expression to French: parler francais comme une vache espanol, to speak French like a spanish cow, i.e. badly. However it was kinda my bad faith as another contributor had suggested this could go speedily deleted, then WilyD's keep kinda put the mockers on that. I was going to remove my above comment – and I do apologise to @WilyD: because it was just bad faith on my part to think that WilyD was muckraking rather than just expressing a totally reasonable (but wrong) opinion. Si Trew (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm that's odd, as usual I am leading you up the garden path and will probably leave you there. Muckraking -> Muckraker which doesn't mention actually raking manure, I think we should hatnote that. Incidentally, I rcatted some of the ones I mentioned above (paleontologist for example) as {{R from person}} but I would think there was a more-specific Rcat even if itself a redirect, like {{R from professional}}? Si Trew (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew:
Wikiquote has quotations related to You know, like a cow's opinion. It doesn't matter. It's moo..
I would hope contextually, it would be obvious I was right about that point: we don't have an article about the movie, so whether or not it should be hatnoted if we did doesn't matter. WilyD 12:36, 14 August 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_August_12&oldid=987406275"