Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 13, 2015.

Colbert Show[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 20#Colbert Show

Wikipedia:Noose[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) 15:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disgusting. Alakzi (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The word "noose" isn't used in the essay and it shouldn't. I don't see why someone would want to use this particular shortcut, when there are shorter and more relevant shortcuts, such as WP:ROPE, WP:HANG, WP:GEER, WP:GSC (Wikipedia:Give second chances), etc. This seems to fall in line with other deleted pointy or irrelevant shortcuts, such as WP:HITLER and WP:SEALION. -- Tavix (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notwithstanding one editor's opinion about the target essay, this seems like a reasonable title for a page that has been kept at MfD and is currently leaning toward being kept at the present title in a move discussion. Further attempts by the same editor to whittle away at something he doesn't like might well be considered disruptive - and in any case, a rationale of more than one word would be needed. I don't think the absence of this specific synonym at the target is sufficient reason to delete either. Redirects are for more than just linking. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While noose isn't explicitly mentioned at the target, the title of the essay is related to the function of a noose. This is in the Wikipedia namespace, and certain leeway is given.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No action suggested and no valid reason for an action has been put forward. And also please stop using every possible venue you can find to dispute the concept of this essay. It is getting disruptive. Chillum 00:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that more cogent arguments have been put forward since I gave my opinion I am retracting my opinion. I still think this is no big deal, however I have no strong feelings one way or another. Chillum 14:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete—in fact, so strong that before typing this comment I came close to speedying this redirect unilaterally, on the ground that it creates a risk of bringing the project into disrepute. In the broader dispute over our use of phrases like "give 'em rope," I understand the argument that this is a commonplace idiom and that any connection to the original literal meaning of what might be done with the metaphorical rope is remote. And I also understand that much of the user conduct regarding that dispute has been problematic, to put it mildly. But interpolating the word "noose" onto the page makes the mental image so much more graphic that in my view it does indeed cross the line, by a wide margin; and the redirect shortcut is wholly unnecessary because it is not one that any reasonable person would ever think to use, so that by deleting it, nothing would be lost. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I am in the middle of a house move and most of my books are in store but I believe the correct quotation is "Give a man enough rope and he will hang himself". If someone doesn't know what a noose is they only have to search for it, it is not as if it is WP:GOOSE → WP:Sauce for the goose is (not) sauce for the gander or WP:MOOSE. Now, the rabbit goes round the hole three times, looks down, then comes up again.... If we have Hangman's knot and a sorta vaguely OK article about Albert Pierrepoint, the master at it, and Hangman (game) I am struggling to doubt someone even from an early age does not know what a noose is. Si Trew (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although Lord Rockingham's XI famously re-recorded Hoots Mon, "There's a moose loose aboot this hoose"".Good bit of brass on that. Si Trew (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "old saying" doesn't say "Give a man enough rope and he'll fashion a noose out of it with the intention of hanging himself." There's a rather big difference. Nooses are normally associated with capital punishment (when legal) or lynching (when not). We do not commit capital punishment here, not even when we're blocking and banning people, and the level of hyperbole associated with this redirect is unnecessary. Risker (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that most everyone knows what a noose is. That is absolutely irrelevant. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the deletion rationale on principle that it was POINTY and invalid but I do note User:Ivanvector's comment below and that makes sense. It's not widespread used and it's deletion doesn't really cause an issue. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NewYorkBrad. Pinging Aunva6, the creator and only one to ever use the shortcut. On one hand, the essay describes being given enough rope that one hangs themselves with it, and how does one hang oneself if not by making a noose? On the other hand, it's not referred in the essay, its use is horribly offensive, and other than the diff I posted it's not been used anywhere. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    i don't even remember creating it, and I really don't have an opinion either way. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 23:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unnecessary, brutal, unused and not the kind of terminology we should associate with our project. Risker (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per NYB and Risker. T. Canens (talk) 03:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as reading the first sentence or two already establishes its relevant. It seems it would be more appropriate to complain about the essay itself than this redirect. Rubbish computer 11:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't one. Did you read anything that I or several others have written here? I'm more tempted than ever just to speedy the thing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad: Regardless of your points, this is relevant to the essay, although distasteful. The expression the essay centers on is Give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves.
Erm. That has nothing to do with nooses. And the word does not appear in the essay. No, this is just a great example of how people find ways to completely ignore WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. The redirect is not used, and if used, would probably result in the user being blocked. Risker (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm with NYB on the itchy delete finger on this one. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above arguments as seems unnecessary. --Rubbish computer 01:01, 17 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.

Shippegan Parish, New Brunswick[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 close as this is a requested move; please see the move discussion. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect page so that target page can be moved to correct spelling. Official spelling of parish is Shippegan, as shown in http://laws.gnb.ca/en/showfulldoc/cs/T-3//20150813; Shippagan is the official spelling for the town in that parish, but not the parish itself. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I unlisted and relisted this to fix a broken nomination. Should be fixed now. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, this is a move request. I'll fix it again. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:20, 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.

Kirby Dual Sanitronic 80[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 retargeted to Kirby Company. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This models of vacuum cleaner isn't discussed at the target article. I would guess that very, very few models of vacuum cleaner are individually notable. BDD (talk) 15:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nor did I. Good enough for me—it's mentioned there too. Seems like the obvious choice. --BDD (talk) 16:48, 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.
  • Not going to reopen this discussion because that's the obvious right call, but I noticed that {{R from product}} is an rcat template that doesn't categorize redirects as [un]printworthy. The docs instruct editors to add (R [un]printworthy) to the redirect. I don't know what the criteria for printworthiness is, but since this seems to be spelled correctly I think it should be printworthy. Thoughts? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Urilift[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 restore article. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the article at all. This is Wikipedia kidding the user. WolfD59 (talk) 09:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore article from this revision. Notability is very weak but there is some reliable source coverage of this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector, that's part of the Spanish Wikipedia's blocking policy. You mean this? --BDD (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, yeah. I'm doing too many things today. ¡Yo necesito más café! Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article without prejudice to an AfD if anyone so desires. Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 17 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.

Sacred (version 2)[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 snow delete. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with very unlikely disambiguator. All attribution has been moved elsewhere. Steel1943 (talk) 03:25, 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.

Allomon X[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Just Chilling (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article, and not mentioned in any other article that currently exists on this Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as does not seem to have a suitable target. Rubbish computer 11:27, 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.

Allomon[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 withdraw/keep. I'm the nominator, and I now agree with the keeps, so withdrawing. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is a good location for the redirect to target, nor do I think it is appropriate. I just recently retargeted this redirect from a location that didn't explain the redirect to the redirect's current target List of Digimon Tamers characters#Allomon. At the current time, this seems to be the only location on Wikipedia that makes any mention of this character at all. However, this location doesn't seem to identify the subject of the redirect in the least, but rather, tells of what happens to this character in the timeline of the setting that is presented in the subject of the article. For this reason, and due to lack of any better targeting options, I believe that this redirect should be deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 02:47, 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.

Sorhir[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Just Chilling (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The connection between this word and its target is unclear. It looks like it might have been a fan site of some sort, but I cannot find any accurate results for this on search engines. Steel1943 (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Giving this a second look, this may be a foreign-language redirect, but I'm not sure in what language this redirect is, so I am not sure. Steel1943 (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - From all of my searching, it looks like 'Sorhir' is somehow related to the Chinese terms about Digimon (数码宝贝 = Digimon, 数码 = 數碼 = Digital / Number Coded, 宝贝 = 寶貝 = Baby / Affectionate Object / Precious Possession / Treasure). I'm just guessing, but it appears that 'Sorhir' is some kind of forced phonetic pronunciation of something related to Digimon to which there's a better translation. At any rate, as a foreign language search term that's relatively obscure I think this redirect is just confusing. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's a joke. "Sorhir" is supposed to mean "Digimon" in Finnish. It's a contraction of "Sormihirviö", from "sormi" ("finger") and "hirviö" ("monster"), as the word digit means "finger". JIP | Talk 19:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Makes sense. In Hungarian, sörhír would mean "beer news" literally translated as Hungarian: sör, beer and Hungarian: hír, news, but it doesn't mean anything. I mention this only because both are Finno-Ugric languages but diverged such a long time in the past that any translation between the two would be meaningless and as in this case making false friends. Must be WP:FORRED. Si Trew (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. The etymology of this term is confusing at best --Lenticel (talk) 02:54, 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.

Kennedy number[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Just Chilling (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not used anywhere in the sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the reason given by the nominator. We have no evidence that this is a valid name for the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - To the extent that the terms "Kennedy number" and "Kennedy numbers" are used by anybody, it appears to reference the famous Kennedy family and especially the politics of President Kennedy. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't tell what this is. When I google "kennedy number" I get 43, which is the number of the TTC Kennedy bus. That's obviously google doing it's crazy geolocated search results thing, but it points to there being no globally notable use for this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hubert Kennedy was an American author and mathematician, but doesn't seem especially to have much to do with number theory. 43 is prime, so are an infinite number of othernatural numbers. Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe this is something akin to Erdős number? The target certainly isn't. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as does not appear to have a suitable target. Rubbish computer 11:32, 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.

Trevthich horseless carriage[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Just Chilling (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it's a quite unlikely typo/misspelling, fails CSD R3 because it is 5 years old. The only reason I came across this one is because it showed up in search results for "horseless carriage". Daß Wölf (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Nom, that being said Daß Wölf is also an unlikely typo. Si Trew (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the redirect, implausible misspelling. Keep the user, implausible users are allowed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 11:32, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_13&oldid=1138580013"