Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 3, 2015.

Cnalwa[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 Chalwa. I'm also tagging this as {{R from misspelling}}. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect makes no sense. Name is not mentioned in the article it points too. Users should be free to search for random strings of meaningless gibberish without fearing that they may be redirected to Simply Red. DanielRigal (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Chalwa. Redirect appears to have something to do with the band's Facebook page, but does not seem to appear with regards to the band in any other source, reliable or not. "Cnalwa" is a plausible redirect to Chalwa, Western Sahara, as it appears in print (see National Geographic Visual Atlas of the World, thus whether a typo or a valid alternate spelling, should redirect there rather than the band. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Chalwa per Animalparty's point. --Rubbish computer 22:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per above, as {{R from typo}}. I can see it being a typo (touch typing, it is on the same right index finger) somewhere along the line: but maybe just was misread by the National Geographic's compositor. (That link doesn't work for me, but I believe you.) Either way, that is useful. Si Trew (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Chalwa. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:35, 11 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.

Fly.[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) 15:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The period after the term is too unlikely of a typo. Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as is implausible typo, per WP:R3. Rubbish computer 22:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • del. Agreed. My fault. Forgot to ask {db-author}. - user:Altenmann >t 01:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Creator seems fine with deletion as well. --Lenticel (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's mildly annoying, but harmless. Much like a fly. -- Tavix (talk) 15:43, 5 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.

Soup de jour[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 soft redirect. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect's term is not mentioned at the target article. Wiktionary entries wikt:soupe du jour and wikt:soup du jour exist, but since this is a spelling mismatch, I don't think a redirect there would be appropriate since redirects from spelling errors don't seem to exist on Wiktionary. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Soup du jour and Soupe du jour are soft redirects to Wiktionary. They only have English entries there, though, so I am not sure how useful it is for them to be so. Soupe de jour and Soup of the day are red. Si Trew (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's been six years, I don't remember why I created the redirect. I probably just copied from Soup du jour. But, for reference, it's an actual anglicized spelling of the French term Soupe du jour [1], along with "soup du jour". Also to be noted: the soft redirects to Wiktionary for Soup du jour and Soupe du jour were just done by User:Steel1943. So if we action one, I'd action all of them together. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 21:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct. I redirected those since they have Wiktionary entries; this one does not. Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case we might as well soft retarget to Wiktionary, as for the others. Si Trew (talk) 04:56, 4 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.

Caldo de res[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) 15:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the name of a soup/stew that I sort of know and is probably notable enough for its own article (WP:REDLINK). However, as it stands, the redirect's subject is not mentioned in its target article. Steel1943 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. the DAB at Caldo lists plenty of other caldos that do have their own articles, so no reason why this one couldn't have ([res] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) is the correct spelling, but I wouldn't be hung up about the spelling were there a descent retarget). Beef soup, Mexican beef soup and Mexican beef stew are all red; Beef stew is blue but I'm not recommending this as an {{R from other language|es}}, even though literally that would probably be OK. Si Trew (talk) 17:15, 3 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.

Soup vegetables[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) 15:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect's target doesn't seem to go into enough detail about the redirect's subject enough for this to be a helpful redirect. I'd say "delete per WP:REDLINK", but I don't think there will ever be an article created for this, and there may be a good retargeting option in an article related to "vegetable". Steel1943 (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it seems veering on WP:NOTRECIPE. It seems a tautology: what vegetables could one not put in a soup? WP:CONCISE, also WP:SINGULAR, we don't have Soup vegetable. It's an orphan. Stats server is down right now so I can't check that. It has been around since 2006, though. Si Trew (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of soups for the time being, it is mentioned there. I think the soup article should include soup based on vegetable ingredients, it has a section about fruit soups, which I assume are less common. Maybe I'll work on adding a section there, if I feel inclined.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:23, 3 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.

Nutritious soup[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) 15:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase is not mentioned in the target article, and seems like a WP:NPOV violation. Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why should Healthy soup → Soup#Vegetable soup? Why would a vegetable soup inherently be healthy (and, as implication by omission, other soups unhealthy)? It would suffer the same WP:NPOV problem, only moreso: at leat with "nutritious soup", since all soups contain nutrients, that is merely tautological in its strictest sense. Si Trew (talk) 08:47, 4 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.

Crucal[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 really could've gone either way, but I think the discussion demonstrates the potential confusion this could cause as long as it's blue. --BDD (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to find the connection between the subject of the redirect (if it even exists) and a leg. Alternately, I was thinking of this possibly being a misspelling of "Crucial", but that page is a disambiguation page, so I don't think that location would be a proper retarget. Steel1943 (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ivanvector: I'm just not a fan of misspellings targeting disambiguation pages due to the possibility that the term may be purposely searched by its spelling looking for a specific subject. However, I'm neutral on the whole ordeal if consensus states otherwise. Steel1943 (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean, thanks for explaining. If there isn't an exact-match target for "crucal", and it's a plausible misspelling for "crucial", I think the potential for harm is low. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget as above. I am with Steel1943 that Rs from misspellings to DABs are weathercocks pointing in all directions. Had this gone to the crux of the matter I would agree, but it seems patent to me that this means the tendons etc of the leg bone. Crucial (anatomy) is red; so is Crucal (anatomy): crux is a heavenly body, and crux (disambiguation) to which it hatnotes is no help. 21:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)
Çomment". PS I fixed my laptop so now I have four kb layouts, hungarian, us, ukk and belgian, and four physical keyboards to go with them, so please forgive obvious slips while I get used to the US layout, not used that one in a while. Si Trew (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It’s a misspelling of “crural”. Gorobay (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Gorobay's explanation is more plausible than a misspelling of crucial. Perhaps @Skysmith: might have an opinion as creator of the redirect. I'm inclined to keep the redirect, tag it as misspelling and perhaps add hidden comment on the redirect with rationale. older ≠ wiser 18:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a bit of Googling, there's some evidence for it as misspelling for either crural or crucial. As such, it might be better as a redlink.older ≠ wiser 18:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't actually remember all about the redirect except that it was related to my missing topics page about Anatomy. Hence the redirect to leg which, in hindsight, is not entirely obvious. In this case I think Gorobay's explanation is probably right, since the original term was possibly a typo in my original list of words. - Skysmith (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is a misspelling for a couple of different words. There'll be confusion no matter where we put it. (See also: hippocite). -- Tavix (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2, it will cause confusion redirecting anywhere through being a misspelling of several different words.--Rubbish computer 22:46, 3 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.

Piranshahr of Mokrian[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 deleted by User:Reaper Eternal. Alakzi (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Piranshahr of Mokrian" isn't the name of anything. Alakzi (talk) 13:56, 3 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.

Vikas.Gupta[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) 15:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible search term for Vikas Gupta. Lakun.patra (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that it should be deleted. Can't imagine anyone pressing . on their way to pressing the space button. Dakaryammer
    stuff done     11:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible typo. Rubbish computer 12:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:R3 could apply as it was just created today. I'd like to take this moment to point out the irony in this situation: someone who uses a dot as a space in their username nominates a redirect that uses a dot instead of a space. -- Tavix (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed that. Unfortunately the irony is not complete as we haven't Vikas.gupta. Si Trew (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't argue to keep this, as it's so new, but in general, period for a space is one of my most common typos. It's always on my iPhone, but mobile readers are an important constituency for us to consider. --BDD (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: I have an iPhone and I don't think I've ever made that typo. Out of curiosity, how do you do that? To make a period, you have to either go to another page or do the "double-space" shortcut, but even then, it creates a period+space, never just a period. -- Tavix (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, as I look more into this it seems less likely. This only happens in Chrome and only when I'm using the URL/search bar, where a period key ends up next to the space. So lots of searches like "football.scores". But that wouldn't be a concern here. Now, on a standard computer keyboard, the period isn't so far away from the space bar, so there's that too. --BDD (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes sense. I have the Chrome app but I literally only use it if I've exceeded my max number of tabs on Safari (which has only happened a couple times). I just loaded it up and sure enough, it was sitting there right next to the keyboard. -- Tavix (talk) 20:15, 5 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.

Kristina Pliskova[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. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina is "not =" Kristyna. 333-blue 08:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obviously keep, to help aid the searcher to find the article what they were looking for. "Kristýna" is not your typical English name, having this redirect is just as useful as Kristyna Pliskova for Kristýna Plíšková since not everyone has diacritics on their keyboard. Jared Preston (talk) 11:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. I've tagged it as {{R from incorrect spelling}} and {{R from title without diacritics}}updated Si Trew (talk) 04:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC). Not only doesn't everyone have the diacritics easily accessible, but English-language news sources would not normally publish with the diacritical marks, so it's unsurprising people would search without them – and many people would not realise their significance, if they have learned e.g. Spanish where they are used as stress marks and their absence often does not change a word's meaning. Si Trew (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Aids navigation of the encyclopedia, redirects without diacritic marks are routinely made. Rubbish computer 12:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tangential discussion on when to use {{R to diacritics}}
@Rubbish computer: Perhaps now, but that is because of a wording change in the template documentation: which I don't read regularly (I have kinda abandoned my watchlist, if it is even on there.)
With this edit of 19 October 2014, User:Paine Ellsworth changed (among other things) a few words from "<big>exact same</big> title" (which this isn't) to "essentially the same title" (which this is). I'm happy with that change, since it did seem overly restrictive, but I can't see any consensus for it on its talk page: @Paine Ellsworth:, could you comment on that? Si Trew (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my humble opinion, both rcats would apply in this case – it's essentially the same title without diacritics that is misspelled. This redirect is also a good search term – both misspellings and sans diacritical marks are used extensively on this project, so it should be kept. – Paine  17:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All agreed, but that wasn't my point: I was asking where there's evidence for making the change from "exact same title" to "essentially the same title". I didn't suggest {{R from title without diacritics}} because, having not read that template documentation for a while, I was still under the impression it only applied to "exact same". Si Trew (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, that was altered to be in line with what editors had done in the past. It had initially been a much broader description that I had changed to "exact same title", but after checking some of the category entries, I found that "exact same" was too narrow a description. I then loosened it a bit. I'll be glad to discuss other options on the rcat talk page(s). – Paine  22:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, as I said, it's fine by me: I agree with you "exact same" was too tight. There is a more general problem with these rcat docs in that the template documentation says one thing, but there's no kinda general guidance page on when to use which (i.e. category documentation). While sometimes it is obvious, it could be better in edge cases like this.
I know the talk page would have been a more appropriate place and this is a bit off-topic: but as discussed recently elsewhere, talk pages often are not looked at (and one has to have knowledge the page even exists to look at its talk page), so a centralised discussion format is fine here for what is essentially a WP:BRD without the need or desire for me to revert. We could move this conversation to the talk page, if you want. Si Trew (talk) 04:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, this is okay since it's been collapsed and we both appear to be in agreement. Of course, the talk page of a given rcat might be better if you wish to provide more details about what you feel is needed. I watch all of them, and if I don't respond quickly enough, then just ping me. – Paine  10:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is just to make it "official" as I unofficially !voted in the collapsed discussion. As both a misspelling and a redirect to diacritics, this is a double-barrelled good search term and so should be kept. – Paine  20:16, 4 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.

Ringli[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 11#Ringli

Munkkeja[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) 15:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED; donuts are not exclusive to Finnish. Steel1943 (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and also because fi:Munkkeja does not exist. Their article is at fi:Munkki (leivonnainen); wikt:munkki tells me that "munkkeja" is the partitive plural, which appears to mean, roughly, "some of the donuts" (or alternatively, "some of the monks"). Even if some foreign redirects are worth keeping, ones that aren't in the usual case which that language uses for dictionary/encyclopedia headwords (e.g. nominative singular) really don't belong on English Wikipedia. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 10:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points. Rubbish computer 14:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Sideways713 (talk) 22:25, 3 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.

Garakjibbang[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) 15:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED; doughnuts aren't exclusive to Korean. Also, due to the fact that this redirect has incoming links, this topic could be notable by itself (WP:REDLINK). Steel1943 (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:FORRED. (Not per WP:REDLINK I think; AFAIK this is not a variety of doughnut, simply the North Korean neologism for doughnuts in general. The sole incoming link is from list of doughnut varieties, where "garakjibbang" gets a bare & unsourced mention.) 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, though it is a fantastic word. Si Trew (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: 'Garakjibbang' is an amazing word as SimonTrew said, but I doubt anyone would search for the North Korean word for donut on the English Wikipedia. Dakaryammer
    stuff done     11:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Rubbish computer 14:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: 58.176.246.42 (an IP that contributes to RfD pages) has removed the link in List of doughnut varieties, stating that this is a word for doughnut in a foreign language rather than a variety link, reinforcing my decision here. Rubbish computer 14:42, 3 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.

Fried cakes[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 List of fried dough foods. --BDD (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donuts are not the only cakes that are fried. Also, Fried cake doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. Should be its own WP:BROADCONCEPT article. Doughnuts are deep-fried, but kuih also mentions numerous fried varieties, torrijas are fried (though I'm not sure if they qualify as cake), birthday cakes can be dipped in batter and further fried after being baked (most of the Google News hits seem to be about that), etc. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. If anything, pancake would almost by definition seem the nearest we have to the broad concept of a fried cake, but I think that only covers shallow-fried ones.
Also, we don't have Fried cake, so this is dangling a bit. Si Trew (talk) 07:25, 3 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.

Ape extinction[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 11#Ape extinction

White Crocodile[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) 14:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in the article. This subject may be notable to have an article as a separate subject. Also, at this title, there was previously an article that was redirected due to being a copyright violation. Steel1943 (talk) 06:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete google says that this is a novel with lots of reviews. This might fall under WP:REDLINK --Lenticel (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing or very unlikely synonym. --Lenticel (talk) 08:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G11 as promoting this novel: this seems identical to #FlykydFly. I am going to be bold and CSD it myself. Rubbish computer 14:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Rubbish computer: While I agree this should probably be deleted, it's not quite the same as #FlykydFly. FlykydFly is very specific and really has no other use or meaning than promotion. White Crocodile is a bit ambiguous as it could refer to the literature, and albino crocodile, etc. Interestingly enough the albino article has pictures of albino alligators. Maybe retargeting this there would be useful.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:12, 3 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.

FlykydFly[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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pseudonym used by a YouTube video creator, who is not a fly. (I thought this could be eligible for some sort of speedy deletion criterion, but I could not find an applicable criterion.) Steel1943 (talk) 06:04, 3 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.

Ecological importance of bees[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) 14:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current target of this redirect seem to not WP:PRECISE-ly describe this subject enough. By my judgement, I'm unable to determine a suitable section redirect in Bee, and am unsure if there are any suitable retargetting options. Steel1943 (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:XY. Pollination mentions bees a lot, but by no means are all (or even most) pollinators bees, nor all (or most) bee species pollinators. Si Trew (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK since this is a rather relevant economic and ecological issue. I think the closest target would be Pollinator decline but that article focuses on other pollinators such as bumblebees as well. --Lenticel (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PRECISE, and WP:REDLINK as there is potential for article creation here. Rubbish computer 14:53, 3 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.

Using epsom salt to reduce methane production by cows[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) 14:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHOWTO. Also, there is no information about how to do this at the target anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion at Talk:Cattle#Environmental impact, and a section at Cattle#Environmental impact which discusses options for reducing methane, but Epsom salt (→ Magnesium sulfide) is not one of them, "diet modification" (not linked) being about the nearest we get (assuming that is how the epsom salt is administered). Si Trew (talk) 08:03, 3 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.

Arc of Iris[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 11#Arc of Iris

Basic run[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) 14:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned at the target, and the phrase seems too ambiguous to refer to any specific subject. Steel1943 (talk) 05:33, 3 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.

What do frogs eat[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) 14:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFAQ. Steel1943 (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteper nom. Rubbish computer 15:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTFAQ per nom -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above, and extremely vague anyway. Section Frog#Adults does cover it mostly, though: "Almost all frog species are carnivorous as adults, preying on invertebrates, including arthropods, worms, snails, and slugs. A few of the larger ones may eat other frogs, small mammals, and fish. [...] A few species also eat plant matter". Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 4 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.

Mbuzi[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) 14:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED; goats are not exclusive to Swahili. Steel1943 (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I always think of FORRED as "Foreign [language] links should be red". RFFL just makes me think of WP:ROFL. Si Trew (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. This general topic has no particular affinity for any language -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been suggested for deletion. WilyD 09:36, 7 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.

Khota[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) 14:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED; donkeys aren't exclusive to the Punjabi language. Steel1943 (talk) 04:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This also appears to be an alternative spelling of the Kannada word for counterfeit and the Aymara word for lake, neither of which is a more appropriate target than this one. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 04:45, 3 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.

Breeds of horse?[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 complicated. Essentially I'm following Montanabw's plan, as in these diffs. It seems like there's a good deal of agreement about how to proceed here, as tangled as this has all become. The only thing I'm still shying away from is how to represent these in articles. That I would rather leave to the horse and taxonomy experts. I'm happy to deputize in some of that work if desired; feel free to contact me.

Don't even hesitate to renominate any of these if you want them discussed individually, but maybe keep the batches to no more than five. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in horses in the least, but my best assumption is that all of these redirects are breeds of either wild or domesticated horse. However, this doesn't really help the average Wikipedia reader when these names (specifically the 3rd word in these redirects) are not found in the target article. There is a possibility that the target article may be the only suitable place to explain these topics due to possibly having very little information on them, but as it stands, none of these have any mention in the article, and thus, should probably be deleted per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: they're synonyms (taxonomy). The infobox cites "at least 48 published" which makes sense because there are 48 redirects nominated. I'm pretty sure we keep synonyms but I'd like to do more research before I officially !vote. -- Tavix (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: Maybe create List of horse synonyms, link all of these redirects there, then either delete all of these redirects or retarget all of the redirects there? (I'm okay with either option if this page is created, but I would still prefer deletion in case articles could be created for these individual subjects, but I'm still not sure if there is enough information out there for this to be possible.) Steel1943 (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer not to do that because the redirects keep links blue - redlinks draw someone with a copy of 1911 Britannica from creating some of them again... the redirect creator went a little overboard, but the concept was to kill some stubs. Also, see equidae and equus (genus) which contain some lists, and evolution of the horse, which discusses some of the extinct taxa. Montanabw(talk) 07:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still unsure where I stand on this. You wouldn't make articles from these, they're synonyms, not distinct breeds. I also don't really see the value in a list of horse synonyms article because they're usually listed in the infobox (see the infobox on dog, for example) and I don't really know how much more information you would need besides the name, year, and person. I was looking for a previous discussion on taxonomic synonyms as a precedent, but was unable to locate one. If they're considered "novel or very obscure" synonyms, WP:RFD#D8 would apply, but I'm hesitant to label them in this manner. Steel1943: Would you mind if I contacted WP:TREE so we can get the advice of taxonomy experts? -- Tavix (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: About contacting WP:TREE: Go for it. This whole conversation we have had thus far is even making me unsure what to do with these redirects now. Steel1943 (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. I just wanted to make sure you wouldn't consider it a WP:CANVASS because I have a feeling they might (generally) be in favor of keeping them. We shall see. -- Tavix (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, at this point, I wouldn't consider requesting outside help WP:CANVASS-ing, especially since someone from there might know of a precedent that neither of us do. Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That, and if the precedent is to "keep" such redirects, the list of all 48 of these, in my opinion, should be added to the infobox (even if the list needs to be collapsed) to avoid confusion with why readers were led there. Steel1943 (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are archaic and inaccurate, but some in a lot of older books about horses. See the History of horse domestication theories I linked to below. The known-real ones are at Template:Equidae_extinct_nav. I think that the above may have been a part of this project: Template:Equus, which Montanabw(talk) 07:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure these are not breeds (such usually do not get scientific names) but proposed subspecies that are now considered identical (as junior synonyms) to E.f. caballus. Therefore, redirects are appropriate. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all and elucidate, as the synonyms appear in literature and are valid search terms. It would be informative to have a discreet (e.g collapsible) list of synonyms somewhere in the article: probably not in Taxobox, where it would be unwieldy, but perhaps the Taxonomy and evolution section. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure these are "breeds", or more precisely, landraces (a term which is hard to define precisely, see extensive discussion last year at the landrace talk page). Look at all of the geographic names: arabicus, brittanicus, germanicus, helveticus, italicus, and nipponicus. Nipponicus really stands out, as I'm pretty certain there were no horses in Japan until humans brought them there. Breeds/landraces don't usually get scientific names now, but they may have been given a scientific name in the past. Scientific names have been around longer than the concept of landraces. The only three with further details at MSW (see here) are sylvaticus, sylvestris and tanghan, and all three of these are nomina nuda and thus can't be used as scientific names. At least some of these have been treated as full species (I'm finding a few mid 19th century books referring to Equus mongolicus), so if we're going for a full set of synonym redirects for horses, more will need to be created. It is even possible that some of these strings don't even exist in the literature. Something may have been recognized as a full species by a handful of authors, but treated as a synonym of domestic horses by all others, with nobody actually recognizing it as a subspecies and using the subspecies name. If these are kept, they really should all be checked to ensure that they have been recognized as subspecies at some point. I'm generally in favor of having redirects from synonyms, but I don't think there's any great harm in deleting this set. The nomina nuda should really remain obscure; I think I favor deleting them. Plantdrew (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they were proposed subspecies - see my comment below. Montanabw(talk) 07:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A little more detail. The way these were created from MSW was bad. All MSW says that mongolicus is a synonym of Equus ferus caballus. While that statement does indicate that Equus mongolicus, Equus ferus mongolicus and Equus caballus mongolicus would all be considered synonyms of the domestic horse, it doesn't indicate that any one of those three strings actually appears in the literature. Maybe all three do, maybe only one does. Thanks to the Principle of Coordination, if these names can be said to "exist" in a sense even without ever appearing in the literature. It's best to verify that they all have appeared in the literature. Plantdrew (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, it's worse than I thought. Some of these are apparently landraces, but some are fossils, and I'm not sure whether the fossils should redirect here, be treated as synonyms of Equus ferus, or should be recognized as subspecies of E. ferus (I'm not sure that MSW is very trustworthy for fossil taxa). So far I've checked the latter half of the alphabet (starting with hippagrus). Equus caballus tanghan, Equus caballus sinensis, Equus caballus nipponicus,Equus caballus midlandensis and Equus caballus lalisio don't appear in the literature (at least what's available on the internet); they do appear as full species (e.g. Equus tanghan). It's not immediately clear whether nipponicus is a fossil (I may be wrong about no pre-human horses in Japan). Silvaticus, germanicus, sequanius, robustus and midlandensis are all fossils, and sequanicus might be as well. Pallas appears to be a synonym for Przewalski's horse, and muninensis may be ancestral to Przewalski's horse (and maybe a fossil?). Equus caballus hippagrus doesn't appear in the literature (only appears as a full species), is a fossil, and may be a synonym for Equus asinus. I think it's best to delete all of the ones I've mentioned here, and may be best to delete the whole lot. I'll check the rest a little later for any other serious problems. Plantdrew (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think deleting the whole lot rather than keeping or retargeting would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The fact that MSW lists them all as synonyms is reason enough to keep them, even though some may authorities may disagree or have individual quibbles. We as Wikipedians should not be judging the veracity of sources assumed to be reliable. Maybe some synonyms are regarded valid by some, which could possibly be explained or footnoted in the future (MSW notes at least two are nomina nuda, and see the comments under Equus caballus). Under the KISS principle, I think it's better to keep and explain (perhaps retargeting to a section within the existing article, e.g. Horse#synonyms) rather than hem and haw over each entry, until the point where enough new content can be added to merit re-targetting an individual redirect to a different article. For a general encyclopedia (not a taxonomic monograph), I see no harm in keeping the redirects. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I take your point on the fossils and Przewalski synonyms. But surely Wikipedia shouldn't be inventing trinomials that don't appear in the literature. Plantdrew (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've now checked the remainder. The problematic ones are:
  • gutsenensis apparently ancestral or synonymous to Prezewalski's
  • gracilis fossil
  • germanicus fossil
  • gallicus fossil
  • equuleus fossil, doesn't appear in literature as a subspecies
  • bohemicus doesn't appear in literature as a subspecies
  • agilis one Google book hit as subspecies, mostly appears as species
There's scant information for some that I haven't listed; I can't be sure I've caught all the fossils. Given that gutsenensis, pallas and muninensis appear to be more relevant to Przewalski's horse than the domestic horse, I'm not inclined to trust MSW's synonymy of the fossil taxa. Plantdrew (talk) 20:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Equus caballus bohemicus, Equus caballus equuleus, Equus caballus hippagrus, Equus caballus lalisio, Equus caballus midlandensis, Equus caballus nipponicus, Equus caballus sinensis and Equus caballus tanghan. Keep the rest and list them in the article's taxobox. The redirects I've listed for deletion are not scientific names that appear in the literature. Binomial forms of these names (i.e. without an interpolated caballus) do exist in the literature. It may be appropriate to create redirects for these binomial forms. It may also be appropriate to create redirects for binomial forms of many of the other 40 Equus caballus ... trinomials included in Steel1943's request for discussion. Any incoming redirects to horse which are synonymous scientific names should be listed in the synonyms section of the taxobox. Plantdrew (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most per Plantdrew, delete the ones proposed, and possibly the rest, particularly to Equus (genus). These are mostly anachronistic names of historical interest; proposed taxonomic classifications that never panned out; at the turn of the 20th century, there was a lot of interest in the concept of multiple subspecies of horse giving rise to different-looking domestic breeds (For example, aficionados of the Arabian horse tried to argue it was a unique subspecies descended from a fictional equus agilis Several UK pony breeds make similar claims, molecular data showed that those subspecies don't exist and that the breeds do not make nice clusters). Turned out to be mostly nonsense, but there were many "learned treatises" expounding various theories. See, e.g. History of horse domestication theories. Another good reason to keep is due to the extensive cleanup that we did a few years back to get rid of redlinked stubs on some of these - keeping here avoids having redlinks tempting someone to create or recreate useless stub articles. Montanabw(talk) 06:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most per Plantdrew & Montanabw. These need (where they exist in the old literature) to remain as redirs, or someone will write wrong new articles at them eventually. There would be nothing encyclopedic in listifying these things. We don't need a List of invalid and rejected synonyms of Equus caballus; it would be pointless WP:TRIVIA. PS, to nom: Don't assume. There's no such thing as a "breed" of wild animal. The term only applies to domesticates. If you're not familiar with a topic area, it's rarely a good idea to nominate a bunch of stuff for deletion in it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that it was a bad idea to nominate these. They weren't mentioned in the article, so their purpose was unclear. The redirects' purposes were clarified though the course of this discussion. Without his clarification, the average reader would have looked up these terms, and been completely confused on why they arrived there (as I did.) I do agree that the list article is no longer necessary, but as alluded above, still believe that whichever nominated redirects that are kept should be mentioned in the article in one way or another. Steel1943 (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. The taxobox is the most likely place for most, unless redirected to a specific breed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no list article for these; we could redirect to evolution of the horse instead of horse, though they won't be mentioned there, either. SMc is right, they are archaic, some mere theorized types that never actually existed. Montanabw(talk) 06:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the redirects are fossils that may be ancestral to/taxonomic synonyms of domestic horses. Others are putative breeds/land races/subspecies/whatever? of domestic horses. Names published by Skorkowski, Desmarest, and Sanson seem to fall on the "land race" side. If the redirects under discussion are listed in the taxobox, would it be worthwhile to separate the fossil names from the land race names? Plantdrew (talk) 06:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right. They need to be sorted out and redirected more precisely, not trashed. Those that are junior synonyms of horse, and rejected ones, can be added as such to the bottom of the taxobox. It's important that we retain them as redirs or people may try to create articles at them by mistake (or weird design). I'd be strongly in favor of separating fossil and landrace designations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Montanabw and SMcCandlish, could you clarify which of these you want kept and which you want deleted? Are you in agreement with Plantdrew? --BDD (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll defer to Montanabw and Plantdrew on which are what when it comes to horses; I don't have the refs handy for that species. Re: "Binomial forms of these names (i.e. without an interpolated caballus) do exist in the literature" – I think what's happened is someone observed that some species and subspecies had been reclassified and assumed something like "oh, any Equus foo can also be written Equus caballus foo" and innocently created some fake ones, which we can delete. Plantdrew seems to have tracked those down. "Does not exist in reliable literature" is a good enough deletion criterion, but "only exists in old lit." is not, since people will use old lit. to try to find stuff here, and even add it if it's missing. In cases where specific breeds have been given now-rejected taxonomic names in the lit., I guess they should be mentioned somewhere in these articles as invalid taxa, but without dwelling on them, per WP:UNDUE. I would not want to see them in the lead or in the infobox of a breed (or landrace), since it may inspire confusion or mischief. "Ooh! It's speciating!"

      Semi-specifically: Where an invalid or junior name is not tied to a breed (or a landrace) about which we have an article, send it to Horse; where an invalid name is tied to a breed, send it to the breed article; where it's valid and a fossil send it to Equus, or if ancestral to one or the other in particular then to Evolution of the horse or Przewalski's horse or whatever, and mention it it as ancestral. Invalid ones should be tagged with {{R from incorrect name}}, and junior synonyms with {{R from alternative scientific name}}.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a taxonomist, but I can suggest what should go where. Montanabw(talk) 17:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC):[reply]
1) History of horse domestication theories, is definitely where the proposed but debunked variant "ancestors" of the domesticated e. ferus caballus need to redirect. Those "debunked" ones mentioned in old texts that should be retargeted to this article (as they are mentioned there) include:

  • Equus caballus agilis
  • Equus caballus germanicus
  • Equus caballus midlandensis
  • Equus caballus pumpelli
  • Equus caballus silvaticus

Also, many subspecies listed as "Desmarest 1822", (these are sooo "let's make each breed a subspecies") including:

  • Equus caballus arabicus
  • Equus caballus anglicus
  • Equus caballus frisius
  • Equus caballus helveticus
  • Equus caballus italicus
  • Equus caballus moldavicus
  • Equus caballus persicus
  • Equus caballus sequanicus
  • Equus caballus sequanius
  • Equus caballus tataricus
  • Equus caballus transylvanicus (vampire horse? Really?)

2) Any subspecies listed at Equus_(genus)#All_species_and_subspecies should redirect there, but nothing on the list above is mentioned at that article. 3) Nothing looks like a proposed evolutionary subspecies in North America, but whether validated or not, these probably need to redirect to Evolution of the horse:

4) Some were proposed classifications for the Tarpan or the Przewalski and should redirect accordingly:

  • To Przewalski's horse: --> If Plantdrew is right
  • Equus caballus gutsenensis
  • Equus caballus pallas
  • Equus caballus muninensis

5) To Tarpan:

  • Equus caballus mongolicus (a guess)

Plantdrew is right that a few of these appear to be just plain made up, but not sure if we can toss, as someone - not us - did create the name (see below) Anything not in any other wiki article, above I'd send to wild horse and tag {{R from incorrect name}}

That leaves, for the rest of you to research (I'll list with the source):

  • africanus Sanson, 1878
  • aryanus Piétrement, 1875
  • asiaticus Sanson, 1878
  • belgius Sanson, 1878
  • bohemicus Marchlewlski, 1924
  • brittanicus Sanson, 1878
  • celticus Ewart, 1903
  • cracoviensis Storkowski, 1946
  • domesticus Gmelin, 1788 --> I think that could redirect to horse
  • equuleus C. H. Smith, 1841
  • europaeus Stegmann von Pritzwald, 1924
  • ewarti Storkowski, 1946
  • gallicus Fitzinger, 1858
  • gracilis Ewart, 1909
  • hibernicus Fitzinger, 1859
  • hippagrus C. H. Smith, 1841
  • lalisio C. H. Smith, 1841
  • libycus Ridgeway, 1905
  • muninensis Storkowski, 1946
  • nehringi Duerst, 1904
  • nipponicus Shikama and Onuki, 1962
  • nordicus Skorkowski, 1933
  • pallas Skorkowski, 1933
  • parvus Franck, 1875
  • robustus Fitzinger, 1859
  • sinensis Fitzinger, 1858
  • sylvestris von den Brincken, 1828
  • tanghan Gray, 1846
  • typicus Ewart, 1904
  • varius S. D. W., 1836

Everything above we can't find another home for probably just needs to redirect to wild horse, not horse; They are all pre-domestication proposed variants, legit or not. See quick source I suggest not adding to the infobox, as it is in a GA-class article and simply says "at least 48 published" with a source to the 2005 work, excerpted above. Montanabw(talk) 18:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just an idea: How about adding the applicable variants to the infobox, but in a collapsible/hidden list so that it didn't flood the page? Steel1943 (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Do this. It's pretty typical to collapse taxonomic synonyms when there are a lot of them. Plantdrew (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please no, because at least half of them are scientific bullshit and not subspecies that ever existed. This was actually a discussion when we were taking horse to GA, the POV_pushing (later blocked and socked and blocked again) editor who created all those redirects tried to derail the GAN over it. The consensus was to simply note and footnote. Montanabw(talk) 21:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just meant any that remain as redirects to Horse. No need to mention the debunked ones, and am I reading you correctly that Desmarest's "subspecies" should redirect to the domestication theories article? Plantdrew (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My inital search was pretty cursory. Looking into it a little further Equus caballus pallas appears twice in Google Books, both times apparently as a synonym/scientific name for Przewalski's horse, so should be redirected there. Equus caballus muninensis appears mostly in books written in languages I don't speak but seems to be in contexts related to this study which proposed that Przewalski's horse was a mixture of E. c. muninensis, E. c. nordicus, E. c. ewarti and E. c. cracoviensis; I'm not sure about the status of those 4 names, but presumably they should all be handled in the same way (all are authored by Storkowski). Muninensis should probably not redirect to Przewalski's horse. Gutsenensis should redirect to Prezewalski's, see here and here.
I'd personally redirect them all to Przewalski, then, with R from incorrect name. Montanabw(talk) 21:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The ones I've suggested deleting haven't actually been created by anyone. These redirects were apparently sourced from the synonymy list given at Mammal Species of the World. At MSW, synonyms are listed merely as foo, with no indication whether they appear in the literature as Equus foo, or Equus caballus foo, or in both forms (or even other permutations such as Equus ferus foo). The ones I suggested deleting do appear in the literature as Equus foo, but I was unable to find any sources that had them as Equus caballus foo. It's possible the Equus caballus foo forms exist in sources that aren't available on the internet, but that is of course difficult to verify. Plantdrew (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the next time someone copies the MSW list. But I see your distinction between Equus foo, or Equus caballus foo - actually, by that standard, they all could be tossed... Do we have the Equus foo versions of all, already? Montanabw(talk) 21:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of the Equus foo versions exist as redirects. I'm not sure which, if any, would be worth creating. Plantdrew (talk) 22:48, 11 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:Votes for deletion/Indian proverbs[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 and move (Steel1943's solution). --BDD (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page was moved, but not sure why it was redirected. - TheChampionMan1234 03:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: BDD addressed my request in their comment below. Steel1943 (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the VfD discussion page to the equivalent AfD location, and repoint this there. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The VFD is most likely contained somewhere in the deleted history of Talk:List of Indian proverbs. The first deletion discussions happened on the page's talk page rather than a separate discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ping BDD as he's probably the most active admin in this neck of the woods. I agree that it's best to wait until we know the history. -- Tavix (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: Wouldn't it be better to move it to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Indian proverbs because it was called VfD back then? It seems a little anachronistic to move it to AfD. -- Tavix (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: It would make sense for that to be created as a redirect to my proposed AFD page, but not the name. I mean, if a page by this name is nominated for deletion again, it would be helpful for the page to be in the AFD space for a reference, and so that the page titled Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian proverbs (2nd nomination) can be automatically created with no issues. (Basically, it's archive organization.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At some point, all VfD pages were moved to AfD titles. So we could move to a VfD title, then move to AfD, to mimic that process. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just independently verified that. I guess I never noticed that before so never mind what I said... -- Tavix (talk) 20:43, 3 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.

Writing program[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) 14:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'program' does not always mean a computer program, and could refer to an academic program, training, etc, and writing SOFTWARE is not always synonymous with a text editor. - TheChampionMan1234 03:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A text editor isn't even the only kind of software used for writing -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ambiguous. A writing program could mean a product such as Word or a course to improve ones writing among other things.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 08:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:XY. Could mean a correspondence course whether to improve one's writing or anything else; could mean computer programming, or 101 other things. From a search, it seems more commonly to be a course offered by universities to improve students' general writing style or their creative writing. No articles link to it, no history after creation at this target, stats are well below the bot noise threshhold at about once every five days on average. Si Trew (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 15:01, 3 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.

Koekje[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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non language specific topic. - TheChampionMan1234 02:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, mentioned in the article: "Its American name derives from the Dutch word koekje." -- Tavix (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • However the topic itself has little relation to the Dutch language, and who would search the English wikipedia for this, anyway? --- TheChampionMan1234 05:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's related to the history and etymology of the Cookie, which is good enough for me. With WP:RFOREIGN, we usually delete when there isn't an affinity between the subject matter and the language/culture, but there is a connection in this case because the word "cookie" is borrowed and Anglicized from the Dutch. -- Tavix (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the etymology argument is valid: WP:NOTDIC. That being said, we do seem to have some when there is explanation at the target: napron → apron, for example, was the second one I tried that did so (the first, noumpere, and the third, norange, are red). wikt:koekje has a Dutch entry, and links to wikt:cookie in its "Descendants" section. Si Trew (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Taken to extremes, we'd have redirects for every stage in every word's etymology (foreign or not), which would be patently WP:NOTDIC. However, I can see some merit when there is explanation beyond what Wiktionary says; for example wikt:cookie does not give dates of first use. The remedy there, though, is to add that information to Wiktionary. Si Trew (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was explicitly don't know on this one (but open to bribes). Si Trew (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)struck Si Trew (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*gives a cookie to Si Trew --Lenticel (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. --Lenticel (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Rubbish computer 15:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine to Cookie#Etymology as {{R to section}}. WP:BOLDly I've added a {{wikt}} there. My minimum bribe level is now two cookies Si Trew (talk) 06:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tighten focus to section per Si Trew. This is a very good copy-and-paste type search term for non-Dutch writers. – Paine  21:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unambiguously directs readers to the content they're looking for, no rationale has been suggested for deletion. WilyD 09:37, 7 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.

Ys vs. Sora no Kiseki: Alternative saga[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) 14:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Falcom had told those games were not the same game. First, Ys is an RPG game used the adventure system. However, Sora no kiseki used the chess system. They're NOT the same game. I don't know which has played this game or not. But Falcom have tested, Ys vs. Sora no Kiseki: Alternative Saga is a grapple game. Why it just a redirect? --WKDx417 (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. About 70 GNews hits in Japanese (イースvs.空の軌跡) and 20 in English, suggesting it may pass WP:N. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 58's points. Rubbish computer 01:48, 3 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.

Ji'erjisisitan[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) 14:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to romanised Chinese. - TheChampionMan1234 00:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 00:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:RFD#D8 per nom. Actual Chinese speakers write in Chinese characters, and none ever created 吉爾吉斯斯坦 or 吉尔吉斯斯坦, suggesting no one finds such redirects useful. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 01:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Delete This is English Wikipedia, NOT Chinese Wikipedia. Neither Chinese chars nor pinyin can be used into English Wikipedia. --WKDx417 (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unambiguously directs readers to the content they're looking for, no reason has been suggested for deletion. Nominating redirects for deletion without providing any reason we might want to delete them is extremely unproductive and uncollaborative behaviour. WilyD 09:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D8, which is a reason for deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. Steel1943 (talk) 22:09, 10 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.

Manual geomorphological modification implement[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) 14:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely implausible misnomer, but not CSD because it is not recent. I understand that there exists a link from WP:SPADE to this, but it can be replaced with a piped link without problems. MopSeeker FoxThree! 02:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it's not implausible, since it is actually in use. [2][3][4] -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete (and perhaps salt). I should have thought the whole point of its use in WP:SPADE, together with Combat emplacement evacuator is that they should be WP:REDLINK: otherwise SPADE is saying "do as I say, not as I do" (hypocrisy). Without doubt they would not be kept were it not for their use in that articleessay. This kind of polysyllabic humour, as Fowler calls it, is not encyclopaedic. The references given all deprecate obfuscated language: they are not used outside of that context. Si Trew (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Why on earth would you type Manual geomorphological modification implement instead of Spade? Rubbish computer 15:03, 3 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_3&oldid=1116290297"