Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 29, 2015.

Bob Verini[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. I'll quote the last sentence of the nutshell of WP:N: "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." If there was such a thing as a "strong keep" verdict, this would be one. --BDD (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Game show contestant does not meet WP:N. Target of redirect was removed from List of Jeopardy! contestants. AldezD (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, and trout-slap to AldezD: Aldez first removed the Verini section from the Jeopardy article, and then demanded that this should be deleted. For starters, I see no effort by Aldez to ascertain the notability of Verini. This quick Google Books search suggests that there is ample sourcing for Verini's run on Jeopardy! For second, there's no reason he has to pass WP:N, as he's not a standalone article. I have readded the Verini section to the Jeopardy! contestants article, with references, so there's no reason at all for the redirect to be deleted. pbp 21:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, he doesn't meet WP:N. That's why it's a redirect to a section and not a stand alone article. -- Tavix (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is one of the primary uses of a redirect. Rossami (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the opinions expressed above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – a fine example of a redirect to a section in a list. List items are not required to be independently notable. Oculi (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—This person was a five-time champion and won the Tournament of Champions. However, there have been 31 other ToC winners, some of which who also won five (or more games) but do not have entries in List of Jeopardy! contestants. Prior to nomination of this redirect for deletion, there were no references associated with this person. The three references that have been added since nomination are not WP:SIGCOV. Two are theater journals, one of which mentions Verini as a co-founder of a theater. The other does mention his Jeopardy! appearance, but again this does not set him apart from other champions not currently included in the article. The third reference does not provide any sigcov of his television appearance. Yes, the contestants article is meant to detail those who appeared on the game show. However, the other entries within the list have articles of their own and meet WP:N. Verini is not as notable as those already included in the article, and is just as non-notable as any other five-time champion who appeared on a game show that has aired roughly 10,000 episodes. AldezD (talk) 03:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AldezD: Please stop referencing WP:N; as noted before, the Jeopardy! contestants article need not be limited to contestants that do or could have articles of their own. It seems perfectly reasonable to mention every ToC winner in the Jeopardy! contestants article. Or you could just mention people who have won a Tournament of Champions and participated in the Million Dollar Masters and the Decades Tournament, a universe which is significantly smaller (in the single digits) but includes Verini. Also, at least one of the theater journals mentions his Jeopardy appearance as providing the seed money for his theater, and there are plenty more sources about him. pbp 14:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. Winners of a game show tournament, who in their own right meet no other criteria of WP:N, should not be included within nor maintained as a redirect to the list article. Listing five-time (or more) champions, those who won a game show tournament and/or those appeared in multiple tournaments is IINFO and would be excessive, a list that would amount to hundreds of people. Verini is no more notable within the realm of Jeopardy! than any other individuals who are not currently included in the article, and is not as notable in terms of Jeopardy! contestants as those who have main articles that meet WP:N. AldezD (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why do you keep beating this dead horse? Haven't you noticed that, of the people in this discussion, you're the only one who wants the redirect or the content deleted? I just read IINFO, and none of the four specific sub-groups of IINFO apply here. It's a stretch to say that NOTDIR applies here. Your "winners of game shows" statement is not borne about by NOTDIR, IINFO, or any other policy, nor is it borne out by established practice, which finds lists containing some non-notable topics as wholly acceptable (again, others have said this above and you've ignored them). Verini isn't just some random 5-time champion: he's in the top 5-10 among Jeopardy! contestants in winnings prior to dropping the 5-day rule and doubling the dollar amounts. Most of the people who have the combination of successes that Verini has are in the article. And as for the claim that there are people equally notable to Verini who aren't in the article, that's just a specious OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (well, other stuff doesn't) argument...just because other contestants aren't in the article doesn't mean that they can't or shouldn't be. pbp 18:14, 5 January 2016 (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.

2015 flood[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 floods#2010s. --BDD (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are many 2015 floods significant enough to justify their own Wikipedia articles, and pointing at just one of them is clearly giving undue weight. If this isn't deleted altogether, it should point to a dab page.  ‑ Iridescent 21:11, 29 December 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.

Pimmally square[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 6#Pimmally square

Romans 1:27[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 7#Romans 1:27

Uncle Worm[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 unopposed. Deryck C. 09:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was formerly an unreferenced article on a Snake-like game. It's not mentioned at the target article and likely never will be. BDD (talk) 16:16, 29 December 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.

Fiveyear plans[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking two words together is not a good redirect Legacypac (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 00:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seven years old and not harming anything: we have no business creating linkrot without a solid good reason. Nyttend (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • they spread fake words across the internet and have no traffic except as a result of this nomination and from being on the Neelix lists, suggesting there is no link rot issue and no one will be inconvenienced by deleting inaccuate redirects. Legacypac (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Fake words" is stuff like calling a pen a "frindle", not sticking words together without a space. G6 is for housekeeping, not for stuff that's too old for R3: if you persistently tag these pages for deletion on an inapplicable criterion, I'll request a block to enforce the WP:CSD policy's statement of Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. Nyttend (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • bring it on - it is you who is being disruptive here. Your threats are hollow. There was a long ANi thread with near total agreement we can use G6 Housekeeping for Neelix redirects. These fake compound words almost always go delete at AfD - I've handled maybe 100 off the Neelix list just like them. They are eligible for speedy just like the list right below this list and others on this page. Legacypac (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Nyttend: This discussion is the one Legacypac is referencing. Hopefully it brings some clarity before this escalates. -- Tavix (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank-you - I could not ref that on my phone. When an involved Admin throws their weight around, reverses my Housekeeping CSDs and threatens me with sanctions - I'm not impressed at all. I've done a lot of the heavy lifting to clean up the Neelix mess while the Admins gave him Super Mario treatment. Legacypac (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • If this be cleanup, cleanup needs to be stopped immediately: blind deletion without consideration for the merits of an individual title is disruptive. You may observe that G6 is, among other things, only for non-controversial stuff: perhaps it occurs to you that it's not uncontroversial to delete something that's just been undeleted. You may observe that your G6 tag is asking another admin to engage in a wheel war, which routinely results in arbitration. And finally, please observe that I will request a block, rather than imposing it myself, because I respect WP:INVOLVED and won't violate policy to stop persistent attempts to get others to violate policy. Nyttend (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you were respecting Involved you would not have undone the G6 Housekeeping. It is not up to you to stop the cleanup on 50.000 often inappropriate redirects - if you want to do that, take it up at ANi. There is no merit to these fake compound words. Your evident desire to beat good editors with your mop is the only reason you are objecting to their deletions after you turned down the R3s. I find your behavior very uncivil. The community expects better from Admins. Legacypac (talk) 02:09, 23 December 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, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nothing harmful about these. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • delete. Definitely harmful. Forgetting a space by itself can not be an reason to have a redirect, unless we want to keep all and every "without spaces" variant of every article title that any one decides to make up. If we do, then we should request a bot to create them all, maybe? - Nabla (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nyttend. Redirects are supposed to be "wrong". If that were the "right" title, that's where the article would be. Redirect must be actively harmful - that is, creating confusion - not merely grammatically mistaken. Nabla is correct that we don't preemptively create such redirects but once they have been created, there is no benefit to the project to deleting them. Rossami (talk) 01:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, Rossami, if some one creates zillions of silly, but mildly plausible, redirects we should keep them all? - Nabla (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. Redirects really are that cheap. If they are not actively harmful to our readers, deleting a redirect has no benefits to the project. Rossami (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I very much doubt that creating a few millions of "random-ish" redirects would have no negative impact at all. For starters, they make us look silly, and who wants a silly encyclopaedia...? - Nabla (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the creation of just tens of thousands of stupid redirects INCLUDING theselead to Neelix getting a ban on redirect creation and loss of Adminship. He also should have been blocked, but escaped that via Super Mario Effect. Also Redirects are supposed to be helpful and aid in navigation - they are not supposed to be 'wrong'. Legacypac (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2016 (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.

קישקעריש[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Claim to be the Yiddish name of a Hungarian town, so not a likely search term on English Wikipedia Legacypac (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep town was a shtetl. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:27, 30 December 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.

Scintimammagraphics[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 speedily deleted by Boing! said Zebedee. --BDD (talk) 15:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good redirect when Google says "No results found for Scintimammagraphical" and then Neelix added a suffix. Ditto with the 3rd one. Legacypac (talk) 11:42, 29 December 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.

777 Tour[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:XY. "777 Tour" can equally refer to Boeing 777#Development. sst✈ 09:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I can't seem to figure out how "777 Tour" would refer to the development of the Boeing 777. -- Tavix (talk) 04:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "777 tour" can refer to the marketing and demonstrations of the Boeing 777. sst✈ 17:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not in the article, and even if it was, Rihanna's tour would be the primary use per my searches. Remember that WP:XY is for situations where it could equally refer to multiple things and where disambiguation would be inappropriate. -- Tavix (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a case where the one major use of the term w.r.t reliable source coverage and general pop culture totally overwhelms the alternative uses. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 777 Tour =/= 777 Boeing 777 Marketing. And per Tavix, it's probably more searched. — Tom(T2ME) 13:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Quadruple glazer[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 all. Deryck C. 09:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
List of redirects to Insulated glazing (166)
Discussion[edit]

There seems to be another lengthy sub-set of redirects to insulated glazing. I know we've already been through this at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 10#Sextupleglazed glasses, so I'll defer my rationale to that discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought I nominated these too out of the 398 total but I guess not. We only kept some of the double and triple ones, so I think we can SNOW DELETE these based on the last discussion.Legacypac (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't think why. The article mentions higher levels of glazing than triple. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Try searching some of them - they don't exist in the real world no they qualify as nonsense invented by Neelix. Legacypac (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been through this twice already. Quintuple glazing is certainly a thing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • delete all Yet another set of redirects serving only to confuse. - Nabla (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of those listed above. The target article is a mess, however it now mentions "quadruple glazing" and "quintuple glazing" but neither of these terms are listed in the nomination above. Sionk (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2016 (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.

Inappropriate[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is technically a relist. SimonTrew "added" these redirects to the Appropriateness discussion last month with the comment: "We also have some problems with Propriety, Improper, Impropriety, Inappropriate, Improperly, all of which redirect to Morality. (Inappropriateness. Properly, Properness, Improperness are red; they were deleted on 13 November by Sphilbrick as WP:R3: I doubt, actually, that they were recently created.) I see little point in listing them separately, as I think their retargeting will be a natural result of whatever consensus we get with the others." However as it was buried in the middle of a long comment, no one else seemed to notice these redirects. The appropriateness discussion resulted in a delete, but since these particular redirects got no discussion, I'd like for that to happen now. -- Tavix (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: Thanks for relisting. Happy New Year. Si Trew (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. In philosophy, the concept of "propriety" is a term of art that is not necessarily synonymous with morality. For example, Mencius used the term "propriety" in a manner that is not entirely synonymous with morality (see this explanation at the SEP). If the community decides to delete the redirect "propriety", I will move the material at Inappropriateness there and expand the article to discuss the philosophical concept of "propriety". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all As per above, the concepts just don't map that way. Mangoe (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2016 (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.

Compassion of God[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 7#Compassion of God

BDBC[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 6#BDBC

Airfrance.ae[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 all. Rough consensus is that the precedents apply in this case - regional edition domain names of a company should not redirect to a company page unless those editions are specifically discussed. Deryck C. 22:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
List of redirects to Air France (110)
Discussion[edit]

These are misleading because they are not the official website of Air France, but country specific pages of that website. The official website of Air France is "airfrance.com," which is the website that appears in the article. These aren't mentioned at the article, disappointing someone wanting specific information on Air France's operations in Japan, for example. These are extremely implausible search terms. Since the URL already says "airfrance", a searcher would already know that it's Air France, so a general article on the airline wouldn't be helpful for them. It would make sense if we had Air France in Japan, for example, but that's not the case here. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:RFD#D8 also applies, as well as several previous discussions. You can find them at: 1, 2, 3, and 4. -- Tavix (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete' per nom. We should not be a directory of every web address an airline owns. Legacypac (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. sst✈ 09:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. While they're not especially helpful, they are not in any way harmful. There's no point in clogging up the project history with deletion actions. Redirects like this are better just ignored. Rossami (talk) 01:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Certainly harmful, in that they suggest subtopics (Air France in certain areas, or Air France websites) that we don't discuss. The precedent here is absolutely correct. --BDD (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2016 (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.

Bluebabies[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) sst✈ 15:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix compound word, no relation to reddaipers. Legacypac (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. It's entirely possible that a person who is not familiar with the term may omit the space between these two words. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Notecardforfree. MB298 (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as plausible spelling variant. I think it's forgivable to forget the space. --Lenticel (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Forgetting a space by itself can not be an reason to have a redirect, unless we want to keep all and every "without spaces" variant of every article title that any one decides to make up. If we do, then we should request a bot to create them all, maybe? - Nabla (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Nabla's strawman argument is in contradiction with the stated purposes of redirects. Rossami (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2016 (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.

Redstripe[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) sst✈ 15:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Made up compound words by Neelix Legacypac (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redstripe per WP:CHEAP. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Legacypac and Notecardforfree: I split this from Redorange to avoid complication.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Forgetting a space by itself can not be an reason to have a redirect, unless we want to keep all and every "without spaces" variant of every article title that any one decides to make up. If we do, then we should request a bot to create them all, maybe? - Nabla (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above (with the same rebuttal to Nabla's strawman). Rossami (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2016 (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.

Redorange[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 refine per Notecardforfree as unopposed. Deryck C. 22:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Made up compound words by Neelix Legacypac (talk) 01:30, 29 December 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.

Red-letter edition[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 redletters to red letter, keep others. Deryck C. 22:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix made up compound words Legacypac (talk) 01:25, 29 December 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.

Red-diaper 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 keep Red-diaper babies; no consensus on red-diaper, closing as keep with WP:NPASR; delete others. Deryck C. 22:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Creating fake compound words is not a good idea, especially for a pretty obscure term like this. Neelix creations Legacypac (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "red-diaper bab(y/ies)" and "red-diaper" (for adjectival form of red diaper) as the "red diaper" serves as an adjective to "baby", thus one would usually find a hyphen under other circumstances. Unsurprisingly, this hyphenated form is found in uses outside of Wikipedia. [3][4] -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the first, delete the rest The first is reasonable form; the rest are more Neelix junk. Mangoe (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2016 (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.

Shaggingness[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) 21:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another Neelix word not found in RS that I can see. Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 29 December 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.

Pro-Axis[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) 21:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These two maybe need a new target, but not necessarily a full delete. by Neelix too Legacypac (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete being Pro-Axis Powers is not equivalent to being a collaborator. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:05, 29 December 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.

Supporters of Nazism during World War II[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 all. Deryck C. 22:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration can only occur in occupied countries by people who are part of the occupied population. Support is a much broader area, covering Germans, Japanese, Italians etc who support their government, governments that support the Axis Powers in various ways etc. Misleading redirects by Neelix. Legacypac (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete being a supporter is not equivalent to being a collaborator. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure that the definition of "collaboration" is so narrow. The target article mentions the British Free Corps, for example. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Looking over Category:Collaborators with Nazi Germany by nationality, we can probably define it as individuals who supported Nazi Germany from countries who weren't allied with Nazi Germany. That gets a bit murky when you talk about states who had different allegiances during the course of the war, such as Romania, but there's noticeably no category for Japan or Italy. (Category:Jewish Nazi collaborators is a bit of an exception, but it's completely reasonable to conceive of Nazi Germany as an enemy to all Jews regardless of nationality.) --BDD (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It raises interesting questions: support for the Axis was widespread (if not deep), for example the Indian National Army. Maybe an overview article is needed. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Axis Powers may do a good enough job explaining "Axis supporters". The Indian National Army is mentioned there, as well as disputed cases like Denmark. It's not covering all Axis supporters though. I can definitely imagine an article along these lines, though it would be easy to duplicate content from elsewhere. I think this would be much harder to do for Nazism, though, and all of these that have "during World War II" seem largely redundant. --BDD (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nazi Germany for supporters of? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]
None of these are really likely to be used as search terms though, and none get meaningful traffic. Not seeing a reason to keep redirects that mislead searches when anyone interested in WWII and Axis or Nazis will get better results just using a search engine. Legacypac (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's really more of a former country article. I think that would readers with a lot of work to do to try to sift and find information on "supporters of Nazism" outside of Germany. There's Nazism, which might be a more comfortable place for it, but that's mostly again about internal Nazi Germany, with a {{main}} out to Neo-Nazism. --BDD (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Collaboration lead, which includes "Since the Second World War the term "Collaboration" acquired a very negative meaning as referring to persons and groups which help a foreign occupier of their country—due to actual use by people in European countries who worked with and for the Nazi German occupiers. Linguistically, "collaboration" implies more or less equal partners who work together—which is obviously not the case when one party is an army of occupation and the other are people of the occupied country living under the power of this army.

In order to make a distinction, the more specific term Collaborationism is often used for this phenomenon of collaboration with an occupying army. However, there is no water-tight distinction; "Collaboration" and "Collaborator", as well as "Collaborationism" and "Collaborationist", are often used in this pejorative sense—and even more so, the equivalent terms in French and other languages spoken in countries which experienced direct Nazi occupation." which, well unsourced, accurately reflects my understanding. Legacypac (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete all As usual, Neelix smeared across English syntax and word meanings to sort-of hook up two ideas which aren't the same. Collaboration is an active and two-way interaction, not merely support. Mangoe (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2016 (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_December_29&oldid=1138580050"