Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 6, 2015.

Loren Wade[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. Deryck C. 00:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this was a piece of trivia about the oldest Wal-Mart employee that has since been deleted (and rightfully so, he's not a significant part of Wal-Mart history). -- Tavix (talk) 22:36, 6 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.

MYSPACEDOTCOM[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, unopposed. Deryck C. 00:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. implausible caps, combined with a spelling of "." as "DOT" makes this unhelpful as a search term. -- Tavix (talk) 22:08, 6 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.

Japanese wood-block printings[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, default to keep. Deryck C. 14:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_19#Print_making_in_Japan, yesterday.

  • Delete all per WP:MADEUP, WP:RFD#D8 "obscure synonym". Printings is not a word. No internal links beyond this discussion; stats are <1 a day. Si Trew (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all ^^^^ what Simon said. various kinds of block can be used for print making, not only wood but steel, rubber etc Legacypac (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Plausible mistakes; most people are unclear as to the terminology of printmaking, which has already resulted in a regrettable batch of deletions I saw too late. "Printings" of course is a word, as in "His book went through many printings", as here. Johnbod (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to recreate something you can, but someone relisted the last batch. They still need to be deleted, since there are many ways to make a print as shown at printmaking and the Japanese are not restricted to wood blocks. Legacypac (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See that discussion! Johnbod (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll qualify mine: "printings" might be an (IMO ugly) synonym for print run ( → Edition_(book)#Print_run), but that is not the sense meant here, which refers to the process, not the result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 09:20, 20 November 2015
It's a perfectly normal plural, the singular is a near-synonym, though at least in the printing industry they are not interchangeable. A print-run always comes with a quantity. Johnbod (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite au fait with print trade jargon; I've worked for various branches on and off for many years. We have Impression (publishing) to the same target, for example; but not printings, and that's not at the target. You're assuming (I think: I don't want to put words in your mouth) that "printing" is OK as a (countable) noun, whereas I was saying no, it is only a verb. So I chucked "ten printings" into gsearch and indeed it is used in the sense of a countable noun in RS. I am still not sure it applies beyond the book trade. Si Trew (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We also have an anomaly in that wood-block print → woodcut (18 redirects) whereas woodblock print (and most others derived from "wood", "block" and "print") → woodblock printing (16 redirects). Si Trew (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised that separately at #Wood-block print, above. Si Trew (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now only 14 redirects - 2 with "woodcut" in the title should obviously go there, and now do. Johnbod (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those being Woodcut printing andf woodcut printing. (I checked.) There's nothing wrong with the quantity of redirects: I mentioned them because the Japanese target on its own has several times more, and "woodcut" and "wood-block printing" gets by with far fewer, and most of them quite uncontroversial.
I've added {{R to section}} to those that are thus. I note Color woodcut is to a section (and I've added a category as such) but Coloured woodcut and Colored woodcut are not; Colour woodcut is red. Si Trew (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now all consistent: "REDIRECTWoodcut#Colour R to section" Johnbod (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the three that mention wood. I don't see the relevance of woodblock/woodcut confusion here, since the target article is "Woodblock printing". Delete the three that don't mention wood, since they could cause confusion and seem like unlikely search terms. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A strange distinction. "Block print" on google shows lots of usage [1], and even book titles. Apart from linoleum, all deal with woodblocks. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Japanese block-printings and Japanese block printings, then, though I'm still wary of redirecting terms from what is actually a broader topic. Not Japanese blockprintings, though. That's not even a real word. --BDD (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 19:34, 6 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.

Central bell panel[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) 19:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "see also" section of Doorbell article includes "Central bell panel", which redirects to Doorbell article in a loop. Central bell panel is not the same as a Doorbell - a Central bell panel refers to the 18th-19th century servant-calling bell systems. There is an article for Bell pull which links to a main article of "Central bell panel", but that just redirects to Doorbell. 206.196.184.98 (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stubbify as you have already explained it, why not stub up an article here? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I don't know how! I'm a N00b at wiki, and it's past midnight where I live. My roommate's bugging me to go to sleep. Just hoping someone else can help. Thanks and sorry!! 206.196.184.98 (talk)
      • You press the edit button at the top of the page, near the title, and add information, and then at the end add {{stub}} ; And then you press save page at the bottom of the edit window -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak retarget. to Control panel (engineering) although there is not much control over them, at least by the observer/listener; we don't have a separate article for indicator panel, nor slave panel nor slave indicator (the slave being the device, not the person using it – I think).
Though I could probably stub that, with RS from the Trew Mobile Woodware Library, to be more than merely a definition, e.g. to discuss ergonomic ("human factors engineering") aspects of layout and so on. Si Trew (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 19:33, 6 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.

The Spyring[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) 19:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a pretty generic term, I'm not sure redirecting it to this article (which doesn't mention the term) is productive. Jenks24 (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's odd. All the top 20 ghits are for this book, but it's not mentioned, nor at Eileen Chang, the writer. It looks like it was the working title: http://www.zonaeuropa.com/culture/c20081005_1.htm. Si Trew (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Espionage where spy ring leads, and add a hatnote for the current target -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:22, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepand hatnote the target. The definite article, capital S and the non-standard word "Spyring" instead of "spy ring" show that it is about a creative work, or specific organization, rather than a generic term. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Retarget given that, as stated above, the logical link is to the article on spy rings CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, given that my first thought was a misspelling for The Spring. I don't think this is a plausible search term for someone wanting to find espionage and I have no idea why it currently redirects to a novella, which is a problem. -- Tavix (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mr Trew explains above why this is. I have added the explanation to the article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Rich Farmbrough, thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it. It helps enough to change my !vote to keep. -- Tavix (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 19:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've reviewed the source that Si Trew has found (it helpfully linked to 3 other newspaper sources) and can confirm that The Spyring is indeed the original English title of the novel. Since Si also pointed out that the top 20 GHits are all about this novel, we should keep the redirect pointing to the novel per Wikipedia:Primary topic. Deryck C. 19:10, 6 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.

Thamus[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 both per Notecardforfree. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 10:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't seem to have an article on this person, but maybe should. The redirect just points to a mention of him. He is not Knowledge. Delete to encourage article creation Legacypac (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is where the character seems to come from (unclear if he was a real person or not) Legacypac (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this the only source of the figure? He wasn't from Egyptian mythology otherwise? I'm wary of a redirect for such a trivial mention. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 18:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget "Thamus" to Themis as a plausible misspelling (especially if you are only familiar with the phonetic pronunciation of the Greek "Θέμις"). Retarget "King Thamus" to Plato's Phaedrus (dialogue), per Lenticel (the King Thamus mentioned in the Phaedrus is an Egyptian King, so that may be a source of confusion). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:09, 6 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.

Male Escort Awards[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) 19:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Delete. Clearly mistargeted. The target page describes the relevant award as first given out in 2006, but the only reference to the "Male Escort Award" refers to it being awarded in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. Two different non-notable awards with similar generic names given out by two different organizations. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why do you want to retarget the redirect to the (nonnotable) award that we have established it's not? The ostensible target is an award created in 2006. The only pages that refers to the "Male Escort Award", Aaron Lawrence, refers to awards given out between 1999 and 2002. Why make a redirect point to a demonstrably incorrect target? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can a section titled "International Escort Awards" be an incorrect target for "Male Escort Awards" when that is precisely what the section covers? The International Escort Awards is an annual award ceremony for male escorts,... – it doesn't get any more correct than that, does it?  Paine  11:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as this seems like more trouble than it's worth. If the awards become notable, they can be created as an article. -- Tavix (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 18:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (reply to Hullaballoo): I don't see how it's demonstrably incorrect, it's just a variation on a name for something which we have content about, and at the moment we only have one thing that could match. It's not much content, but someone coming to Wikipedia searching for male escort awards won't find anything else because it's not there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and focus target to section per Ivanvector 🍁. This is just a short form of International Male Escort Awards, which I found in the 2013 discussion (where the outcome was "keep"). Be prosperous! Paine  08:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 18:04, 6 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.

White liners[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, default to keep. Deryck C. 00:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things have white lines. Far to vague to be meaningful. Legacypac (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep white-lining and white lining as plausible modifications for a search term mentioned in the lede of the target. Delete the others. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all similar to Lane-splitters and other redirects, there's a hatnote for other uses (which are all two words, not hyphenated) at the top of the article. These should link somewhere, as Lane splitting isn't on the first page of search results despite it being the likely (and in some cases only) matching page. Peter James (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget white-line and similar should not redirect here, as is not about white lines which is a disambiguation page because of the many choices. They should all point to white line - 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 18:02, 6 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.

Black Annie (2014 film)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 14#Black Annie (2014 film)

Myspace quizzes[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. Deryck C. 00:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article doesn't mention anything about "Myspace quizzes." That doesn't exactly surprise me, quizzes were (are?) just unofficial bulletins. Whatever the case, you won't find any Myspace quizzes at the article, so it's confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 16:08, 6 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.

Law enforcement in South Ossetia[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. Deryck C. 00:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

South Ossetia is a disputed territory, Georgian de-jure and independent under Russian influence de-facto. Redirecting this to Georgia is a misleading and non-neutral POV, and it's not that relevant because the current target article doesn't mention South Ossetia. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:51, 6 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.

Fakhr al-Mulk[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, unopposed. Deryck C. 00:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Partial match to Fakhr al-Mulk Radwan but usage is below bot noise level. It just makes things harder to find as it sits. Legacypac (talk) 05:06, 6 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.

Enjoy tea at the dragon well[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. Deryck C. 00:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect gets no meaningful traffic. The target means Dragon Well. There is a tea named for the target, but it does not justify the use of the word Enjoy. Delete as useless. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 6 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.

Coco-Carry[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. Deryck C. 00:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't substantiate that this means piggybacking, or that is even a word at all. It appears to be invented by the IP creator and then redirected based on the made up definition of a fake word. Legacypac (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't find a source for this as well, which is surprising given this redirect is 12 years old. -- Tavix (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This has not even escaped into the wild from here in 12 years, which is amazing. Legacypac (talk) 08:24, 7 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.

Donnacha[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 procedural close as it is no longer a redirect. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old redirect of a first name to DAB for a quite different name. Makes no sense as far as I can tell. Legacypac (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found a few people with the given name, so I've converted it into a given name set index. I'm not sure what connection the two names are, but if anyone finds a connection, it can be added to the index. -- Tavix (talk) 16:20, 6 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.

Pimp myspace[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. Deryck C. 00:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like a non-notable Myspace layouts site. It's not mentioned at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Wikipedia is not a manual --Lenticel (talk) 13:59, 6 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.

MySpace Careers[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. Deryck C. 00:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, someone searching for a career at Myspace is going to have a bad time, especially when searching here. WP:NOTJOBBOARD should be a thing. -- Tavix (talk) 02:42, 6 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_6&oldid=1037882170"