Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 16, 2015.

Autostrada (version 2)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful or likely as a search term. All attribution formerly at this title has been moved elsewhere. Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. All of the history merging that has happened is confusing but I trust you know what you're doing. -- Tavix (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete housekeeping -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as housekeeping. (Sings) You say Autostrada and I say Autopista, you say Autoroute and I say Motorway. I think it is best to call the whole thing off. Si Trew (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Speedy was rejected. There's no important history at this title. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:22, 24 July 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.

Randen (hill range)[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) 23:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the Randen is a mountain range not a hill range and this redirect has been superseded by Randen (mountain range). People searching for the article will never type in "Randen (hill range)", because as they get to Randen the options will pop up. And they may be confused when both "Randen (hill range)" and the article name, "Randen (mountain range)", come up. Deleting this option will leave just "Randen (mountain range)" which will take them straight to the right place. Rationale: avoid confusion and remove an incorrect and totally unnecessary redirect. But the main reason for deletion is: it's misleading, wrong and unnecessary. Otherwise we have carte blanche to create dumb redirects like Appalachian Hills and Himalayan Hills and similar ones for every other mountain range. -- Bermicourt (talk) 20:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a standard {{R from move}}. Search suggestions only work for people who have javascript enabled and who are using the internal search, there are many other ways to search and browse Wikipedia, including links from external websites which will not be updated just because our page moved. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Okay I get that not everyone has javascript. But then they're unlikely to type in Randen (hill range) either. They'll get to Randen and that takes them to the "Randen" dab page which links to the right article. Either way this redirect is pointless... as well as wrong. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In my bizarre way, I found Blue Hills Software. They do a lot with random numbers. Si Trew (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I didn't. Try Green Hills instead. I go on the Trail of the Lonesome Pine instead. Si Trew (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. It's mistaken disambiguation, but hills and mountains are pretty similar. More similar than, say, hills and cats, or mountains and Elizabeth II. Close enough. The slippery slope argument that we have to delete this to prevent similar redirects being created is a strawman and is normally rejected here. Or maybe it's a false dilemma; I'm not up to speed on my logical fallacies. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It's neither; it's an analogy. Redirects that make sense are fine; those which are inaccurate spread fallacy. No-one typing Randen needs "hills" or "hill range" to find the article. It's a pointless and fallacious redirect. But hey, Wikipedia's full of them, so one more's not going to make a difference I guess. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it's not inaccurate. If a reader is looking for information on these geographic features, they might know that the name is Randen but not know that, technically (and/or pedantically) hills and mountains are distinct definitions. Randen (hill range) gets them to the information they're looking for. We can tag it with {{R from incorrect name}}. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:56, 24 July 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.

Pikapokw[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Just Chilling (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an unlikely typo. ~GottaGoFast Stepitup 19:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Even though the H and K keys are close to each other on keyboards (not next to each other), this seems like an unlikely search term? Do any reliable sources use "Pikapokw" to refer to Pikachu? SONIC678|Hang out with me! 01:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm seeing no uses of this word that are not Wikipedia mirrors or directly taken from Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Pikachu, much at it displeases me, it would seem the best target. Si Trew (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RTYPO, too many typos to be a plausible search. -- Tavix (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. H and K are both on right hand but H on index and K on the middle. No way that should be a typo. (You should have your index fingers on F and J). Si Trew (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete that's too many misspellings to be plausible. --Lenticel (talk) 06:45, 20 July 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.

Šâhnâme[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) 20:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this a Vietnamese word, and the target is a Persian epic. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is the Persian word written in UniPers transliteration. Why do you think it is Vietnamese? Gorobay (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah don't look like Vietnamese to me, even as a kinda mojibake. Definitely Persian translit. Si Trew (talk) 09:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. ~GottaGoFast Stepitup 19:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gorobay. Suggest nominator try searching using Google Books rather than just pasting into Google Translate and assuming that the "Detect Language" feature came up with the right answer. See also #Konungasaga. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Often, it's unnecessarily time-consuming to look up anything related to Persian culture since there are so many ways of romanizing the Persian language. Creating redirects from other romanized forms helps, then. --Pare Mo (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Latin: pace Gorobay, it doesn't help to create translations from other languages unless they are mentioned at the target: and I checked and this isn't. I might translate a French title or Hungarian title if it is mentioned at the target: this is not and therefore is WP:RHARMFUL, I don't sit here writing Đnetrepotevosk because few English speakers would type that, I wouldn't write Szőlősnyárálö either, even though I live there. If you want to type Persian, whatever that is, go to Persian Wikipedia. (I guess, whether you like it or not, it is Iranian Wikipedia at the moment.) We have plenty of articles on Persian language and Persian orthography if your aim is to educate people in Persian culture, but RfD is not the place for that: WikiProject:Persia probably is. Si Trew (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:FORRED. Redirects in foreign languages relevant to the target subject are plausibly useful to English readers. If an English reader were to encounter this word and type it here looking for information, we can give them an English-language article about that subject. However I am leaning towards agreeing with Si that the word should be mentioned somewhere in the target article, otherwise WP:SURPRISE applies. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • “Šâhnâme” is no more foreign than “Shahnameh” so WP:FORRED does not apply: they are two transliterations of the same word. There is no need to shoehorn this spelling in to justify keeping the redirect: WP:SURPRISE covers article content and the creation of useful redirects; it does not say that every redirect title must appear in its target. Gorobay (talk) 20:55, 24 July 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 Book of Joe (film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Just Chilling (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not mentioned at the target's article. -- Tavix (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: this website doesn't show any connection between Brad Pitt the movie. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but the fact a link shows no correlation is not exactly a good reason why. IMDB tends to be the Bible on these kind of things (if you'll excuse the pun)

[joepitt 1]

  1. ^ "The Book of Joe". IMDB. IMBD movie database. Retrieved 18 July 2015.
  • Where Pitt ain't mentioned. Si Trew (talk) 09:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the abovementioned findings that shows the lack of connection between the film and the actor. --Lenticel (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of Marthandavarma (novel) Characters[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 27#List of Marthandavarma (novel) Characters

Dichoptic (zoology)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 26#Dichoptic (zoology)

Gotham City Thugs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Just Chilling (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few articles that mention the "Gotham City Thugs," but "The Dark Knight" isn't one of them. I'm not sure if any of them are worth a retarget or if this should just be deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 16:52, 16 July 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.

Churchill and Roosevelt[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 both. Just Chilling (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not mentioned at the target article. The first one could also be a WP:SURPRISE for someone looking for the historical figures. -- Tavix (talk) 16:46, 16 July 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.

Cleopatra (2015 film)[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 both. Deryck C. 09:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not mentioned at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 16:42, 16 July 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.

American fatball[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 23:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL, as I don't think this is a widely used term. It's also a stretch to call this an {{R from misspelling}}, in my opinion. -- Tavix (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not widely used, somewhat biased. Confusing as well.--216.186.185.230 (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too many misspellings to be plausible--Lenticel (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain is certainly used by some soccer fans to pejoratively describe the sport (most common pejorative for gridiron apart from “handegg”)--luokehao, 07:39, 21 July 2015 UTC)
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.

G.o.a.t. of r&b[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 both. Deryck C. 22:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:POV. GOAT stands for "Greatest Of All Time" and while he has been called that, other people have been called it as well. The nickname is not "official" by any means, but having this redirect pushes that "official" mentality and might make people think that R. Kelly actually is the GOAT of R&B. -- Tavix (talk) 16:21, 16 July 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.

Graphy[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) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like something that could cause confusion with anything that involves "graph." Compassionate727 (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this would be the correct target. I added a hatnote to clear up any potential confusion. -- Tavix (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Tavix. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The hatnote is very useful. We can add hippography later (I am so tempted...) Si Trew (talk) 08:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I really am tempted, I was joking, but there is a long tradition of animals drawing pictures, mostly to take the piss out of artists. I will have a search if we have anything on that. Si Trew (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find much I just got search results for people drawing animals. Si Trew (talk) 08:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- @Tavix--216.186.185.230 (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute keep - Good target, as per Tavix. Also another note that a lot of people do not generally put in "-graphy" for suffixes. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 10:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this gets any more "keep" comments or no more "delete" comments, then we could simply close it as successful. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:02, 23 July 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.

Musical weatherman[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. 22:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague. I see a few different musical acts this could refer to and I'm not sure if R. Kelly is one of them. -- Tavix (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now I can't get that song out of my head. Si Trew (talk) 07:51, 19 July 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.

Flieasfdafas[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 RHaworth. --BDD (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense term, originally created to bypass guidelines and force a mainspace article. Non-plausible search term, no significance to subject, hits speedy deletion criteria, no hope with this. GuzzyG (talk) 15:51, 16 July 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.

Arabes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 24#Arabes

Little Richard (TV miniseries)[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. 09:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to find any references that state that the subject of the redirect's target was ever planned to be or ever was a miniseries. Steel1943 (talk) 15:17, 16 July 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.

Ranger Danger and the Danger Rangers[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. 09:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was apparently a film Kevin Smith wanted to make at one point, but it's no longer mentioned at his article. It was redirected after AfD back in February 2007. Note that the section it redirects to also no longer exists. --BDD (talk) 14:53, 16 July 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.

New Jersey Trilogy[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. 09:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Novel or obscure synonym" not used at the target article or elsewhere. View Askewniverse would be a slightly better target, but I think deletion still makes the most sense here. The first Google hit describes it as a series of five films, so I don't think the term was every anything but a fan nickname. BDD (talk) 14:51, 16 July 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.

💇[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 haircut. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to refer specifically to the hair, rather than beauty in general (other, non-Windows versions also give me this impression, in fact, it's even clearer on those). Perhaps a retarget to hairstyle? Adam9007 (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That could be confusing to the large number of people that use Windows since they will see a pair of scissors and a comb.--69.157.254.210 (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:35, 16 July 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.

Reunified[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect to a disambiguation page. No subject by the redirect's specific title is listed on the disambiguation page (the redirect's target). Steel1943 (talk) 14:33, 16 July 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.

File:91AHv2qgqWL. SL1500 .jpg[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. Further to the consensus to delete below, there are also no current uses of the file. Since the redirect name has no obvious meaning, it should be deleted by analogy with the filename policy. Deryck C. 09:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected typo. The file was only under this name for three days. Stefan2 (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. Compassionate727 (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:RFD#D5: nonsense. It's certainly implausible and definitely doesn't refer to Connector in any way. -- Tavix (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After three days, the odds of external links to this file are very unlikely, so I'd say that this obscure title to the file/picture can safely disappear. Steel1943 (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense title -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:RFD#D8 novel and obscure. Obviously a simple error in uploading it to wrong namespace, catch it now. Si Trew (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This is probably a filename randomly generated by the editor's camera--Lenticel (talk) 06:53, 20 July 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.

Aleksei Tabo Mengdeleevsky[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 Deleted. Hoax per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KO.2. —Bagumba (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect, vandalism by KO.2 sockpuppet Mosmof (talk) 06:58, 16 July 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.

Aleksei Meng[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 Deleted. Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KO.2, and continuation of hoax from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksei Meng—Bagumba (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect, hoax article created by sockpuppet of KO.2/Мэн-1. Mosmof (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect and report, Mosmof made you for the hoax article about sockpuppet, if you had different idea with it. If you edit page but he doesn't like, he or she said he or she will block you. Not at all 7:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:%D0%9C%D1%8D%D0%BD-1&oldid=244529883 Mosmof (talk) 07:05, 16 July 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.

United States of America/OldPage[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 24#United States of America/OldPage

DNC 2016[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) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware that "DNC" is a common abbreviation for "Democratic National Convention." I certainly read a lot of politics and have never seen it. Compassionate727 (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep a Google News search shows that this abbreviation is widely used in WP:RS to refer to the target. Furthermore, nothing else listed at DNC is a recurring event, so the risk of confusion is minimal. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment are you sure you're not looking at Democratic National Committee ? -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I am sure I am not. The Committee is a standing body, not an event. Yes, both the Convention and the Committee have the same acronym DNC, but when you prefix/suffix a year to the acronym it always refers to the Convention, not the membership or meeting of the Committee in that year. (When the latter meaning is intended, journalists don't call it, e.g. "2013 DNC" but instead "2013 DNC meeting".) 58.176.246.42 (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per the IP. My research gives the same findings. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 17 July 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.

Konungasaga[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) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a definition for this word, which google translate puts as English and Cebuano. Compassionate727 (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Searching in Google Books shows that this term is frequently used in English-language works in reference to the target. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Keep. I created this redirect precisely because this is a common term in scholarship. The word is Old Norse/Icelandic. Alarichall (talk) 07:47, 16 July 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.

Langa CJ[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. Consensus is clear enough that CJ is recognized legal shorthand. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is "CJ" well understood as an abbreviation for "Chief Justice?" Because if not, this redirect could cause confusion. Compassionate727 (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep precisely because it's not well understood. This style is quite common in legal opinions, and lay readers who see this in court cases will invariably wonder one or both of (1) what it means, and (2) what the guy's first name is. Furthermore this lemma doesn't seem to have any competing meanings, so there is no risk of confusion here. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but almost or the opposite reason that 58.176 said. As a layman, I need the CJ or His/Her Honour or whatever to be able to defend myself in court when I am not a lawyer. The terminology will vary whether it is Chief Justice (perhaps that is a US thing, not in the UK) or Clerk of Justice. But to know whether Her Worship is Chief of the Peace or a summary justice is yes very important. It may not seem important here but this comes back to magna carta that to no man shall we delay, nor deny, nor prevent, right or justice. (What is it then?) So yes I think it is very important that these are kept here, because I battle the law every day, in the good tradition of Albert Haddock, to preserve your right and justice. I hope you never need it. Si Trew (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Layman" Come to think of it about three months ago here on RfD didn't we have a discussion about what we were going to do with layman, which I think was a redirect at the time? Lay lawyer still is red I think. Si Trew (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was in february. I listed Lay person, Layperson, Laywoman and various others. We sorted it out. Si Trew (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
here at RfD. Si Trew (talk) 09:18, 18 July 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_July_16&oldid=1138580215"