Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 27, 2015.

Untitled film projects (A-J)[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. Just Chilling (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are all outdated redirects. The projects that these redirects refer to all have titles. They should be deleted as confusing because it might lead people to think they are referring to a separate, future untitled project -- Tavix (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all, and perhaps blacklist any title starting with "Untitled". I mean, there are going to be some exceptions (I recently created Untitled Second per a recent discussion) but us lowly users can request creation from an admin for those odd cases. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete several of these are extremely generic; others are just incorrect with names having been acquired so no longer viable search terms -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2: confusing Rubbish computer 18:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dated information. I share Ivanvector's sentiment about entries starting with that title being generally not useful.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of Marthandavarma (novel) Characters[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. While the disambiguation may be unnecessary, there is weak consensus that it is helpful to readers. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnecessary disambiguation: no such list exists for the film. Compassionate727 (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the main article is called Marthandavarma (novel), not "Marthandavarma" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This list article is created as a sub article of Marthandavarma (novel) as part of re-condensing the main one, and so the disambiguation redirect titles are formed very much in a way to convey the content of the list in relation to the main article, and in no way misleading to any user/ reader who is even new to the topic related; if otherwise kindly notify. The nominator comment "no such list exists for the film", implies about a different page as it can be comprehended. – (harith (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete all except List of Characters in Marthandavarma novel. The redirects with (novel) are unnecessary disambiguation and don't serve any purpose for readers; they only serve as hindrances for editors in case these targets get moved around (which it seems is likely). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unnecessary, but not ambiguous, or misleading or otherwise harmful. CfD uses naming conventions like this, so I can conceive of a reader searching this way. --BDD (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 27 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.

Rawhide's Clint Eastwood Sings Cowboy Favorites[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 Clint Eastwood discography. --BDD (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see this mentioned in the target article. Also, the redirect was formerly an article, but it probably wouldn't pass an WP:AFD nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 21:37, 27 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.

Clint motherfucking eastwood[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. See comments below. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article. Steel1943 (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-Just looks WP:MADEUP Rubbish computer 18:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on, this doesn't warrant any "discussing". I've speedied it. Please consider marking purely abusive/disruptive redirects for speedy deletion rather than listing them here, see Template:Db. (Sorry I don't know how to close these things.) Bishonen | talk 21:42, 29 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.

A Star Is Born (2014 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) 19:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete per WP:REDLINK, amongst various reasons. Several sources I found per a popular search engine show that the release date of this film has been delayed to at least 2016, possibly due to one of its former cast members exiting production. (So yes, definitely REDLINK since it seems as though there is enough information, and the year is wrong.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 27 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 Boss Perot[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) 18:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not mentioned in the article. Also, I'm not able to find any references that show this as a valid nickname for this subject. Steel1943 (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Just looks WP:MADEUP Rubbish computer 18:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't seem to find any usages of "The Boss Perot" after a quick search. No apparent relationship to the target.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Esp[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 8#Template:Esp

Wikipedia:NOT-FOR-GETTING-OTHER-PEOPLE-TO-DO-YOUR-HOMEWORK[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 Wikipedia:Do your own homework. --BDD (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT is an official Wikipedia policy. It is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Shortcuts to policy should reflect that philosophy and help people understand the policy so people can follow it. This redirect does not do that. There isn't a section or phrase in WP:NOT stating that Wikipedia is not for getting other people to do your homework. However true that may be, it isn't policy and people shouldn't use this longcut to pretend that this is policy. Fortunately this hasn't been used as such (yet), but I don't want to take any chances. Strong delete as it is a harmful and unhelpful masquerade for policy. -- Tavix (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong retarget to Wikipedia:Do your own homework, preemptively per SimonTrew who I'm sure has something to say about this one. As a redirect to a policy this is definitely harmful, but there is an appropriate target and it's very old. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase isn't used in that essay either. Wouldn't that be WP:RFD#D2 confusing? -- Tavix (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: In my opinion, WP:RFD#D2 doesn't apply to Wikipedia-namespace shortcut redirects since the phrase/acronym is deemed useful and not its usage anywhere. I mean, shortcuts like WP:OFFICELIST or WP:NCSP wouldn't exist if they had to mentioned in the page's text as a requirement. Steel1943 (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a difference between humor and a ridiculous longcut that exists for no reason. You're comparing apples to oranges here. -- Tavix (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Steel1943: I'd have to disagree. You're using "useful" which is a different argument than "confusing." Both of your examples are well known and useful shortcuts, and are not confusing—one of which being a well known acronym (Naming Conventions SportsPeople) and the other is a list pertaining to office actions, hence WP:OFFICELIST. We don't have this here. We can debate the usefulness of this shortcut (my opinion: not useful), but I do believe that WP:RFD#D2 applies to shortcuts. -- Tavix (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not disagreeing with you on that front. That retarget is a much better option than the status quo. I just don't see how that's a useful option. Someone would be much better off citing the full name of the essay or one of the shortcuts instead of this. It also comes off as a little condescending, doesn't it? -- Tavix (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I see what you mean. The dashes are weird. Not harmful probably, but odd. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Do your own homework per Ivanvector; weak delete per Tavix. Steel1943 (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to WP:Do your own homework. Ah, yes, yet another "short"cut from the days of yore, from 2007. {{Sarcasm|You just want to keep these forever!}} Trouble is, if you don't keep them, many links external to Wikipedia would likely be broken, darn it. – Paine  22:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to WP:Do your own homework: more relevant and it seems futile to endlessly list what Wikipedia is not, even in the form of redirects. Rubbish computer 18:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to WP:Do your own homework, of which I was unaware. I must admit (which is why Ivanvector says "pre-emptively to SimonTrew", abvove), I tend to use this phrase when I feel people have not done their research before bringing something to a discussion (particularly here at RfD): that's usually me grumbling in bad faith and not much relevant to this one, though. WP:NOTHOMEWORK and WP:NOT-HOMEWORK are red, though, and stats are about 0.1 hits a day, so the probability of external use of this longcut is perhaps small. Si Trew (talk) 05:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I probably shouldn't have said that, at any rate. The sentiment I've seen you express with "do your own homework" is better explained by WP:BEFORE rather than WP:HOMEWORK. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:19, 31 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 reddit jokes that are posted every thread[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) 18:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The target article doesn't contain a list of this sort (and shouldn't). -- Tavix (talk) 20:09, 27 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.

Burn center references on Reddit[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) 19:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any burn center references... -- Tavix (talk) 20:01, 27 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 keep. --BDD (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't this image also refer to a boat? Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is U+1F6A2 🚢 SHIP. Most platforms show a cruise ship; Android has a tugboat or ferry which are nonetheless fairly large vessels. Contrast with ⛵ sailboat, 🚣 rowboat, 🚤 speedboat. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it's defined as a ship. -- Tavix (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- "ship" redirecting to ship.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Longest[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) 14:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect's target is a disambiguation page, and not all uses of the word "long" on the disambiguation page are adjectives. That, and the word "longest" could be used as an adjective to describe distance or time, so even it as a term is ambiguous in the sense of encyclopedic subjects. Steel1943 (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I oppose this option since the article "Length" on this Wikipedia defines and is exclusive to "distance" with no mention of "time". Steel1943 (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of "length" for time is derivative of its use for distance. And "time" is just another dimension in spacetime so is a distance. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think that its use for time is derived from its use for distance? The two seem pretty coterminous etymologically right back to proto-Germanic. Si Trew (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Longer however is a song article; short is a DAB, shorter a different DAB, and shortest is red: so that's not much help as an analogy and I can't think that comparatives or superlatives of other dimensions would be any more relevant. Yes, it fails WP:NOUN, but DAB pages are there to disambiguate, and the target does that, if WP:NOTPERFECTly: it would be a WP:SURPRISE if "Long" did not mention "length" as well as meanings for surnames and so on. A surname, for example, is (or was) often an adjective, but we have those... Si Trew (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:POFR. reasonable redirect.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since "longest" is the superlative for long and it can refer to both time and length. I think deletion will cause more confusion than the status quo and a retarget to length will leave those looking for time out of the loop. -- Tavix (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ironic Christianity[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) 18:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:22, 27 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.

Buoyancy Operated Aquatic Transport[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) 19:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a WP:NOTWIKIA violation (but took me some research to discover.) This is the name of a imaginary invention created on an episode of Phineas and Ferb that is shaped like a boat. It is also not mentioned in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - I think it would be harmless to keep this given Steel's findings, but if it's not mentioned at the target then we should probably delete it. No incoming links, very low activity (I had to go back a few months to find a single hit). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:20, 27 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.

Amathev[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) 19:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has had several different, unrelated targets during its almost 6-year existence; however, some of these retargets seek like vandalism. Other than that, the current target doesn't seem correct, and I cannot find a good, accurate option for retargetting. Steel1943 (talk) 17:18, 27 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.

Art/Draft[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per criterion G6 by TomStar81. Steel1943 (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. The word "Draft" isn't even in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 17:02, 27 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.

Ibrahima Camara (Senegalese footballer)[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) 19:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical redirect. Highly unlikely to be a plausible search term, plus what happens if / when the player moves clubs? Fenix down (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom, redirecting non-notable players to their current clubs is nonsense. GiantSnowman 17:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per Giant, redirecting NN players to a club is ridiculous, and would need huge amounts of policing (which I can guarantee wouldn't happen) when the players concerned moved to other clubs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - likely to become WP:DATED (sort of along the lines of WP:RFD#2 and WP:RFD#5 as well) along with the nom and above rationales. If the player was explicitly notable for playing a great career with that club, it could be considered, but I don't think we generally disambiguate that way. (footballer) or whatever the term may be, would be the better way to go.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

William III of Provence[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 William II of Provence. Ivanvector, I'll leave any prudent hatnotes to you. --BDD (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a {{R from page move}} based on this duke's proper ordinal title based on reliable sources, however if there are no reliable sources for William III then this is confusing and should be deleted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC) Note: this William III is definitely a distinct person from the William III above. Don't merge these discussions. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - oh my, this is a mess. This article was originally an article about William II of Provence but named him "William II (or III)", which reflects that the reigns of various counts of Provence overlapped due to a competing claim from the counts of Arles (who claimed the title Margrave of Provence). Later, this became an article about William III (a different person), who succeeded his father Rotbold III of Provence as margrave but didn't succeed to the title of count until William IV's death some time later. Even later, a descendant William Bertrand of Provence (who is known as William V) ... you know what, I can't figure this out right now, and I need to go buy cherries and all the farmers' markets are closing soon. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete it as WP:RFD#D5 confusing nonsense. Hope you enjoyed the cherries (I have loads here but I don't like 'em.) Si Trew (talk) 11:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to William II of Provence, who some sources identify as William III. I've spent the past few days trying to recompile a family tree for these rulers of Provence (you can see my work at User:Ivanvector/Rulers of Provence - it's not sourced and probably not all that accurate) based from this source (also used extensively in the articles). The source picks a William who is the son of Rotbold I as William I, though he was Count of Arles but never of Provence. Our William I "the Liberator" is referred to in the source as William II "la Libérateur"; his son William II is William III in the source, and also "William II (or III)" on Wikipedia. William II (or III)'s son is William IV here and in the source, and William V is a cousin of William II (or III). Then, more confusion, as William II (or III)'s grandson William VI Bertrand is called William V here (and also called Bertrand I or II). Ugh. tl;dr: William II and William III are the same person seemingly no matter what way you look at this, and they are not William V, so retarget. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Note: the source uses middle French names, so William = Guillaume[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Retarget and hatnote. Since Ivanvector has done the research, seems sensible to go with those conclusions. I don't quite know what would be reasonable hatnotes but we can sort that out with the usual BRD etc. Si Trew (talk) 05:17, 31 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.

Sea Turtle Or Seaturtle[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. Not a particularly robust consensus, but it doesn't look like we'll get much better. Duuude. --BDD (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a bizarre redirect. This isn't a case where a word has two genuine spellings (see: Colour or Color). "Sea turtle" is almost always (correctly) spelled with two words (for example wikt:sea turtle gives "sea-turtle" as an alternative form, but not "seaturtle". To me, the only way someone would plausibly type this into a search bar would be to compare the difference between the spellings of "sea turtle" vs. "seaturtle" and that's something we don't have. I still think it's implausible due to the capitalization of every word (including "or"). Delete as confusing and per WP:RFD#D8. -- Tavix (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am wondering what is the "correct" spelling. Most of my etymological dictionaries are in store but I can see both being right (if wrong) if you see what I mean, there is a word for it I don't think periphrasis that words become conjoined over time, so both I think should be acceptable. I can certainly not see that it should go anywhere other than where it does. It is neither a turtle nor lives in the sea, primarily, but that is the kinda QI question we get here sometimes. It reminds me of the turtle in Alice in Wonderland, but that seems a long way out. Si Trew (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Si Trew's argument is a good reason to have a redirect from Seaturtle (which we have had since 2004) but searches like this to find the spelling are best directed at Google (interestingly the ngram for the two spellings show that while the single world has always been vastly inferior to the two word version but has had peaks of popularity in 1819, 1842 and 1910). Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's true, the conjunction (disjunction?) of "this or that" is probably the killer; I hadn't really noticed that. I'll try to find counterexamples simply for proof. Si Trew (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious one, William Or Mary brings up on a search William and Mary i.e. the King and his bint. So I think you are pretty much on solid ground, could not find much with "or" as disjunction even when searching very specifically. Delete it then. The only thing I was thinking about, in A Brief History of Time, Hawking mentions that a woman at a conference he gave says it was "turtles all the way", for how the world stands up. (A kinda Perpetual motion or Reductio ad absurdem gag.) This was a joke on Hawking's part, but maybe an RS one; even so, it seems far out since the turtles were patently not in the sea. Si Trew (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep it is a couplet noun form -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and I must admit I am wavering, parties who for libel reasons are not named in United Kingdom legal cases are often called N or M (not Norm, unfortunately). We do have that, but only as the title of a book by Agatha Christie. We have, for example John Doe (Jane Doe targetting there), but not John or Jane Doe. The "or" is really the crux of it, isn't it? Si Trew (talk) 06:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment'. Fusion (phonetics) was probably what I was stabbing at, which is listed at Fusion, a DAB page. Although not so much phonetic but lexicographic, but that still will serve the turn. Si Trew (talk) 07:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. It has an unambiguous target and it's only confusing between sea turtle (the article) and seaturtle (the redirect to the article), which is confusing apples with apples. WP:NOTFAQ, but visiting the article answers the question regardless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is confusing apples with apples, nicely put. There is no harm in it except if it sets a precedent for every other redirect in the universe being "X or Y". Si Trew (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, you're right, so we have WP:XY. But this is really "X or X". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's more like "Xc Or Xi" where c = correct name and i = incorrect name. -- Tavix (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Çomment. I thought "Seaturtle" was also quite a successful racehorse but can't find much on a gsearch about that so must be thinking of something else. Racehorse search gives me "Metro the Painting Racehorse" apparently has an oeuvre called "Sea turtle 042706"(here, unreliably, at wordpress.com). Green Sea Turtle is a three-year-old French filly by Turtle Bowl (Irish) out of Lunacat (French) but has only just started racing and has not won a race yet and so presumably not at all notable; here at the-racehorse.com. So I think that's a dead end but throw it out in case someone can search better than me (very likely). Si Trew (talk) 05:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not plausible as it is unlikely to be searched for especially with a capital "Of". Not useful as an article namespace link either.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:04, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Neon Light[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 move Neon Light (disambiguation) over the redirect. There's really no agreement here, except that the redirect shouldn't be kept or deleted. I tried to weigh the arguments but didn't find either side to be any stronger. I even looked at the RM, but they didn't address this question much. But given that this discussion demonstrates the potential for confusion, disambiguation seemed like the option that would be most helpful to readers. --BDD (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to a song. In my view, it should redirects to Neon lighting. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 10:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • retarget per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Neon Light (disambiguation). I think the WP:DIFFCAPS is significant enough that someone searching for "Neon Lights" is looking for one of the entries at the dab rather than "Neon lighting" and we should reward them for that. -- Tavix (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right of course (I think reward is a bit strong, but certainly not slap, I thought our job was to help people find information) . "Neon Lights" surely kinda means the bright lights of hollywood, Broadway, the West End and so on whether or not it they are made of neon. The stuff I have below is for other redirects where we have various halogens being redirected in very peculiar ways, which are not helpful to a technical audience, I think. Si Trew (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot the obvious two. We don't have flourine lamp nor flourine light nor florine lamp nor florine light. Tom Lehrer will be turning in his grave. (There were the only elements that he had known at Harvard, but since we put him in then there were many more discarvard.) Si Trew (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Argon lamp could go to Argon#Lighting which briefly discusses the use of argon in incandescents as well as pure and mixed argon gas-discharge lamps. However there is also a brief mention at Neon lamp#Colour. We don't have an article that discusses the development of the argon lamp, because as far as I know all noble gas discharge lamps are identical to neon lamps but with different gas mixtures, so not really worth writing separate articles about. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that retargeting to Neon Light (disambiguation) would violate WP:MALPLACED. We could certainly move that page over this redirect if there was consensus to disambiguate, however.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I hadn't noticed that. I think it'd be fair to interpret the retargets to that dab as a "move over redirect". -- Tavix (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
n.b., as I'm closing. I didn't advocate that option—I simply pointed out that that would be the proper way to disambiguate here. --BDD (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
er... you want Neon Light to redirect to Neon Light? Si Trew (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Fixed it, meant "Neon lighting". Thanks,—Godsy(TALKCONT) 21:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

📵[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 6#📵

🏴[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. --BDD (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This character is U+1F3F4 🏴 WAVING BLACK FLAG. “Black” in Unicode character names means not ‘black’ but ‘filled in with ink, as opposed to just an outline’. It can be displayed in any color and should be retargeted to Flag. Gorobay (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to several sites (such as emojibase.com) this emoji is part of the Unicode 7.0 update that just came out last year, and hasn't been included in many devices' operating systems yet. As such I can't find the usual drawings of the icons on different platforms: they don't seem to exist. I agree with Gorobay's explanation: this represents a flag that is filled in with colour, rather than specifically a black flag (contrast with U+1F3F3 🏳 WAVING WHITE FLAG which is not filled in/just an outline) and so I agree that retarget to Flag is best. For both characters, should the other come up. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget per nom and Ivanvector. —Fitnr 18:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am inclined to disagree with the proposed target for U+1F3F3 🏳 WAVING WHITE FLAG, which I would take to surrender, and black flag to disease: however these have so many meanings that perhaps they are better deleted as WP:RFD#D5 confusing.
Í am not sure that Gorobay's explanation of what "BLACK" and "WHITE" means in the Unicode descriptions is correct: for if so, better descriptions would have been "WAVING SOLID FLAG" and "WAVING HOLLOW FLAG" or something like that. That BLACK and WHITE are used to mean solid and hollow is a new one on me: could you give any reference to the Unicode spec. for that?
I am not particularly familiar with this code page, and it seems to me Unicode is veering away a bit from its remit with these emoji by drifting into what a glyph should look like (coloured or not) rather than what a code point should mean. For example, we now have country flags (described here at an Apple blog, along with how OS X renders people emoji to have non-white options) which would be nonsense if not rendered in (an approximation to) the proper colours. But then, Unicode has U+1F3C1 🏁 CHEQUERED FLAG (🏁 is red, but I guess we would take to checkered flag), but nowhere says it must be a black-and-white checkered flag or in any way otherwise implies its rendering. (Interestingly that glyph does render as a checkered flag on my Windows 7 Starter edition).
I'm not sure how relevant all this is: but it is certainly a function of the user agent (browser) and not Unicode to determine the colour: perhaps the upshot is that these are just badly named in the Unicode spec. Si Trew (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BLACK and WHITE have meant SOLID and HOLLOW since Unicode 1.0. Gorobay (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a liar btw of [[:]] being a redlink, it is actually a redirect to Motorsport, and its last edit was by your good self on 7 March 2013 to add the {{R from Unicode}} tag, its only modification since its creation on 8 November 2010. I have no idea why I thought it was a redlink. Si Trew (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Flag per nom. Interesting discussion here, I always like learning something new.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Ariana Grande First Studio Album[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) 13:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlikely search term. Chase (talk | contributions) 04:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both - these point to the right articles and are unambiguous, despite being incorrectly capitalized. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both The redirect makes it easier to locate the articles on Grande's first and second studio albums. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 16:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have boldly decided to merge these two discussions. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both, unambiguous and harmless. The red flag would be if the word "untitled" or "upcoming" was thrown in there, but we're good. -- Tavix (talk) 17:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Unambiguous, and directing to the right place (reiterating Ivanvector). They won't become dated, as this will always remain true. Searching this gets users to the place they want to go.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Piece of junk[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 6#Piece of junk

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_27&oldid=1138580252"