Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 13, 2015.

He had had a bunchberry plant[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, refining the target to the Syllables section. --BDD (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search terms for a language page ThaddeusB (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it is in fact a well-known translation of this language's word xłp̓x̣ʷłtłpłłskʷc̓ into English, demonstrating this language's unusual syllable structure allowing for very long strings of consonants. I have no idea how to pronounce it. Ivanvector (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I guess it's like teaching people to say Peter Piper Picked A Peck of Pickled Pepper or "Still, the sinking steamer sank", not exactly a tongue-twister to an English person, but probably a good first exercise in translation yes? I know we are WP:NOTDIC and so on, and it is a bit WP:FORRED but if it directs people to where they want to go, (such as even Ivanvector) then what is the harm in keeping it. It is not as if people are just randomly got it in. We are, after all, here to provide people with knowledge, and I see no harm in it at all. Si Trew (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This sounds kinda pidgin English to me, as a back translation, asking an Englishman to learn a language is like trying to teach the sun to stop revolving round the earth. Si Trew (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Retarget to Bella_Coola_language#Syllables, where the exact phrase is mentioned. Natg 19 (talk) 19:49, 18 March 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.

Hickory bacon[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, but refine to exclude the section redirect. --BDD (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Currently redirects to a section that doesn't exist. I thought about retargeting to Bacon#Curing and smoking bacon but this only mentions hickory in an image caption. Removing the section target (retarget to Bacon) might work, or there is a List of bacon dishes or List of smoked foods. Nominating to solicit other ideas. Ivanvector (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bacon#United States mentions that hickory smoke is a common flavor here. It's unlikely that we would ever have enough to say about hickory bacon specifically to merit a standalone article, and we're talking about a variety of bacon more than a bacon dish. Removing the section target may be our best bet. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as {{R to section}} >per Ivanvector. Very common in southern US. Si Trew (talk) 00:49, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You say "per Ivanvector" but actually my point was that I don't know what to do with it. I'm leaning towards what BDD said about removing the section target and just targeting to the article, which was not "retarget to section". Could you clarify? Ivanvector (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point to say "per you", that was slapdash on my part. Hickory smoked backon is very common anywhere that, er hickory is grown. (I lived in texas for two years). Mesquite smoked is even nicer, I don't think we ever get that here but that part of the country it is just sitting around growing on trees.
So I think this would be a very common advertsing/supermarket term, but I don't live in the US, and I don't know where to put it either. Had a nice Bacon sandwich last night, you think bacon would be the least possible term for ambiguity ever, but because esp. British style bacon Back bacon, Middle bacon, Streaky bacon and so forth) is so different from strip bacon, this one will run and run, I think.... Don't even try to edit the article at Bacon! Si Trew (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really should have taken up baconology I guess... took up bacchanalia by mistake.... Si Trew (talk) 10:26, 16 March 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.

Todd Wier[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) 17:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating both of the original co-owners of the Buffalo Sharks per WP:REDLINK, so that we can help foster article growth. Tavix |  Talk  18:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Tavix, WP:REDLINK, to encourage creation of the bio articles. (Never heard of em meself.) 02:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above.--Lenticel (talk) 02:32, 15 March 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.

Rail grinding[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 31#Rail grinding

Manuj[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. JohnCD (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly vandalism. The user who made these did nothing else. --BDD (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete is there not a PROD for redirects? also, vandalism is usually CSD-able, is it not? -- Aunva6talk - contribs 17:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no PROD for redirects because the PROD system relies on pages being on watchlists, whereas redirects are rarely watchlisted. Also, redirects nominated for deletion are far more often not deleted than is the case for articles. WP:CSD#G3 allows for deletion of pages that are purely (and obviously) vandalism, but it doesn't harm to discuss it if you are not certain. Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:BLP/WP:G3; delete as well per WP:RFD#DELETE #2, #3 and #5 (confusing, nonsense, possibly insulting). Manuj Saxena seems to be a real non-notable person, this was probably done as a joke. Ivanvector (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing.--Lenticel (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is it possible this is an odd spelling in other languages for Menu? (Which i am aware is kinda english and not english at the same time). Si Trew (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That surely then is straight WP:PROMO, for the "fifty one official flavours". Heinz 57 has some history to it. We are not an advertising site. Si Trew (talk) 09:21, 17 March 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.

Top Banana (candy)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 31#Top Banana (candy)

Windows 8.2[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 keep. --BDD (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This formerly existed as a redirect to Windows 8.1, I haven't ever heard about this product apart from previously encountering the redirect. - TheChampionMan1234 04:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this was the name used about the next version of Windows, when the start button was to be fully restored, in reports about the next version of Windows. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It leads to no info on this subject. Totally useless. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It leads to the exact information about the subject, namely Windows 10, which was called 8.2 by some sources before the name was released. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is not collection of mistakes that some sources made. (Weasel word alert.) I certainly do not condone the wrongdoings of some sources. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: How frequently was Windows 10 referred to by this name? Is erroneous usage for Windows 8.1 more likely?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If people are searching for information to the successor to Windows 8.1 then this is a very logical search term and the redirect takes them to the information they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep why delete it? not like it's a confusing redirect. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 17:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably keep. How often was it used in this term? Er, in my vocabulary, never. (But I was just a Microsoft MVP, I don't work for 'em). If it's in others' vocab, keep it. Si Trew (talk) 02:58, 14 March 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.

Tom Tucker and Diane Simmons[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) 17:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Tom Tucker and Diane Simmons now have their own anchors in List of Family Guy characters, so this redirect page is no longer necessary. No one would ever search for it - the redirect article title contains two separate subjects. Pages that linked to it have been modified to link to the individual anchors. --hulmem (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Just because it is outdated does not make it unnecessary. Has a lot of external incoming links. Si Trew (talk) 09:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide evidence supporting your statement, "Has a lot of external incoming links"? There are no Wikipedia links or redirects other than those related to this Rfd: Special:WhatLinksHere/Tom Tucker and Diane Simmons --hulmem (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - longstanding {{R from page move}}. Whether a reader is looking for Tom Tucker or Diane Simmons, the target would be the same. Ivanvector (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the target should not be the same. The target should be the respective character page anchor. If a user is searching for "Tom Tucker", they will more likely come across Tom Tucker (first in the suggested matches list), which redirects them the character page anchor for Tom Tucker. If they are searching for "Diane Simmons", Tom Tucker and Diane Simmons isn't even in the list (because it is a prefix search); if they select or enter "Diane Simmons", they will get a page for a real person with that name, and it has a hatnote to direct them to the character page anchor for Diane Simmons. --hulmem (talk) 01:50, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't it be the same? Both are listed in that section. Most users won't even have to scroll down. If someone is looking for the real Diane Simmons they're not going to type this. Ivanvector (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Providing stats is easy, there are zero (I checked, yes). That is not how we do it. We have to be a bit clairvoyant and think would anyone posssibly search for this, and if they did, what would they want to find? Since they would probably want to find the two newsreader characters from Family Guy, let them find it. Deliberately I am not giving you links out, so as not to confuse the matter (google is very quick with searching these days). Si Trew (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Goes exactly where it should, to the biogs (if you can say that) of these fictional characters, in the section of the article. What's wrong with that? Si Trew (talk) 03:09, 14 March 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.

Aeon of Strife[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 20#Aeon of Strife

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_13&oldid=1138580425"