Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 31, 2015.

List of burn centers in the Kanto Region[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 per WP:RFD#DELETE, reason 5. Just Chilling (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page was clearly created as a joke (edit description reads "Made page for reddit."). "Burn center" is not a term used in Pokémon. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do whatever with it - Of course it is useless as a redirect and created as a joke. I just didn't see it as harmful, and didn't delete it. I asked the creator about it on Reddit and he said "Oh, that was just a joke page I made for a comment.". I see no reason to keep nor to delete so just do whatever common practice dictates. However: thanks for Clarinetguy097 for notifying me of this RfD, such diligence is highly appreciated! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a joke entry. I think the creators already had their fun.--Lenticel (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – A year later my WP:G3 might finally stick.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nonsense. For people who are as clueless about recent video games as I am, it seems Kanto is a region in the game world (or something, I don't know). So redirecting this to a Pokemon topic is not quite as stunningly weird as it might seem at face value. However, given Clarinetguy's assertion that burn centers are not a thing in the game, and there aren't any burn centers or other hospitals or any institutions really listed at Kantō region, this redirect has no sensible target. Ivanvector (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a viable search term. Sergecross73 msg me 02:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete' misleading and misinforms people about burn centers in Tokyo -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete makes no sense. I am someone very familiar with Pokémon, and I have no idea what a "burn center" is. --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This likely isn't what they meant, but there is an item in the game call a "Burn Heal" that removes the negative status effect "Burn" from a single Pokémon. The closest thing to a "Burn center" is the Pokémon Center which is a place that completely heals all the Pokémon in your party, including removing burns. However, these places are never referred to as "burn centers", even by fans. --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we are talking about the actual Kanto region then maybe there's more to talk, with say WikiProject Medicine. But this has been in Pokemon context from the start, and there is no explicitly named "burn centers" in that franchise. Delete. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 04:19, 2 April 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.

লেমন শার্ক[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. JohnCD (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another WP:RFOREIGN redirect from Bengali to a "common word or concept." The lemon shark's range doesn't include the Indian Ocean, so we don't have to worry about keeping it for "cultural" reasons. Tavix |  Talk  18:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. This shark has a home range that includes the United States, but NOT India so there is no affinity whatsoever for Bengali. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above since Lemon shark's aren't endemic in India.--Lenticel (talk) 12:25, 1 April 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.

Elizabeth Mary[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 Elizabeth Mary of Portugal. Ruslik_Zero 19:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of women with these two forenames; the Queen is very unlikely to be the primary use since barely anyone knows Mary is one of her three Christian names. DrKiernan (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are indeed lots of people named "Elizabeth Mary", and many have redirects from their full name. However there are only two that I would consider worthy of a target from this title: Elizabeth Mary Palmer, the only person with these two forenames in their article title; and Elizabeth Mary of Portugal (itself a redirect to Infanta Isabel Maria of Portugal) but neither are particularly known without their surname/title afaict. I would suggest a redirect to Elizabeth (given name)#People with this given name but neither of the two Elizabeth Marys are listed there (it's a very incomplete list). I'm wondering if this is a case where the search engine is simply best (even though it sometimes requires a couple of clicks to get there)? Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I would agree with Possible, just to throw it out, the two sister Cunard ships Queen Elizabeth 2 and RMS Queen Mary but that seems equally unlikely. Si Trew (talk) 10:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that was not perhaps unlikely for "Elizabeth and Mary", but only with the conjunction. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, the conjunction is the sticking point. Will look. Si Trew (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We do have this book] (amazon.com) which includes the conjunction in its title. So I don't think it is an uncommon phrase. The thing is, what to do with it? (Actually, I think I have that book in my shelf somewhere... my missus is quite interested in the Tudors). Si Trew (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's make it clear, we do not (fortunately) have Elizabeth and Mary nor Elizabeth & Mary, so that's not at issue. Si Trew (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do we have Elisabeth Mary, nor Eliza Maria, "etc etc ad nauseam" as Private Eye says. (cont'd. p94) Si Trew (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:42, 31 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.

Unspeakably naughty acts[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 per WP:RFD#DELETE, reason 2. Just Chilling (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serious encyclopedia. It is not ED nor is it Uncyclopedia. We don't create redirects in article space for humorous purposes. B (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is a serious encyclopedia that allows humorous articles, presumably because they are deemed beneficial to the encyclopedia. And as long as it does so, at least in principle it seemingly makes little sense to ban resources that can help with such articles, at least unless somebody can spell out more clearly what harm they are supposedly doing, and/or suggest a better alternative. That said, it's a 'resource' that hasn't been re-used so far, so I'm not too bothered one way or the other, provided that any deletion is then accompanied by wiki-linking 'Unspeakably naughty acts' directly to 'sexual intercourse' in the WP:Reichstag article where the link currently exists. So I've now changed my original Keep to a mere Comment (which is probably deplorably cowardly of me, since I tend to expect that the only practical effect of the deletion will be to occasionally marginally detract from the amusement of some of our readers, thereby marginally disimproving the encyclopedia, in a most regrettable violation of the spirit, and perhaps the letter, of WP:IAR). Tlhslobus (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete No book hits and three quarters of the web hits are in Wikipedia (not that there are many of those). The possibilities of unspeakable naughtiness go well beyond copulation; I could indeed argue that if the redirect has a target, then it's not really unspeakable and thus doesn't qualify. Mangoe (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Logically you seem to be making a case for keeping the Re-direct, but Re-directing it to a non-existent article, or possibly to a disambiguation article listing all conceivable unspeakably naughty acts, and perhaps all inconceivable ones as well :) Tlhslobus (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when you state "if the redirect has a target, then it's not really unspeakable and thus doesn't qualify", you seem to be confusing 'unspeakably naughty acts' with 'unwriteably naughty acts', and/or with 'unprintably naughty acts' :) Tlhslobus (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #2 (misleading/confusing). There is no indication from the extremely limited search results for "unspeakably naughty acts" that this refers specifically to sexual intercourse, and not something either more specific or entirely different (perhaps murder or securities fraud or speeding). Disambiguation would not be appropriate unless there are many articles with this title, and there aren't. I object to the notion that we allow "humorous articles" - we keep some project-side pages because they're humorous, but articles are meant to be encyclopedic and serious. Some of the topics might be humorous, but sexual intercourse is not generally one of them. Ivanvector (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I guess we'd better hurry up and delete it before the day is out - otherwise we will have dismally failed to choose April Fool's Day as the appropriate day to make Wikipedia less humorous :) Tlhslobus (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing. I do appreciate the humor though but this is indeed a confusing redirect. ---Lenticel (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:POV and vague. I'm also sure in some cultures sex isn't unspeakable. --Mr. Guye (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons listed above. It may be funny, but this is a serious encyclopedia. --Rayukk (talk) 22:46, 3 April 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.

Unafraid[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 The Unafraid. Ruslik_Zero 19:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect to its opposite. May be better at Courage. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment we could tag it as {{R from antonym}} or retarget to fearless which lists both fear and courage -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Courage. It seems more synonymous with "fearless", but since that's a disambiguation page with nothing called "Unafraid", that doesn't seem like a good option. --BDD (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But we also have Discourage, which I think H. W. Fowler describes dis– (maybe the O.E.D.) as "a prefix having privative force", that is to say, it takes away fear. So a dis-infectant takes away infection, whereas nobody tries to sell you an uninfectant. Si Trew (talk) 11:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite of "discourage" is "encourage", not "courage" -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference, surely, between being not scared and being no longer scared? Si Trew (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's better than my suggestion. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 18:28, 4 April 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]

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. Please, continue discussion on the talk page. Ruslik_Zero 19:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this is the right place for this phrase to target. I came to it looking for an article about the process, which is sort of covered at the current target and sort of covered at railgrinder (although it is focused on the machines and not the process). The generic article, grinding (abrasive cutting), does explain the process but without any reference to its application to railways. I don't think any of the three is an ideal target, but which is best? Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Grind (skateboarding) is the first thing that came to mind when I saw the phrase. Disambiguate? --BDD (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just seen a comment at Talk:Railgrinder noting that someone looking for the skateboarding term ended up at that article, so I've just added a hatnote pointing to the skateboarding to the page. I was about to say that wherever this ends up pointing it would need a hatnote too, but a dab page is certainly a possibility I wouldn't object to. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate between railgrinder and grind (skateboarding), with a see-also to grinding (abrasive cutting). I'm a bit concerned that High Speed Grinding is spam. Ivanvector (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think High Speed Grinding is spam, there was a discussion about it I found (I forget where) that suggested it was written in good faith but I did debate tagging it as reading like an advert. Perhaps it would be better merged into Railgrinder? Thryduulf (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • there's the generic Grind (sport) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Grind (disambiguation). All potential retargets should be at that page. If it's not already there, it should (probably) be added. Tavix |  Talk 
(Intermission) That would be W:TWODABS, though... but I think it should go to specifically grinding rails rather thgan (e.g.) grinding one's teeth. Perhaps WP:VAGUE? Si Trew (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation pages with only two entries are fine if located at a title that does not include "(disambiguation)" and neither of the targets is the primary topic for the given term. Thryduulf (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment rollerblading is the first thing that came to mind, do we have an article on grinding on roller blades? -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have Grinds (skating) which is probably what you are looking for, but it's not a topic I'm familiar with. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, but the first thing to spring to my mind is grinding rails. Since this is obviously genuinely ambiguous, I think this is best to DAB it, isn't it? Si Trew (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I now think a dab page is clearly best. I didn't know about the skateboarding or rollerblading uses when I nominated this. Thryduulf (talk) 03:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge railgrinder and High Speed Grinding to rail grinding. For all the fishing around in other uses of "grinding" by itself, the process of, um, rail grinding is the obvious primary topic under "rail grinding". Mangoe (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I only just noticed, we don't actually have railgrinding (one word) either. I was just going to start making a draft DAB (at Draft:Railgrinding), as usual not to preclude any outcome here but to kinda incorporate what has been discussed, and noticed that was missing too... 09:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I made a start at the DAB if we want it, not perfect but has pretty much the entries we've said here. That is not, of course, to prejudice any clonclusion here, but just to kinda sometimes it helps to clarify. I'd be delighted if others bunged in. Si Trew (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the description of High Speed Grinding. You had it marked as a company, but the article describes it as a concept. I've described it as a process (as "concept" wouldn't make much sense there) but I'm not entirely happy with it still. It shows though we do need an article on the process - perhaps merging Railgrinder and HSG together could become that article as suggested. Thryduulf (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've totally forgotten where I stuck the draft DAB, It was very much a draft, so, sorry for my errors there. Are we still going for dabbing it? Si Trew (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To make it clear (as it isn't really above) my favoured course of action here is to disambiguate based on the draft disambiguation page at draft:Railgrinding. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 2 April 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]

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. Wizardman 14:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely for someone to type it. Not used anywhere. The Top Banana dab page already link to the main article. damiens.rf 16:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2, confusion. Candy Crush would seem an equally likely target. I was trying to think in the Encylcopaedia of Si Trew's Head where I have heard this exact term before, but haven't. Closest I got were Thurber and Perelman, writing for the Marx Bros. (And his line "How do you know there are four of them [stowaways]? Because their singing Sweet Adeline) will be in my heart till I die. Si Trew (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see the problem. Is "top banana" a Candy Crush concept? It's not mentioned at that article. --BDD (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment was it not S. J. Perelman who said "I am the great Big Cheese around here, but if you don't like that, you can call me the Gorgon Zola. Si Trew (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That just seems to me like saying Heinz 57. It is just another bit of marketing speak. 22:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, I've been indifferent about this redirect, but I took another look at it and I really don't see it helping anything. If anything, it's confusing. My Google search turned up other types of candy known as "Top Banana" (It's a candy that looks like the banana Runts). However, it's not nearly as popular as the Jelly Belly flavor. Anyone searching for this specific flavor of Jelly Belly can be directed to it via the disambiguation Top Banana. Tavix |  Talk  18:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Top Banana (disambiguation) should be sufficient. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 02:36, 3 April 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.

Ignatius Yakub II[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirects to Ignatius Jacob III, while the name of the redirect is Ignatius Yakub II, who is another Patriarch of Antioch. There is no article for Ignatius Yakub (Jacob) II, probably thats why the redirect was created.

However, the current redirect is misleading and I thing it shouldn't be there. Hg andVenus 07:30, 31 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_31&oldid=1138580494"