Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 13[edit]

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

Singleoperate[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 by Drmies, I assume per WP:SNOW; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of equipment is single operator, these are descriptors. I'd be very surprised following these redirects to find myself reading about hobby radio operators. Legacypac (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom; confusing. There's not even enough context in the article to establish what the connection is thought to be. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 14 November 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.

Dog skins[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. JohnCD (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skin does not equal coat. Skin is below the coat. Compared to other kinds of leather or sheepskin in one place. Oh and some people eat it. Dogskin Lake is a feature in Canada. Legacypac (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also possible article either for the lake or for the leather made from a dog's skin. The closest article that I got was Dog skin disorders which is a partial match --Lenticel (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but Rawhide (material) is vaguely possible, as a material used to create dog chews and toys. Si Trew (talk) 02:29, 16 November 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.

Single coated[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 - WP:SURPRISE; double coats are not unique to dogs. Just Chilling (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of these terms are unique to dogs, and none of them even make me think of dogs - s WP:SURPRISE. Paint and similar coatings jump to mind first. They also apply to numerous other animals like llamas whih have a double coat. Delete? Legacypac (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague. These "single" and "double" coats seems to refer to other things ranging from dogs to pharmaceutical products and painting techniques --Lenticel (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete WP:BIAS, this is not the Dog Wikipedia, other animals have coats, and coats are not restricted to animals either, since a double coat of paint is something done for durability, etc -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOUN, WP:RD#D2 confusing. Si Trew (talk) 06:37, 15 November 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.

Douzaine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 21#Douzaine

André van Hasselt[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 the first, delete the rest. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any evidence people are misspelling this guy's name or using rearrangements of it for some strange reason. The dutch version noted in the article is not nominated for deletion. Delete as clutter Legacypac (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep some the ones that start with Henri or Andre or 'Henri Andre' and end with Hasselt or 'van Hasselt' as WP:CHEAP variants -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, keep all except André Henri Constant then? Si Trew (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Relist for additional input as we are coming up with more and more of these name variation redirects in the Neelix list Legacypac (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except André van Hasselt as implausible permutations unless anyone has evidence that he was called another variant. -- Tavix (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all but André van Hasselt, as Tavix just said - Nabla (talk) 21:17, 27 November 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.

Roundtowered[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 - WP:SURPRISE; not only churches are round towered. Just Chilling (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things are round towered including some castles, and a medical building I know. Too imprecise. Legacypac (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete round castellation would be much more likely -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:44, 14 November 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.

Gyprocks[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 21#Gyprocks

Rigips[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) 17:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No English results come up in search, but this is part of the name of a German company in the business of making drywall. If someone is seeking out the company name they are not looking to learn generally about drywall. Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - all my search results are Croatian, but image results look more like some kind of modular building product, not drywall. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I found too before I nom'd. I had to force it to only look at English results which is where I found the German company. Legacypac (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's used as a genericized trademark in Hungarian, too; and it is used generically (I think) in the title of a YouTube video in Romanian here. As a title this is acceptable by WP:RFOREIGN: "Original or official names of people, places, institutions, publications or products".
Weak retarget to Saint-Gobain, its manufacturer ½ndash; but it's not mentioned there. Si Trew (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is actually the commonly used German word for "drywall", just like velcro is the English word for Hook and loop fastener. I never knew it was a company name. —Kusma (t·c) 08:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Best I could quickly figure out Rigips is the main supplier of gypsum cement board in Germany, just as Gyproc is the original/main brand of drywall in Canada, so likely the trademark has become the generic term. This is en Wikipedia though, and english speakers would not know the brand name Rigips. If it went red someone might profile what is likely a notable company. Legacypac (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK unless/until this brand becomes mentioned somewhere. -- Tavix (talk) 05:03, 23 November 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.

Egregiosities[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 1#Egregiosities

Sleepies[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 Eye crusties, delete the rest, noting that Sleepies was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No claim in the article that any of these phrases are related. Eye potato sure sounds like potato eye. Delete as invented by the editor to inflate his page creation counts Legacypac (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - none of these colloquial names are listed at the target. Sleepies are naps, and potato eyes are a blemish on a potato. Lots of things can encrust on the eye, sleep sugar is hopelessly vague (could refer to NyQuil), eyes in cheese refers to Swiss cheese and others, and on and on. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My instinct was to keep "sleepies", but now I've done a bit of Googling I'm no longer sure. In any case, here's a survey on what people call it; apart from "sleepies" and "eye crusties", none of these are even listed as options. Sideways713 (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep eye crusties, which isn't really used to refer to anything but rheum. Weak keep sleepies; it's more ambiguous, but is the most used of these redirects and has still happily pointed this way since 2008. Delete the others. Sideways713 (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but the ones Sideways713 wants to keep. -- Tavix (talk) 05:06, 23 November 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.

Ὑπόθεσις[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) sst✈discuss 05:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a translation service Legacypac (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • From the article: The English word hypothesis comes from the ancient Greek ὑπόθεσις word hupothesis, meaning "to put under" or "to suppose". (referenced in article) Anyone here familiar with ancient Greek? Is Ὑ a capital ὑ? Would our software know to capitalize it? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The definition is correct, but do we provide redirects from Greek words to their English equivalents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)
  • Weak keep since it's mentioned in the article. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 10:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per responses to my questions above (thanks) and per KarasuGamma. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete general topic and not an especially Greek one. Yes, the word has a Greek origin, but WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFOREIGN, it's a Greek word with Greek etymology. Also, it is described in the article. -- Tavix (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it is discussed in the article itself --Lenticel (talk) 23:53, 15 November 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.

To put under[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) 18:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From killed (the vet put the old dog under) to putting someone under a teacher, too vague Legacypac (talk) 20:27, 13 November 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.

Fussing[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) 16:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to make a fuss, but Fussing is a very different thing then complaining, though someone might do both. Delete all as inappropriate. Legacypac (talk) 20:16, 13 November 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.

Hack-rag[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) 16:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. I thought I was the only one left in the world who calls a downmarket newspaper a "hack-rag" 8 (rag being slang for newspaper, hack short for hack writer). But I can't find online RS for this. This is a Neelix redirect; I'm disinclined to list the variants. Si Trew (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all variants as they don't match the targetLegacypac (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I added the variants (delete them too). Si Trew (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015 November 15#Hackworked q.v. Not quite the same rationale. Si Trew (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Two RS for "hack rag":
    • Adams, Douglas (2012). The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: The Original Radio Scripts. Pan Macmillan. p. 142. ISBN 9781447204886. Retrieved 16 November 2015.
    • Franken, Al (2005). The Truth (with jokes). Penguin. p. 18. ISBN 9781101213339. Retrieved 16 November 2005.
All other online refs i can find are essentially in discussion fora or blogs. Undoubtedly in use, but not RS for WP. OK as citations for Wiktionary, probably. Si Trew (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, now, see, you managed to use The Guide as a source, and now I want to keep this. But there's still really no matching content at the target and I can't find a better one. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 06:22, 19 November 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.

Twobody[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. JohnCD (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (and see #Onebody, below: I am hesitant to combine them.) Neelix redirects, WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target, no internal links beyond this discussion, stats below noise level (<1 a day). Were it to be a word it would not be a WP:NOUN, anyway. Si Trew (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rubbish computer: I was adding variants and got an (edit conflict). Do you want to recast your !vote? (I imagine not.) Si Trew (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: No, it's alright, but thanks anyway. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looking closer, stats for that are 75 over 90 days which is quite low, but pretty evenly spread (bot activity tends to be in bursts every two or three days or so, with nowt else in between.) Thanks for looking into it. Si Trew (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, search results are better. I don't think there are enough potential targets for this to be disambiguated; anyway they would all be partial title matches. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked at this when noming one body. Was going to put these up as well but they are a touch better. Legacypac (talk) 19:33, 13 November 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.

Fast men[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 24#Fast men

Fyodor Terentjev[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 Fedor Terentyev, Fyodor Terentjev, and Фёдор Тере́нтьев; delete the rest. Note that Fedor Terentjev was not listed here. --BDD (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
List of redirects to Fyodor Terentyev
Discussion for Fyodor Terentyev[edit]

It is inconceivable that there need to be 47 redirect variations on the name of a Russian cross country skier from the 50s. Surely this just leads to his name being misspelled all over the internet. Delete all, including the Russian one. Full list [1] Legacypac (talk) 08:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not just all over the Internet, but all over Wikipedia too, if we're not careful.
The only redirect actually in use is Fedor Terentjev (in three articles: Cross-country skiing at the 1956 Winter Olympics – Men's 30 kilometres, Cross-country skiing at the 1956 Winter Olympics – Men's 50 kilometres and Cross-country skiing at the 1956 Winter Olympics – Men's 4 × 10 kilometre relay). (I am pretty sure that the other Olympic years in which he's linked directly e.g. Cross-country skiing at the 1936 Winter Olympics – Men's 4 × 10 km relay are just via the {{Footer Olympic Champions XC Relay Men}} template.)
So I think, for now, we should Keep Fedor Terentjev because this is the article discussing what his bio said he competed in, so perhaps that is how it was spelled by the Olympic committee. But Delete by default all not mentioned in this discussion as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. I'll check stats for any outliers, and also try to find out if it's just a spelling mistake or an official transliteration for the '56 Olympics. Si Trew (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Feodor Terentiev as a published misspelling [2] (I assume that's named after him since it's also in Karelia where he's from). Weak keep all the other Terentievs as somewhat-plausible mistaken transcriptions (ть always gets mangled; the official romanisation systems have it as t' which looks absurd and so individuals with it in their names always use ad hoc spellings). Delete all the eye-dialect "Tsyar" spellings, the German-style transcriptions with "w", the Cyrillic-with-accents which is never used in the real world, etc. per Si Trew. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never mind, the first half of my comment, no "Terentiev"s were ever created in the first place. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 12:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fedor Terentjev (which is not a Neelix redirect, and is indeed the spelling that appears in the 1956 Olympic report) and Fedor Terentyev (which is a Neelix redirect) as harmless cheap redirects that may aid searching. (The latter isn't getting any page views to speak of, but it's a plausible transliteration; keeping it may have minimal upside, but no downside.) Delete all the redirects with an S or a W. Sideways713 (talk) 13:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Comment. "Fedor Terentjev" is used here (not WP mirrors):
Si Trew (talk) 13:58, 13 November 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.

Labourunionistic[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. JohnCD (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are simply not a phrase or word, not a thing at all. Delete as invented nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also:
Delete these two with same reasoning. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 16#Laborunionist: Labourunionist is a Neelix redirect but has a different target. Si Trew (talk) 05:28, 16 November 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.

Onebody[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. JohnCD (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These immediately make me think of a Christian doctrine (the Church is one body), or fitness (you only have one body), not an obscure math problem. Delete as not specific enough to be useful. Legacypac (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also #Twobody, above. I am hesitant to combine these. Si Trew (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, search results are better. I don't think there are enough potential targets for this to be disambiguated; anyway they would all be partial title matches. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:28, 13 November 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.

Singleplayer games[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. JohnCD (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The are LOTS of games that are not video games but involve one player. Single game could refer to any kind of game anywhere. Let's have a single game of chess or cricket or football today. All misleading redirects that could refer to thousands of things. Legacypac (talk) 06:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete WP:BIAS videogames are not the only type of game in the world; indeed the Solitaire Windows games is based on a real world card game, and pinball machines are not videogames. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - extremely vague. I was a single gamer until I got married, and I was a single player until my wife bought a ukulele. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above. Sideways713 (talk) 16:22, 13 November 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.

Full commingling[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. JohnCD (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This term has both recycling and securities trading (and maybe other) applications. Delete or dab? Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - "full" is not defined, it's just a random adjective tacked on to this dictionary definition. "Fully" is defined at the current target but it's still a partial definition. If we're going to keep any of these they should point to commingling. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague and per Ivanvector's findings. --Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 16 November 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.

Appropriateness[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 24#Appropriateness

White lips[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 the remaining two. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone searching this term is NOT looking for tree frogs. It is a symptom of a variety of medical conditions, so since we don't want to suggest it is one medical condition to the exclusion of others, delete all three. Legacypac (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have white-lipped frog (primary), white-lipped frog (disambiguation) and the three entries on it, White-lipped tree frog (primary), White-lipped tree frog (disambiguation) and the two entries on it, white-lipped tamarin, white-lipped snake, white-lipped python, White-lipped tree viper → Trimeresurus albolabris, White-lipped peccary, White-lipped snail, white-lipped mud turtle, White-lipped Bandicoot → Clara's echymipera, White-lipped deer → Thorold's deer and the Ukinga girdled lizard has white lips. (The white rhinoceros doesn't have white lips, but section "Naming" devotes a good chunk to the idea that "white" came from Dutch from its broad (wijd) lips/mouth.)
But amazingly enough we have managed all these years without white-lipped or white lipped. Make of that what you will. Both Common tree frog and White-lipped tree frog have been moved once each in the past, but only to change capitalization. white-lipped frog was moved i 2013 from its Linnean name. Si Trew (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first may be suitable to redirect to Pallor, the others should be deleted. Peter James (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I retargeted #1 and stripped the rfd template there. Others should be deleted still Legacypac (talk) 10:08, 20 November 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.

Poo pooed[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 23#Poo pooed

Seto Kaiba's Cards[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) 17:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect, the target page does not mention the character's cards at all. Redirect should be deleted because no other articles has a list of cards the character uses and it is not likely a plausible search term, especially since we already have Seto Kaiba redirecting to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! characters, which seems sufficient enough 173.3.78.156 (talk) 02:23, 13 November 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.

Finito[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 convert to DAB, with thanks to Si Trew for doing the work. JohnCD (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. This section to which this redirects does mention Ramón "Finito" Rivera once - this is the only mention in the article. We have, to my eye, other likely candidates including Ricardo López (boxer) (to which Ricardo "Finito" Lopez redirects), but not Ricardo "Finito" López with the diacritical mark).

We could convert it to a DAB or hatnote the two, but it might be better just delete it, and let the search engine do it. Stats average less than one a day, with the odd peak to 6 or 8, created just under 2 years ago and no change since. Nothing outside this discussion links to it. Si Trew (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate, there also being a see also for Non finito; though we seem to be missing an article for the concept of completion/end/finish which also is referred to with this word in English -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've created a draft DAB at the redirect page. I don't think we need a concept article. Si Trew (talk) 08:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Dabify the new dab page looks concise --Lenticel (talk) 00:29, 16 November 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.

Nonobjectivistically[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 six as specified, delete the rest. JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Non-objective", while also related to abstract art, has as a primary dictionary meaning "(of a person or their judgment) influenced by personal feeling or opinions in considering and representing facts." Therefore it is not an appropriate redirect so DELETE, along with all corruptions of it listed. I've not nominated another list mirroring this one Non-objective art etc so people looking for art will still be presented with redirects. Legacypac (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found this, which might be RS:
and could be useful as a citation for The dictionary definition of nonobjectivist at Wiktionary; probably not here at WP though. Si Trew (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The simple versions CAN refer to art but not primarily — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.244.23.195 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 13 November 2015(UTC

  • Comment. For the general sense, what's the difference, between being non-objective and being subjective (a DAB)? I realise English doesn't have to obey the law of excluded middle, but I think these words happen to. Si Trew (talk)
  • Comment:
Non-objectivism, is used legit in Samuel Lewis Shane
Nonobjective is used legit in AP Studio Art, Ibram Lassaw and Al Held.
I've already said keep to these two in my !vote above. All others are not linked internally beyond this discussion. Si Trew (talk)
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.

Inflammational[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) sst✈discuss 02:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not defined at Wiktionary and flagged as grammar error by Google: either not a real word, or an extremely obscure term. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 16:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - While it's not a commonly used term by any means, I'm getting enough of a response when looking this up in terms of books and journal articles (see here and here for scientific examples in print), I feel like the redirect is helpful and should be kept. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP - probabal not a realy word, but I guess not harmistic. Unlikeful that a user looknessing this seeks a more differenty topic. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's nuke all the fake words here as they actually hurt the world because of all the websites that scrape from Wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's an excellent point, I go further and suggest that perhaps we ought to have more than one type of redirect. Case one — this is a real word and while we don't have an article about that specific term is another term that you may well be interested in. Case two — this isn't a real word but a plausible misspelling of a real word so we will direct you to what we believe is the appropriate article. If this were done, then re-users of Wikipedia wouldn't be contributing to turning fake words into real words.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We use rcats for that, to some effect ({{R from related term}} and {{R from typo}}) but we can't count on mirrors respecting our categories. Content farms gonna content farm. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All words are (or were) "fake" words. This was already in use and has a clear definition. Peter James (talk) 23:49, 14 November 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_November_13&oldid=1126231940"