Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 16[edit]

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

Mike Lowell Spinners[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) 18:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect doesn't make sense, nothing mentioned on topic and Mike Lowell the baseball player never played with the club Marlinsfan1988 (talk) 23:09, 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.

الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية[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) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. -- Tavix (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. Topic with no particular affinity for this language -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:03, 17 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.

Bobby Gentle[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) 14:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that he's been called "Bobby Gentle." -- Tavix (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BLP and the discussion below involving this target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while not offensive, I think is an unlikely synonym --Lenticel (talk) 01:25, 18 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.

Cfsn[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 List of members of the National Salvation Front Council. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 05:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I see no evidence this goes by "Cfsn." -- Tavix (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently I've made a typo in my opinion, sorry about that. (my search was on CSFN, and my response I typed in CSTN, both errors on my part.) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dawson Creek has information on a local TV station callsign CFSN -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CFSN doesn't lead anywhere (but would be a better title for this redirect). CSTN and CSFN redirect to other topics, and I've created CTSN as a disambiguation page, but we don't need disambiguation or hatnotes linking to each possible transposition or incorrectly entered initial (there are others, such as CDSN), unless there are cases where errors often occur even in reliable sources, or are likely (an example would be Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network, mentioned in one article, which appears to be CTSN, not CSTN). Peter James (talk) 17:14, 17 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.

Five Star Football League[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) 18:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oknazevad tried prodding this, but since WP:PROD doesn't apply to redirects, I'm taking it here. The rationale is: "non-notable amateur league, previously deleted" -- Tavix (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • When Oknazevad says "previously deleted", they mean that it was previously in the article but they deleted it. This has never been an article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking for a background on the redirect, you'll find it HERE. -- Tavix (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I meant was there was an article that had been previously speedy deleted. See User talk:77thDemonKnight, where the only remnant is the notification for the original creator. Note the one team was also speedied at the same time, and that the editor's user name is an obvious reference to the team. The section I removed from the list article (which was added by the same user and obviously was an attempt to keep something on Wikipedia considering that it had been speedied) was inappropriate in tone, content and formatting for the rest of the page. It also had no third-party references. All of the user's edits were about this same amateur league, and it was pretty much an obvious WP:SPA, acting to promote something showing no notability.
All things considered, it's a pointless redirect. The content was merged into an inappropriate article because it had been deemed non-notable and speedied from its own article, then the redirect, which is a very unlikely search term leads to an inappropriate article. It's totally unneeded. oknazevad (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS, the article for the team was recreated as well, but was deleted at AFD earlier this year. oknazevad (talk) 00:37, 17 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.

San Diego incident[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 delete G12. (non-admin closure) clpo13(talk) 23:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is VERY broad, and the article it redirects to has no section or wordage about this "incident." // Posted by larsona (Talk) // 20:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it's copyvio because it's not attributed (BY component) so the license is violated. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:54, 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.

Rick Sanitarium[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 delete G10. -- GB fan 20:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible misspelling. "Santorum" and "sanitarium" are not pronounced similarly. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:35, 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.

Booby Genital[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 delete G10. -- GB fan 20:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible, offensive. No way this is a legitimate redirect to a US presidential candidate. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:33, 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.

Sthalekeria[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) 14:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I’d prefer deletion since this is not a common misspelling. The page is in fact a case for speedy deletion. It matches SDC WP:R3 almost perfectly, with the exception that it was not created recently but in 2008. For further rationale see Talk:Sthalekeria. Gretarsson (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recentness is inherent to R3, though that's not clear from the "Implausible typos" title alone. Saying something is R3 eligible despite not being recent is like saying a topic isn't notable despite meeting WP:GNG. However, since this redirect contains multiple typos, it indeed seems implausible. --BDD (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though I declined the speedy deletion of this redirect, I do not see any reason to keep it. -- GB fan 20:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in most cases I think we should just keep any existing misspelling redirect for a topic like this because it would be hard to remember the spelling anyway. But stats show this is not a common search term. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Ivanvector. Si Trew (talk) 04:56, 17 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.

Hit Me Baby One More Time[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 ...Baby One More Time (song). (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 05:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Currently redirects to Baby One More Time. Unlike the dab page, "Hit Me Baby One More Time" only can refer to the song ...Baby One More Time (song) or Hit Me Baby One More Time (TV series). As the song is the primary topic for this phrase (it is its original title +the tv series was named after it), I propose redirecting it to the song article. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 03:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbhotch: Indeed, I would have preferred to have quoted a policy/guideline, and was thinking more WP:COMMONSENSE than anything. The DAB has four entries so is not hard to pick which one was intended; any other way, if one thinks of the consequences, is more convoluted: either leave them all at the existing DAB, in which case hatnotes are redundant, or split into two DABs each with two entries, cross-referring to each other. But I'm not totally against retargetting it to the song with a hatnote on the series: even I know the song (and would have guessed that was its title) but never heard of the TV series, and it seems only to have been broadcast for one short (by US standards) season in the UK and US, whereas the song is known worldwide (I guess).
In case it helps, of your two Gsearches, for me the first one (sans Britney Spears) returns "about 948,000" and the second "about 888,000", though we well know those figures are not good guides, it certainly isn't amazingly clear-cut. On the other hand '"Hit me baby one more time" TV series' returns for me "about 704,000". Si Trew (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I said it's hardly difficult (i.e. it's easy) to pick out the intended meaning from a DAB with four entries, I meant the reader's intention, not the editor's. I neither said nor meant "we can't" pick the meaning out. Si Trew (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move disambig page over redirect (1st choice) or keep. The general Anglophone reader (like me) will always remember the song and the album as "hit me baby one more time" because that's the bit that's stuck in our heads... I could hear Britney's voice as I read the RfD nomination. The whole bunch of concepts - song, album, tour, TV show - is "hit me baby one more time" to me whatever the official names are. Deryck C. 22:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom and hatnote to the TV show. The song is definitely the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. -- Tavix (talk) 23:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Deryck and Si Trew. These are variations on the same title, and an incorrect name for all of them but the TV show. It's maybe less incorrect a name for the song than for the album, but that's not very convincing to me. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the song, which is the primary topic. It's often known (incorrectly) by this title as well as containing this notable line. Peter James (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the song per Tavix. This is a perfect case for the use of a hatnote to refer to other uses, and also of notable use of redirecting from a commonly-known lyric to a lesser-known proper song title. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the song per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:21, 17 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.

General Purpose Interface[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) 18:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. This is linked in the DAB at GPI#Miscellenea, but the fulsome description is of something entirely different to the target. Maybe WP:RFD#D2 confusing, and to encourage creation of the article as per the DAB; or perhaps just change the DAB? Si Trew (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure either - I see from the history that I initially created this title as a redirect to General-purpose input/output following this WP:REFUND request: [1]. I don't have any knowledge about the subject though. --B (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and the wording in that article's lede (until it became a redirect on 12 April 2011 with this change) was essentially unchanged from that at the DAB, which was added much earlier, on 22 October 2007 with this change. Si Trew (talk) 03:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GPIB and HPIB used to be synonyms for IEE-488 parallel port. I think this is a good redirect. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
That's irrelevant. GPIB, HPIB, General Purpose Instrumentation Bus (incorrect) and others do indeed redirect there with no problem (but oddly not General Purpose Interface Bus or similar). I came across this because I went through categorising the dozen or so redirects to this article. But this one is linked only when using it a completely different meaning, as something to do with telly timing signals. (At the DAB at GPI and at the article Playout.) So at point of use it is not synonymous with the target. And WP:ILIKEIT is not a keep reason. Si Trew (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rich. It's the proper name for that particular standard, just like Universal Serial Bus is the proper name for one we use now. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. The full name of the standard is "IEEE Standard 488.1-1987, IEEE Standard Digital Interface for Programmable Instrumentation" (here). It's not even a common name for that standard. This is a different standard, one used for timing broadcasting equipment. That's the point. But if we keep it, we better remove the entry at the DAB. (In the Playout article I changed it to redlink General Purpose Interface (broadcasting), but I didn't do so at the DAB, yet.) Si Trew (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the lede of the article incorrect that the topic is referred to as General Purpose Interface Bus? If so, this seems legitimate unless it's deemed a partial-title match. Universal Serial doesn't exist, but the terminology could be different; certainly that phrase would have some ambiguity. --BDD (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In reply to @BDD:: The common name (in that form) is "General Purpose Interface Bus". Si Trew (talk) 04:51, 17 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.

Abrian[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. --BDD (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentinoed on redirect target Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate with this and Jacob Abrian (article deleted at AFD, but possibly notable and there's an article to link to); Google search results include mentions of Abrian artefacts in books about archaeology, which may refer to El Abra. Peter James (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't see why, if we make it a DAB, we'd need to move anything. Why should we want to "keep the history clean"? Si Trew (talk) 04:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's both more convenient for editors of the dab page not to have unrelated junk hanging around in the history, and for editors of the AD&D page who are trying to find the history of what was merged into that page without having to dig through a bunch of unrelated dab revisions. Also, having a separate redirect for the AD&D monster is more convenient for any editor who wants to link to the appropriate section of the AD&D monsters page rather than manually linking to a section anchor which might disappear or change without notice. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 07:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for the second point, MOS:LINK2SECT suggests that a courtesy comment should be added to the target of a section link, to reduce the chance of it disappearing or being renamed without fixing the incoming links. (It mentions {{anchor}} as an alternative to doing so.) But I don't think many editors follow that guideline, or perhaps are even aware of it. Si Trew (talk) 08:46, 24 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.

Ta-ta[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 Tata.(non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 05:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be made up by Neelix, perhaps how the name sounds in some accent. I was expecting titties at the redirect. Legacypac (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We say ta ta for goodbye in Canada sometimes too Legacypac (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Tata as {{R from modification}}, perhaps adding Tatars to that dab if merited. --BDD (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 210.6. With respect to Tata, there are no hyphenated instances on that dab page, so it's a partial match. I suggest the reverse of BDD's proposal (keep, hatnote to dab page). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ta-Ta → Almacenes Tía. Ta Ta is red. Si Trew (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to tata and add any other uses to that, for goodbye, breasts, Tatars, etc -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to tata as a plausible modification per BDD --Lenticel (talk) 06:36, 17 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.

Nude upper torsos[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 variously by Drmies and Vanjagenije; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last one apparently targeted a previous incarnation of the target. It is nonsense. The rest have no incoming links and are not likely search terms for anyone looking for breasts. Legacypac (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • These are all completely pointless redirects and should be removed. --Slashme (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update the target was deleted and redirected to toplessness. Legacypac (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Request updated accordingly. For reference, these formerly targeted Barechestedness. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 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.

Bare chestedness[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) 18:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

not spelled like this, implausable Legacypac (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neufeld, Michael J. (2013). Spacefarers: Images of Astronauts and Cosmonauts in the Heroic Era of Spaceflight. Smithsonian Institution. p. 34. ISBN 9781935623250. Retrieved 16 November 2015.
  • Wainwright, Daniel (27 August 2013). "Keep your shirts on lads! It's only a bit of sunshine". Express and Star. Wolverhampton, UK. Retrieved 16 November 2015.
Of course, these are probably just slips. There are other uses in blogs, of course, but those aren't RS. Si Trew (talk) 07:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to get users where they meant to go: barechstedness, however it's (miss)spelled ~~
  • If kept, should redirect to toplessness, as per the quickly developing consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Barechestedness. --Slashme (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, keep but as a redirect to correct spelling liberalities, the meaning is obvious barechestedness (general or specifically male), not (female) topless Fastifex (talk)
    • Looking at various talk pages, "toplessness" and "barechestedness" were deliberately kept separate because of their different connotations. Were they to be combined, the redirects would go with them, but that doesn't need to happen right now. Si Trew (talk) 09:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Barechestedness was closed as a redirect to Toplessness so this is now a misspelled redirect to a redirect. If someone wants to put a line or two in the toplessness article about men, be my guest. Legacypac (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Request updated. --BDD (talk) 15:26, 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.

Iloc[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 Disambig. A number of multiple possible meanings are all plausible. Slashme (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iloc is her maiden name, but it is also a ton of other stuff, including abbreviations. Not what I would expect to find if I typed this and not what Google thinks it is. Legacypac (talk) 06:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak disambiguate added draft. Omitting usual rant on {{R from surname}}s to obscure figures. It's almost all Wp:DABMENTIONs aside from the Indian Law and Order Commission, and normally I might agree that search results are more useful than a dab page in such cases, but in this case the search results are stuffed up with page after page of sports results for Christina Iloc and citation links to the U.S. Bureau of Corrections Inmate Locator (which has an "iloc" in its URL). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate with 210.6. Si Trew (talk) 07:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy disambiguate: The disambiguation page is much more useful in this case: these four letters can refer to any of the things that 210.6.254.106 added. I would have been bold and done it now if it weren't for the fact that I'm completely new to RFD. --Slashme (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Slashme: oh, you can WP:JUSTDOIT. If something is no longer a redirect it will just be closed as a matter of procedure (and anyone can do that, it doesn't need an admin – but it's usually a little frowned upon to do it if you were involved in the discussion.) Si Trew (talk) 09:43, 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.

Franciaorszag[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; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. France doesn't have any special affinity with the Hungarian language. -- Tavix (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even in Hungarian, franciaorszag is just wrong: diacritics in Hungarian make distinct letters, "o", "ó", "ö" and "ő": they are not just eye candy. Si Trew (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible misspelling per SiTrew --Lenticel (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Franciaország" is a perfectly correct spelling. Still WP:RFOREIGN, though. Si Trew (talk) 08:01, 18 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.

Laborunionist[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) 12:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Related discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 13#Labourunionistic)

Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Same reasoning as at the other discussion, but different target (others are Trade union), which makes it even more confusing. An Ulster Unionist need not be a member of a trade union, though the target was an association of members (of different trade unions).

It's bizarre, that e.g. Labourunionism and Labourunionist were created by the same user (Neelix) at the same time (04:02 UTC on 26 December 2009), but to different targets. Never mind WP:TITLEVAR for a British/Irish subject... Si Trew (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a hopelessly vague term (if it is a correct term at all) pointing to a specific instance of the topic is useless to most readers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely vague: the lede says members were known as "Labour Unionists". But note the cap: the U here means (Ulster) Unionism, not trade unionism. Labour Unionist does indeed redirect there (as does Labour Unionists) but Labour Unionism, Labor Unionist, Labor Unionists and Labor Unionism are red. Si Trew (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's still hopelessly vague in my books - how many other unions or labour movements could this refer to? Thousands? Tens or hundreds of thousands? Consider: all thumbs are fingers, but that doesn't imply all fingers are thumbs. (All members of the Ulster Unionist Labour Association are Labourunionists, but ....) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, then, not that it's hopelessly vague but that it's hopelesly specific, affirming the consequent. Si Trew (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the redirect is hopelessly vague. Its target is hopelessly specific. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Added plural forms. Si Trew (talk) 22:08, 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.

Hanno Möttola[edit]

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

Light News[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 30#Light News

Shirtlessly[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; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is a derived term that means nothing. Shirtless is correct. Legacypac (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative Delete per WP:G8, after the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barechestedness, which looks like it will be closed as delete.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. [Formal] British English insists on adverbs ("drive safely", "play nicely") where US English allows adjectives ("drive safe", "play nice"). So it is as correct to say "he played shirtlessly" as it is to say "he played tunelessly"; yet although someone might "play shirtless" they don't "play tuneless" (do they?) But,I can find no RS in which it is actually used, so WP:MADEUP, WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 08:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds even better when performed a cappella. Si Trew (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: And I did this to ensure that the redirect does not incorrectly get speedy deleted per G8. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Si. Although playing shirtless is a thing(cf. shirts versus skins) we probably shouldn't keep adverb forms anyway, they're just not useful. If we had a proper full article on shirtlessness then maybe we could retarget there. Toplessness isn't it - for one thing, it is also possible for a man to remove his shirt. I've seen it done for true fact. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:49, 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.

Oxymellin[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) 18:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only definition I could find was, "honey mixed with water and vinegar to be used as a vermifuge", hence It could equally target anthelmintic (WP:XY). It is mentioned at neither. I couldn't find proper sourcing to add information about it to either article. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:REDLINK. It's used (in Latin) in quite a few recipe books for medicines. this one (Cato's De Re Rustica) gives quite a good definition and examples of use. Si Trew (talk) 08:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a good definition/recipe from Cato, which I've transcribed as best I can and pasted at the redirect, and a good use case here: here where it is prescribed for ophthalmia. It seems more used as a medicine than a vermifuge; it is used as an ingredient for several other things, and one of those may have been a vermifuge. Si Trew (talk) 09:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look up oxymel in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
  • Move to Oxymel, leaving the R as {{R from other spelling}}. I've created a stub at the (new) target, which explains the root word as oxymel, from Cato's Latin definition in De Re Rustica. Cato's doesn't mention boiling it up with water; I guess that's assumed (and specifically says don't confuse it with hydromel). I have other references so I can add and expand this article; one or two use this exact form, but it's just a Latin derivation... we don't want 313 derivation redirects like we have for French conjugations! Si Trew (talk) 10:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Soddit, I'm taking WP:JUSTDOIT. Procedural close, please. Si Trew (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly delete it. (One day I might make up my mind.)Actually, from what I can see, all the references to "Oxymellin" are from references that have it in the optical character recognition of text. In all the ones I have checked, this is a bad recognition, e.g. here, it's "Oxymellia Simplicia"; here, it's "oyxmel.ſin & pl." ("singular and plural"; that's a long s.) I don't think the "oxymellin" form exists; I'd assumed it was a name invented for quack medicine, but it seems not. Si Trew (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm with Si's latest opinion. JohnCD (talk) 12:33, 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.

Hebew Meanings[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; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are all translations of Hebrew names that are so general they are of no use as a redirect. for example there are all kinds of things that are without worth, including that redirect. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 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.

HONEY[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. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible capitalization. WP:RCAPS. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This isn't an acronym, brand, or anything else where caps may be plausible. -- Tavix (talk) 02:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix sounds good to me.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 17:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix and because I don't see any acronyms at Honey (disambiguation) either. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 06:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alternatively I would not object to retarget per Tavix, seeing as that's how we've handled other all-caps entries (e.g. APPLE) even when the target dab is nearly-bereft of acronyms. Someone who deliberately types in all-caps is looking for some proper name that's known in all-caps and not the normally-capitalised base topic, and I think the first assumption should be that the user intended to type what they actually typed, rather than assuming they made a typo or pressed the wrong key. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong neutral per WP:CHEAP - useless and pointless since the search engine will just decapitalize any all-caps entry unless a redirect points it to a different target, but past discussions have determined that just being in all caps is not a deletion rationale unless there are other problems with the title. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Three months later, it looks like we've flipped positions on these. -- Tavix (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-keep. Cheap-cheap. Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this was a redirect to a song, but was replaced by standard capitalisation, and is plausible enough, although there's no obvious connection to any article so keep pointed at its current target not at the disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep WP:CHEAP as a capslock error -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:08, 17 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.

Bee vomit[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) 18:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An implausible synonym that is also technically inaccurate. Adding {{R from incorrect name}} at the least.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't go quite as far as to call it invented [3] [4], but it is a technically incorrect pejorative slang, lacking in the reliable sourcing department.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Invented by a few people :) Legacypac (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - apparently plausible, say the 107 users who have searched for this in the last two months. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how do you know 107 users have searched for it? the page has received 107 hits. That might be 107 hits from 1 user"s bookmark (no search involved). (Actually, the stats graph is remarkably flat for a random distribution of searches.) It would be nice if we tracked where readers "came from" (e.g. WP search, WP other article/redirect, external link) and the user-agent, like every other bl-y site in the world. However I doubt such a proposal would gain traction.Si Trew (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wasn't expecting to be challenged on that, but you kind of answered the question for me. We (lowly users) can't distinguish between users or inbound link sources or whatever other metrics are available for sites which sign up for such things, all we have is pageviews. And that could have been just me bouncing off the page a couple times a day for 3 straight months, maybe I made it my home page or something. All I can say for sure is that the page is used more than I would expect for one that is not considered useful by at least somebody. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be plausible but it's misleading - people searching for this are redirected to the honey article, which doesn't specify whether it's correct or not - and unless it's a soft redirect they won't see the {{R from incorrect name}}. A redirect to Regurgitation (digestion) would provide that information, at least in the current version. Peter James (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it's not mentioned at the article. Yes, the redirect gets some use, but I'm afraid that all we're doing is confirming some people's inaccurate assumption that bee vomit is honey, since they're bee-ing taken to an article on honey. The other solution would be to write an article/section on the subject or on nicknames for honey in general, but unless that happens, deletion is the safer bet. -- Tavix (talk) 17:26, 24 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_16&oldid=979013588"