Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 19, 2015.

Break-brake distinction[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) 22:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ll redirect to phonological change. They should be deleted. Not mentioned in the article. Look like a bunch of made up names. 2602:306:3653:8920:C98:897E:434B:84FC (talk) 23:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I assume they are talking about linguistic mergers but these are not important. Legacypac (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. RightGot (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the ones which do not appear in any reliable sources, with the caveat that the ones are shown to appear in reliable sources (maybe Hull-hall merger, for example [1]) should be split from this nomination to discuss whether we could add sourced content about them somewhere else. (They certainly don't belong on the current target, which is supposed to be an overview of phonological change in all languages and not a list of changes occurring in individual dialects). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 05:05, 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.

Roisterously[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) 22:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading. Roister means enjoy oneself or celebrate in a noisy or boisterous way. Riot means 1. a wild or turbulent disturbance created by a large number of people. 2. Law A violent disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled... Roist is not really a word. I thought boisterous but no such article. Delete to encourage article creation, with maybe the less complex ones pointed at party. Another from Neelix Legacypac (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • retarget ALL to Party; though I'd be happy to see Roisterously deleted, because the only things I can find are (proper) dictionary defintions; I'm not sure we should have "Roisterer(s)" when we don't have partygoer (whether spaced, hyphenated or pluralised). What we shouldn't do is take them to different targets, that's just confusing.
Amazingly we don't have roisterousness. As usual I've rcatted them, without prejudice, as R from verb etc. Si Trew (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Wiktionary defines the term as "To engage in noisy, drunken, or riotous behavior" or "To walk with a swaying motion". While these could refer to parties or riots I don't think either is unambiguous. Possibly Roister could be a soft redirect to the Wiktionary page. Hut 8.5 11:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all The current linkage is obviously wrong and per WP:NOTDICT I don't see what else we could do with the word. Mangoe (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague since the term may vaguely pertain to other events aside from riots --Lenticel (talk) 08:44, 21 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 prefer[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) 23:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very vague. The target has these meanings, but you can carry over a plate, carry over a motion etc. Same for the other terms which do not apply only or even especially to this church office. Legacypac (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. The target does not have these meanings, since it's a noun (rightly) and not a verb (wrongly); there's no way that "a prelate" is "a set above". All kinds of WP:TITLE problems here which apparently don't apply to redirects, but in the meantime I'll mark them as {{R from verb}}. Si Trew (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think these have just been scraped from the etymology in the lede, which often gives incongrous redirects since several things can share the same etymology. F'rexample, we could retarget To prefer to preference; but why do so, when patently we have survived without that until now? Si Trew (talk) 04:09, 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.

Dialytika tonos[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 Greek diacritics. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 08:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a transcription of the Greek word for the diaeresis (διαλυτικά, dialytika) and the Greek word for the accent (τόνος, tonos). I cannot see the point of having these two words together in a page's title but, if they are to be kept, it would make a little more sense if they redirected to Greek diacritics. The Traditionalist (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unicode uses this name for this combination of diacritics; e.g. U+0385 ΅ GREEK DIALYTIKA TONOS. ΅ redirects to Greek diacritics, so retarget there. Gorobay (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Gorobay. We also have Greek orthography, and indeed the first sentence of Greek diacritics actually starts with a link to that, somewhat bizarrely: but it looks like there have been merger discussions before. Si Trew (talk) 04:01, 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.

I'm Boring[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) 23:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect doesn't make any sense. FallingGravity (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D3 (only exists to disparage its target) - didn't link to the guideline page because it crashed my computer. Not a BLP so not G10. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target; and maybe per WP:REDLINK. Apparently it's a song by The Lovebugs, but I don't know if even the band is notable, let alone the song. It's also the title of a number of poems on various websites. Yawwn... Si Trew (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually we have Lovebugs (band) but I'm not sure it's the same band; certainly a song of this title isn't mentioned there. Si Trew (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing. AS for SiTrew's Lovebug angle, it seems that they did have a song with this name under their album "Tart" --Lenticel (talk) 09:41, 21 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.

Antoneta Stefanova[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) 08:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Antoneta" is a typo, her first name is Antoaneta, as her FIDE page (http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=2902257) and all the chess websites and magazines report. Sophia91 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Échecs : Marie Sebag éliminée par Antoneta Stefanova". chess-and-strategy.com (in French). 23 November 2012. Retrieved 20 November 2015.
  • "Bulgaria's Stefanova Grabs Women World Rapid Chess Title". noinvite.com. Sofia, Bulgaria. Sofia News Agency. 4 June 1202. Retrieved 20 November 2015.
The second is perhaps more relevant (to RfD) in that it is a Bulgarian publication making this transliteration. Tag as {{R from transliteration}}. Si Trew (talk) 13:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a misspelling, not a valid alternative transliteration. You'll find your Bulgarian source correctly spells it "Antoaneta" twice in that article; the one appearance of "Antoneta" is just a typo. It does demonstrate it's a plausible typo and a likely search term, though. Sideways713 (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also the French article correctly spells "Antoaneta", the typo is only in the title. I follow almost everyday the leading chess news websites, which are ChessBase, Chessdom, Chess.com, chess24, and none of them ever spelled "Antoneta". In Wikipedia there were only two articles that wrongly spelled "Antoneta" and I fixed the typo in both articles, so now there are no wiki articles with "Antoneta Stefanova", there is no reason to keep this misspelled name. In addition, all the online chess games databases spell her name as "Antoaneta Stefanova". Sophia91 (talk) 15:30, 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.

Male Escort Awards[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 6#Male Escort Awards

Orthopedic[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 all. The emerging consensus is that orthopedic surgery is the primary topic. Deryck C. 11:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY, a solution seems needed. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think so, orthopedics refers specifically to the field of surgery. These are somewhat incorrect but I don't know what else they could refer to. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. "Orthopedic" can refer to nonsurgical treatments such as Orthopedic shoes, and I've seen it used to refer to prosthetic limbs. It's not only a term for surgery. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Orthopedic nursing. But Musculoskeletal disorder is the range of things anything orthopedic treats, so a reasonable target. Not a very good article though, and doesn't link to any "Ortho..."s. So maybe disam it. Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added three plural forms; I suspect they should all point to the same place. --BDD (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Be careful with dabbing adjectives and partial title matches. The search engine offers the PTMs "O. cast", "O. pillow", "O. mattress", "O. impairment" and "O. Foundation for Animals", along with "O. Surgery", in addition to those mentioned, "O. footwear" and "O. nursing", so these redirects may harmlessly continue to redirect. Be prosperous! Paine  04:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the plurals as alternative terms linking to the article which shows them (give or take e/ae/etc) as such. On the adjectives ... Neutral. Adjectives are a problem, as no reasonable reader would expet to find an encyclopedia article, as opposed to a dictionary entry for an adjective. Deletion probably best for them. PamD 08:15, 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.

Print making in Japan[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. This is a bit complicated. It seems indisputably true that woodblock printing does not represent the entirety of Japanese printing, but also that it's Japan's best known technique in that field. I think it's inevitable that some of these will disappoint or mislead readers, but perhaps more will be served by them. An optimal outcome would be for someone to write an article on printmaking in Japan in its entirety. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too vague. Lots of things get printed in Japan without wood blocks Legacypac (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nominator. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist note - the pages listed above were deleted by Beeblebrox with the comment "garbage redirects created by Neelix". Those deletions were overturned at WP:AN. See below. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nyttend, you restored these, with the comment "Do you know what printmaking is? This is not simple printing". That's true, but printmaking is certainly more than woodblock printing. Could you clarify your intent here, perhaps reopening this discussion and voting if desired? --BDD (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Japan, until after about 1870, printmaking was just woodblock printing, and it is only Japanese woodblock prints that are famous in the West - ukiyo-e, The Great Wave off Kanagawa etc. Johnbod (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with a possible "{{Redirect with possibilities}} if it can be shown that there is material for an article on alternative techniques (in Japan). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment The editor that challanged this said I don't know the difference between printing and printmaking which is incorrect. There are all kinds of printmaking and none of them are particularly specific to Japan. If there is something special in Japan it can have an article, but none of these terms would be the title. I also encourage people to look at all the redirects pointed at the target - there are lots - these being the most vague. Legacypac (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going by what you said. It is certainly untrue that "none of them are particularly specific to Japan" - this one is. Johnbod (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - There is no need to wait to be "shown" that there are alternative techniques in use in Japan. Printmaking is very big business there, and the ancient woodblock methods are not exactly the only game in town. Google it, or at least check the modern professionals' pages at Category:Japanese printmakers. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, without looking at them all, I see only a couple of those using other techniques in Category:Japanese printmakers. We have many articles on individual Japanese prints and series, but all woodblock as far as I can see. Art of Japan currently has nothing on any other techniques (I'm not saying that's appropriate, but it is the current position). 1850 (for example) is not "ancient". Johnbod (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every artist in that category also works/worked in oils, watercolors, etc. Among the modern professionals, some have no connection to woodblock at all. Museums may celebrate this ancient antique form most often, but no matter how well known it is, contemporary art trends matter too. It seems parochial, or at least weirdly quaint, to redirect inquiries on Japanese printmaking to this single traditional style, SteveStrummer (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But we have a vast amount on that, and nothing outside bios on other techniques in Japan. So there is really nowhere else to send them, but (see below) they are rather commonly used. How does deleting them help? The only Japanese printmaker in other techniques at all well known in the West is Tsuguharu Foujita who spent decades in France. "Nearly every artist in that category also works/worked in oils, watercolors, etc." is not true - most are "antique" (as you put it) woodblock guys, with 129 in the relevant subcats, several repeated in the main category. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inquiries made into basic printmaking can quickly and easily yield information on the Japanese scene. Deleting these canned redirects would help by preventing a false equation between traditional woodcut styles and the wider, more nuanced business of modern printmaking. SteveStrummer (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing at printmaking on other Japanese work. Frankly, as the hits on modern printmakers' bios show, the vast majority of our readers are interested in the historic, famous, woodblock tradition. Redirects are there to help the reader, not promote our own agendas. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agendas? Really? That's where you think your opposition comes from... on "Printmaking in Japan"?? SteveStrummer (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_20#Japanese_wood-block_printings, the next day's listing, I've listed some others to the same target (those ending in "printings"). Si Trew (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Woodblock prints are the big, famous Japanese technique in printmaking, exclusively the one used by Hokusai and other famous masters, though of course in the last 150 years other techniques have come in from the West. As we have no general article on Japanese printmaking, this is the best destination. At the same time, the average person is unlikely to know to start their search term with "Woodblock printing", though this is technically correct. The article title has to be that specific, as there are indeed other techniques in modern use, as yet uncovered by WP, except in a few bios. The number of redirects is largely accounted for by providing for the very common variation between "printmaking", "print-making" and "print making" etc. The first 3, variants of "Printmaking in Japan", got 31+31+34 hits in the last 30 days, certainly enough to justify keeping them. "Japanese print" got 54. I haven't checked the rest. Johnbod (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all a Westerner who is not familiar with the term "woodblock printing" and is looking for the target article is likely to use one of these phrases or something similar. Certainly searching Google for Japanese printmaking turns up references almost exclusively about woodblock printing. Hut 8.5 11:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per User:Johnbod, who is obviously up on the subtle distinction here between a wood-block print and a woodblock print. We don't have spurious Rs to incorrect ones with these Japanese ones, even though it may seem so at first sight. The " maker" and "making" ones are redundant, but harmless. Marking as {{R with possiblities}} would be futile, since there really aren't that many possibilites for a printmaker that are not covered in the target already. Si Trew (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - there are multiple types of print making in Japan, not just woodblock. —МандичкаYO 😜 16:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per SteveStrummer: Deleting these canned redirects would help by preventing a false equation between traditional woodcut styles and the wider, more nuanced business of modern printmaking. The arguments made for keeping these redirects are highly presumptuous.  — Scott • talk 21:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Per many of the above keep rationales these are good search terms. As someone indicated, these exist to aid readers as do most redirects. Be prosperous! Paine  03:21, 26 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.

DWAS-TV[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was move DWAS-TV (GMA) to DWAS-TV, delete others. The quest for truth in this discussion has returned the conclusion that there was a confusion between DWAC-TV = Studio 23 ≠ DWAS-TV by some of the previous authors, so they left a bunch of incorrect redirects in their wake. Deryck C. 18:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of "DWAS" on target page. DWAS-TV (GMA) seems to be only usage for "DWAS". PamD 17:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget there unless better info found. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Move DWAS-TV (GMA) over this. I think there may have been a mistake or typo because Studio 23 and DWAC-TV were affiliated, according to both their articles; repeat that's DWAC not DWAS.
DWAS-TV (GMA) started life on 4 December 2011 as being moved from DWAS-TV, it was then moved to DWAS-TV (Studio 23 Olongapo) on 4 December 2011 by User:Izzami and then moved to DWAS-TV (Studio 23) on 28 December 2011 by same user, who also moved that day to its current target, DWAS-TV (GMA), leaving all these redirects in its wake.
I realise this is a move request. We could just retarget it to DWAS-TV (GMA), but then really we'd need a requested move to reverse the redirect (as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}), and that's just WP:BURO. Also, I don't want to open a RM until we have consensus here that it is indeed just a confusion between DWAC-TV and DWAS-TV. (I'm certainly confused.) Si Trew (talk) 03:46, 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.

Singlelevelers[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) 18:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was declined for speedy so here it is. Searches find absolutely nothing for "Singlelevelers" (10 meaningless results for me) or Single Levelers (under 500 meaningless results). In fact, the delete nomination was the closest match for me the first time I searched without quotes. Purely invented term that does not match the target or anything else. I think we better spend a week on this to make sure we completely exhaust the topic to everyone's total satisfaction. Legacypac (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

band name has 3 Ls, and this is a fake word about as useful as tfdtkdckckf Legacypac (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, but that is a process not an invented noun. Legacypac (talk) 05:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete The straining at possible targets is proof enough. Mangoe (talk) 13:06, 26 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.

Sir Hart Davis[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, default to keep. I think even if I relisted this, we'll continue to get a 50:50 split between "it's wrong, delete" and "it's unambiguous, keep". Deryck C. 18:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The title "Sir" is never used with just a surname. See also the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_18#Sir Rupert Charles. Si Trew (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - a plausible error. You are correct that "The title "Sir" is never used with just a surname", but many, especially non-Brits, think otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 09:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible error, per Johnbod. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. People will use his name. We don't do redirects for Mr Smith Legacypac (talk) 22:11, 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.

Slow Blind Driveway[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) 08:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No relevance on target page. Nothing on John Gorka mentions this as a pseudonym. Name has a history as a former longstanding hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the name is one Gorka coined for himself [2] and billed as that [3]. There's no harm in keeping the redirect. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I even put a ref in the redirect… All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 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.

Hunks[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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt many people are thinking of this film when they think of Hunks. A WP:SURPRISE result. Legacypac (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done and Withdraw Legacypac (talk) 04:34, 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.

Functions of human resource management[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) 08:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely redirect. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I've seen this before, and if I recall correctly right about this time of year too. New users creating accounts duplicating existing HR topics, with titles like "functions of x" or "applications for x". I'd link to the discussion about it if I could remember where it was, but I think DGG was also involved. Anyway, human resource management is a corporate function so the title structure is redundant. Unlikely to be searched. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have to agree in general that "Functions of X" or "Applications of X" are unlikely redirects for "X" -- it would be more natural to just type "X". ubiquity (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OTOH this is harmless and prevents recreation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, I don't see any problems with this. The article describes functions of human resource management. -- Tavix (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I created this redirect by redirecting a duplicate article both because it looks possibly useful and to discourage article recreation. At worst it is harmless and no WP:RFD#DELETE grounds have been specified by the nominator. Just Chilling (talk) 01:37, 26 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.

Red aspect[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 2#Red aspect

My Rock is God[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) 23:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are meanings of alternative versions of the angel's name, but there are plenty more applications for these phrases, including Bible verses and songs. Not a normal way to access this information and not what I would expect to find at the search term. Legacypac (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consider creating dab pages. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - I can't see these being useful dab pages as there are no articles with variations of those titles. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate WP:BIAS IslamoJudeoChristian bias. There are other topics out there -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. It does no good to suggest a disambiguation just hoping other topics are out there. Show me another Wikipedia article called "My Rock is God". -- Tavix (talk) 14:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A search gives me Finlandia Hymn as close, but that's the proof of a delete pudding. Si Trew (talk) 03:04, 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.

Evening of God[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 correct foreign-language names mentioned in target; delete others. Deryck C. 15:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, various languages, created to build edit and page creation count. Legacypac (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incorrect - please explain how each one is incorrect.
  • Various languages - I think we can see that.
  • Created ... - please lay off the personal attacks.
  • Please inform the creators of these redirects.
  • Keep any that are old, any that are mentioned in the target — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich Farmbrough (talk • contribs) 05:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do inform, at least once per batch anyway, which gives a link to the discussion. Legacypac (talk) 01:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Evening of God (not mentioned at target), keep the others as valid alternative names mentioned in the article. Someone who knows better should check that the characters used here match the article, I can't at the moment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Hebrew alphabet but I checked just by copy-pasting into my Find bar on Firefox. Râmêêl is present. Of the other alphabets, the first one "דעמאנל" is not in there that I can find, second Hebrew one "רעמאנל" is (Aramaic), third "רעמיאל" is (Hebrew), fourth "‘Ραμιήλ" (Greek) is. These can probably stay as {{R from other language}} as they are in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE of the target; As usual without prejudice I'll marked as such. The first (missing) one differs from the second (present) one in the first (rightmost) character, "ד" (Dalet) vs. "ר" (Resh). Dalet#Significance says it is used to represent the Names of God in Judaism. I'm just reporting what I found from Wikipeda in case others have trouble with rendering etc; I don't know the rights and wrongs of this. It's certainly it's not easy doing bidirectional text editing! Si Trew (talk) 08:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - this is seriously a stretch to think we need Hebrew names as redirects —МандичкаYO 😜 09:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If they're mentioned in the target they might be useful, and these are defined at the top of the lede. But none seems to be present on Hebrew Wikipedia, nor the target have an Interwiki link thence. Si Trew (talk) 10:18, 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.

Fierce lion[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) 22:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another list of messed up meanings of a name. Legacypac (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC) Legacypac (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - "fierce lion" is mentioned at the target, but I agree it's unlikely someone would search this anticipating finding information about one name that has this meaning. I'm sure there are many, many other names that mean this in many other languages. As for the "lion-like" variations, they're guesses at a similar meaning and not mentioned at the target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom —МандичкаYO 😜 06:03, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Retarget Lion-like/etc to Lion , since this current target clearly isn't correct. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Fierce lion" as vague while Retarget the rest to Leonine, a synonym to "lion-like" --Lenticel (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Retarget per Lenticel, whom I shall follow like an ovine. Si Trew (talk) 02:56, 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.

Birth of God[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) 22:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemy. There is a big difference between "the birth of the gods" and The birth of God (the one God who was and is and is to come). Legacypac (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per 70.51. I've put a {{redirect}} hatnote on Evolutionary origin of religions, to which Origin of religion redirects. I ain't joining that fight. Si Trew (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete There's no reason to suppose that someone typing in this phrase wants instruction about atheism-assuming theories of religion's origins, and there are so many potential births of gods that picking one of them is hopeless (consider that Nativity of Jesus is a valid target). Mangoe (talk) 13:18, 26 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.

Bir' as-Sabi[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. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 08:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

phonetic pronunciation only of the Arabic version of the name. Inappropriate redirect to a town that has a well recognized name in English. Legacypac (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep not harmful. I wouldn't encourage creation of this, but it's more overhead to delete than keep, and about a thousand times more overhead to nominate for deletion than to keep. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFOREIGN - some foreign language redirects are useful, including foreign language phonetic redirects. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is not the correct foreign transliteration - Arabic would be ‎Bir' as-Sabe‎ or Bir' as-Sab OR possibly Bir as-Sabi'. This exact combo appears to be very uncommon and possibly an invention by the creator. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's really no mystery behind most of Neelix's redirects. At the time this one was created, this exact transliteration appeared in the lede. So at least one other person used this transliteration at some point. —Xezbeth (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are some common patterns (bad derivations from etymologies, for example, and verbing parts of speech that won't stand the treatment). Not all fall into that pattern; some are useful, but the user may occasionally have got a little carried away with adverbialisationalness.. Si Trew (talk) 13:40, 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.

Sir Rupert Charles[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) 15:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence this man went by his middle name and last name, or Sir First and Middle names or the other tossed salad combos here. Delete as nonsense Neelix redirects — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 19 November 2015 00:50 (UTC)

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.

Light of God[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 dabify and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect contrived Hebrew meanings to names. Not useful search terms as too vague. Someone reading the article might like to know the meaning of the name, but not useful in the reverse. Like another group nominated earlier. Legacypac (talk) 00:48, 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.

Chiineses[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Just Chilling (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too many typos to be plausible. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 00:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RTYPO, clearly implausible. Stats back this up, only 12 hits in the last 60 days. -- Tavix (talk) 00:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 12 hits in 60 days shows that it's not that implausible after all. Neither new nor harmful, so it's a keep. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - 12 hits in 60 days is below utility level. Bots, webcrawlers, etc. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ivanvector@ SO I believed until I started finding pages with 0 hits. But perhaps they were anomalies. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D8 " novel or very obscure synonym". The hit count of 12⁄60 includes an unremarkable recent spike; it's only 15⁄90 also including that spike, and 7⁄60 excluding it (60 days to 31 October). No internal links outside this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as silliness. The 12 hits are meaningless as they likely come from the ANI thread, the ongoing review of N.-created redirects, and/or this discussion. Expending a week's time in discussing redirects such as these is neither necessary nor desirable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The majority of them are from before the current little local difficulty. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
A paper-thin majority of 7 to 5, according to my counting: and that's being generous with a couple of "spikes"(to two a day!) at the end of October. Si Trew (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried to Speedy this but was reverted by another non-admin, who complained about my speedy at ANi in an attempt to restrict my ability to use CSD, so Delete. Legacypac (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a pity. It seemed to me that the balance between deleting the obvious without fuss, and bringing others to RfD for forensic examination, had settled about where it should be. Si Trew (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Note that not all instances of page views are actual human beings doing actual searches. From time to time, Wikipedia pages get pinged by web crawlers. bd2412 T 13:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
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_19&oldid=1138580680"