Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 20, 2015.

Show killer[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 without prejudice against article or disambig creation. Deryck C. 19:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same concept, as the history shows. BDD (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong meh - The topic which Show killer was about is not on Wikipedia, so far as I'm aware (maybe one of the Golden Raspberry Awards?), and the phrase could just as easily refer to jumping the shark, unless we have sources saying that it specifically and only refers to actors (in which case it should probably be turned back into an article). --NYKevin 18:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to Ted McGinley due to plausible BLP concerns. However, this is the closest article that I got that is related to Happy Days and "Jumping the Shark". One of the show's writer calls McGinley as "Ted the Show Killer" and the reason of the show's decline --Lenticel (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to clarify that these are different ideas. They both simply relate to the perceived quality of a show. "Jumping the shark" is the start of a show's decline; a "show killer" is a person associated with many failed shows. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BDD: Do you have a source for that distinction? If so, we can turn it back into an article (or at least consider doing so). --NYKevin 00:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is not synonymous with jumping the shark, and retargetting to McGinley is not great either. Although he has been described as a show killer, it's not really a nickname for him . -- Whpq (talk) 23:05, 1 December 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.

Boning the fish[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. Deryck C. 18:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fan creation not mentioned at the target page. Most search results are for the actual process of boning fish. BDD (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I vaguely recall that there was once an article that linked to that "page", so I created the redirect to resolve it. It appears to be obsolete now. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely synonym. If this is "deboning the fish" then we might have something to work with as a plausible redirect for Advanced meat recovery or other related articles --Lenticel (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a verb (and in this context), bone and "debone" are synonymous. Perhaps a bit like flammable/inflammable. --BDD (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hits were statistically insignificant before this was nominated. Regardless of which meaning of "bone" is meant here, this is empirically useless. --NYKevin 20:43, 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.

Courtyard by Marriott – Downtown Detroit[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. The consensus below is that these redirects have become obsolete because these hotels are no longer discussed specifically anywhere on Wikipedia. Deryck C. 18:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Until January 2014, the Courtyard by Marriott article had some very run-of-the-mill information on a few particular locations. It's rightfully been removed, including the target sections, making these specific locations unhelpful as redirects. I question their likelihood as search terms anyway, except among readers who completely misunderstand Wikipedia's purpose (cf. WP:NOTTRAVEL). --BDD (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but WP:NOTTRAVEL starts "Wikipedia articles should not..." (my emphasis). Says nothing about the titles of redirects, only articles. I have been bashing on about WP:TITLE applying to redirects "except when it doesn't" by which I mean that if it is an {{R from misspelling}}, patently it is misspelled but doesn't mean it should be a French misspelling, if it is {{R from adjective}}, obviously it is not a WP:NOUN, but that doesn't allow it to be simultaneously a Greek slang plural from common name (unless it has, or could have, those tags too). I think I was wandering towards this in an aside with you yourself and with Ivanvector saying much the same thing, but even worsely put than this stab at it that I am having now. Si Trew (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but the problem was indeed with the (target) article. When individual hotels were discussed at the article, the redirects had utility. But precisely because NOTTRAVEL proscribes such content, it shouldn't go back. That keeps these redirects perpetually confusing and unhelpful. --BDD (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take the title argument to talk, when I have a chance (still doing the London Bus Rs...) but as it is you're right too that these secs are useless: no, my mistake, harmful: Someone searching on this term would expect specific information on it, and winds up disappointed. Delete all per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:SURPRISE, s Si Trew (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - The main article provides no information about the specific properties that are the redirects. - Whpq (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Redirects should be discussed at their target articles. --NYKevin 20:46, 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.

The Spyring[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 6#The Spyring

Holger Wahlström[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) 17:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from Middle Name Last Name makes no sense when the person went by their first and last name. Legacypac (talk) 13:15, 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.

Hornerwoman[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) 17:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These terms are made up by Neelix, or at best Urban Dictionary junk. Only a man can be cuckold, so the women variations are even more implausible. Legacypac (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All. No realistic chance of an editor searching under of these words. Neelix creations.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In sexual fetishism, a woman cuckold is a cuckoldress (at the target); a gsearch (for "cuckoldtrix") assumes I mean "cuckoldrix", which is an odd mix of Old English and Latin. I imagine that somehow the creator has wrongly back-formed "horny" (DAB; first meaning) from "hornier, horniest" and somehow managed then to form these; although it may be from Cuckold#Metaphor and symbolism.
I'm delighted we have an article for cuckquean (but not cuckqueen), so we can take the female ones there if need be. Just an edjumacated guess from other weird formations I have seen lately (those swallows flying north, for example). Si Trew (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "R N" lowercase in many typefaces is cunningly similar to "M", but we don't have Homer man or similar. Si Trew (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - madeupistic nonsenseations. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice Unwinese. Si Trew (talk) 18:12, 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.

Demon of the pit[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) 17:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Neelix made this up roughly from the meaning of the target's name. There has to be other meanings to it Legacypac (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Cerberus#Etymology. A common pattern in Neelix redirects is to take part of an etymology out of context and assume it is a WP:DICDEF. But even if it were, it would be an, erm, WP:DICDEF. cf. The dictionary definition of Κέρβερος at Wiktionary where he is a spotty dog (not a spotted dog nor Spot the dog). I've fixed Κέρβερος to say it is an R from grc (Ancient Greek), not el (modern Greek). Si Trew (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a wholly inaccurate redirect. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's not quite a Neelix creation (or if it is, it's independent). F'rexample http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~breno/CIS-5357/fall2004/kerberos.pdf has it as essentially the title, from presumably Autumn 2004 (three years before), in (I presume) an introductory Computer Science course. Most other ghits are the def from the target at WP, though. Si Trew (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Ruby (programming language) README documentation at http://www.rubydoc.info/gems/cerberus/0.4.3 quotes from Wikipedia, and says it does. I presume that the ety in Cerberus was changed, I really cannot cart through all the history there although I do have all night until the missus gets home in about four hours, but this escaped to the wild from Wikipedia, I think, but Wikipedia itself imported it from somewhere else. So the blame do not entirely lay at Neelix' feet; only the blame for blindly copying unsourced etymologies. Si Trew (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A very active editor of the target, User:Paul August, kindly responded to my question on his talk page. I hope between us we can make the etymology section of the target OK, because this bollox Wikipedia definition floods most online searches, that have scraped it (only a few with attribution of any kind, let alone CC-SA). Si Trew (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IF this was a one off I could believe that he got it from somewhere other then his head, but as pointed out above it is a distinct pattern of reorganization of meanings into nonsensical redirects. Another pattern is rearranging long names of people and cutting off the first name to make a redirect from Middle + Last Name. Definate patterns Legacypac (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I am starting to make out not one but several patterns (taking synonyms from nouns as if there were no other meanings for those synonyms; adding suffixes and prefixes aplenty; taking parts of etymologies as if they were dictionary definitions in their own right: and even if they were, would be WP:DICDEF). But it's irrelevant what you believe, and WP:NPA please, no personal attacks. I really don't think Neelix intended to do harm (and I strain at that when my maxims for living are don't hit, don't lie, don't cheat, but at least I made them for me, and weren't handed them to me by anyone) but tonight I have been struggling with my schoolboy Latin, prepubescent Spanish, and nonexistent English, besides Greek ruins. But this one in particular must, then, be a coincidence; I found it at
  • Who's Who in Classical Mythology (PDF). p. 100. ker berethrou ("evil of the pit", (see 'Ker, berethron, 'pit' is the Epic and Ionic form of barathron)
(My underline.) Paul has found it in an index for Robert Graves' The Greek Myths as ker berethrou (the -ou vs -n is just a tense change, "of the" as Ionic or something else tense, it's the same word as the -os nominative). I translated a little Spanish which shows that some think it may be used (as "Demon") in Sumerian or Ancient Egyptian stuff. Sometimes I am not as green as I am cabbage looking: some of these predate Neelix' insert here. Most likely, it was at Cerberus, but has since been amended, but has become feral and now the whole Interweb quotes Wikipedia (usually without any kind of CC-SA, or even a mench, we just get the shit and jokes for being "wrong" or "inaccurate", as if every newspaper and every dull comedian who can't think of material doesn't make Wikipedia the fifth most visited site in the world).
Therefore I say Strong delete. Si Trew (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are many demons of pits -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate. Cerberus is not the only "demon of the pit" and this claimed etymology is dubious. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 16:35, 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.

My father is exalted[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) 17:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A translated Hebrew phrase is not a good redirect. This is the meaning of the name, but it likely the meaning of many other names in other languages. Legacypac (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget to Honour thy father and thy mother; it's a stretch but it's what I thought of first.I also assumed that Abiram was the just another way of writing Abraham (Ibrahim, etc), though (and not of course the same person as Abraham, who at WP gets top billing); but I am no religious scholar. Si Trew (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deep in Abraham we find the claim that a possible name meaning is Father is exhaulted. If that claim were stronger, and if we are in the business of targeting meanings to Hebrew names, the famous guy would be a better target then the two guys no one has heard of. Legacypac (talk) 22:26, 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.

Naval of Sicily[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) 17:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word is Italian for naval but he directed it to a city with the mixed language nickname "Ombelico" of Sicily. I'm not convinced the nickname of a town in Italy is a good target for an Italian word. I found [1] L'Ombelico del Mondo which is 1/2 way across the island n the coast not the interior, and another reason to delete. Legacypac (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, WP:RFD#D2 confusing and for the second WP:RFOREIGN (for the first, kinda RUNFOREIGN as an unsourced translation).
  1. For "Naval of Sicily", the target does mention the godess Demeter's grove, the Latin: umbilicus siciliae, but not an English translation for it.
  2. For "Ombilico", we have umbilicus mundi, which would be the Latin equivalent of [l']"ombelico del mondo" , but that goes → omphalos which is Greek language and Greek place.
I toyed with the idea that "naval" might just refer to an historical Sicilian navy, since mariners tend to prefer a littoral setting over one in the interior: but it seems not; the wars mentioned at the target make no reference to a Sicilian navy (or any other navy) specifically. Si Trew (talk)
Ombilico = umbilical as in cord, or the belly button. Legacypac (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that, but "naval" does not mean belly-button, a navel, it means "of, or relating to, a navy". Navel of Sicily is red. Si Trew (talk) singing Rule, Brittania! 19:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might expect the first one to lead to a description of the naval forces of the Kingdom of Sicily, though we don't seem to have any such content. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any. Lots of wars around the target, indeed it was a target, but no Sicilian navy as such. Perhaps they mistakenly had the Navy in the interior... never a good place for a navy... put 'em next to a bit of water, first rule of admiralty. Si Trew (talk) 21:19, 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.

Unisexy[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 Unisexers to The Unisexers, delete the rest. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MADEUP, WP:RFD#D8 "obscure synonym". Only hits from gsearch are for word-lists, I don't think "Unisex" is an adjective that can be verbed, "to unisex", so these forms are ridiculous. See also #Singlesexing, below. Amusingly (to me), my gsearch results for "unisexing" give lots of pictures of shirts, Hungarian: unisex ing meaning "unisex shirt", but perhaps that is just because of my location. Si Trew (talk) 10:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete you can't do these things to this word. I did find Unisexy as a slang term, but very weak results. Look at him in those girl jeans, that's unisexy. was the example. Legacypac (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...So I suppose he wears them unisexily, as one of those unisexers who exude unisexiness. Fortunately we don't seem to have bisexy &c. Si Trew (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The creator forgot the most important redirect Unisexyistnessly Legacypac (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unisexy does get some usage, but I highly doubt anyone is going to type it into a search bar instead of Unisex. Same for the others, except with even less usage. Hut 8.5 11:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - implausibleing modifiersly. This is possibly a typo for unsexy, but at least on QWERTY the extra I keystroke would be implausible, having to occur after the right-hand index finger moves from the top row to the bottom row then back again in error, or using the right-hand ring finger which isn't involved in this word at all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed the I stands for Implausibility. I do Y/Z confusion all the time as I use both QWERTY and QWERTZ. I also have I think the only surname in the world that is sequence in the QWERTZ and QWERTY sequences so I can type it on one hand leaving the other one spare for, er, a cup of tea. (I hate AZERTY keyboards.) Si Trew (talk) 19:19, 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.

Fecklessly[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 both. The rough consensus is that these are acceptable words derived from "feck". Deryck C. 18:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are non-words that only confuse, as far as I can see at the target. Delete? Legacypac (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep given that "feckless" points to and is actually discussed at the target, and these redirects are straightforward and widespread derivatives of it. They certainly are not non-words; they have tens of thousands of GBooks hits ("fecklessness" is now several times more common than "feck" itself [2]). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFD#K3, likely search term (although not that likely, stats are negligible except a double-digit peak for both on 29 September 2015, the day it was created), these are real words and there's a link to Wiktionary, although it doesn't stand out as such; I am going to add "feckless" to the Wikt box, since it's a separate headwoard in Wikt. Will rcat. Si Trew (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Feckless was created the same day, 29 Sept '15, to same target by same user. Si Trew (talk) 11:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' since "feckless" is discussed there, so these variants would be viable search terms -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "feckless" would be plausible, but these "variants" are not. WP:R#D8 applies here. -- Tavix (talk) 17:30, 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.

Improprieties[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete both in conjunction with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 24#Appropriateness. Deryck C. 19:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an Unacceptable redirect. It's almost immoral, but not quite. Ditto with the other one. What to retarget too? Legacypac (talk) 10:31, 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.

Wood-block print[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 conform to similar redirects to woodblock printing. Deryck C. 19:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak retarget to Woodblock printing, like Woodblock print and derivations. I would normally just boldly do this, but we have open discussions on #Japanese wood-block printings (below), so that would be unwise. User:Johnbod changed it back in 2006 with this edit. So it's been around unmolested for a long while, but perhaps we need to consider whether some of the Japanese ones should go to woodcut likewise. Si Trew (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not as simple as you might think (ec) By strong convention "Wood-block print"s from the West are called woodcuts, but from Asia (unless pretty modern) are called "woodblock prints" (as woodcut tells you at the start). But many people don't know this, and also Woodblock printing is mostly about book-printing, with some on textiles, but doesn't cover printmaking (the hatnote says: "
    For Western art prints, see woodcut. For the related technique invented in the 18th century, see wood engraving. For Japanese woodblock printing, see woodblock printing in Japan.
    "), so it's not a great target. Woodcut does cover Asia, at a pretty summarized level. It's all confusing certainly, but there is a good case for leaving it where it is. Note that there are two: Wood-block print and Woodblock print. The should have the same target. I've changed my mind in the past, but o On the whole I think "Woodcut" is the best target. Conceivably a disam page should be set up. Nothing including "Japan/ese" should go to either of these targets. Johnbod (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But then surely it is odd that Wood-block printing goes to a different target? It did go to Woodcut from 2004 to 2013, but was then retargeted to Woodblock printing. I imagine some of the Japanese ones will go as "not particularly Japanese", but we should kinda know if some are technically incorrect, even if we end up keeping them as {{R from incorrect name}}. I'm not worried particularly about this redirect, but thought it worth bringing it up in the hope of reducing confusion (rather than adding to it, as I seem to have done).
The difference, written, is slight and kinda like WP:DIFFCAPS; spoken, is nil (or perhaps emphasis/stress?) Si Trew (talk) 10:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is messy, that's my point. I've edited Woodblock print twice, changing my mind, but not being Neelix, never thought about the other. This isn't at all like WP:DIFFCAPS - there is no difference in meaning or pronunciation - don't let's confuse things more than we need to. Nearly all specialist sources will use "woodblock", but I think many less specialized will use "wood-block", and it would be going too far to call it incorrect. That's why we have redirects. Johnbod (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant it's like it in the sense it's a very subtle distinction (and one that is missed by the search engine, without some help). Si Trew (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not even that - it's just a different spelling. Johnbod (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's exactly what it's not, as far as I understood your explanation. If they were just different spellings, the two would have the same target. Si Trew (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are, and should have the same target (as I say above), but at present the two spellings were set up by different people; imo "woodcut" is best. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
could be best. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom, oppose disambiguation per WP:TWODABS. There are already reciprocal hatnotes at Woodblock printing and Woodcut. If the concepts aren't sufficiently distinguished, that's a job for us editors. --BDD (talk) 16:32, 1 December 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.

Franz Ludolf Ahrens[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 Ludolf Ahrens, keep the rest. Deryck C. 19:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Different ways to arrange the guy's name that are invented by Neelix. Like many others we have gone delete on. Legacypac (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A gsearch for "Franz Heinrich Ahrens" bringsup genealogy sites for a chap born in 1891, presumably not notable. "Franz Ludolf Ahrens" brings up only WP mirrors. So Delete the two starting "Franz" as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. "Heinrich Ludolf Ahrens" and "Ludolf Ahrens" both bring up book search results for Latin: De Graecae Linguae Dialectis ("On Greek-language dialects"), and that work is listed at the target, so Keep those two as WP:RFD#K3 likely search term, {{R from incomplete name}}.
I don't know (yet) whether "Ludolf" is part of his surname; I'll checking other-language WPs in case that clears it up. We could perhaps add a {{confused|Heinrich Ahrens}}, who is someone different but contemporary (philosopher 1808–1874 vs. philologer 1809–1881). Si Trew (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. From the authority controls and the Russian WP, which conveniently has "surnames, first names" as its article title format for bios, it seems demonstrable that his surname was just "Ahrens" (cf. eg. David Lloyd George). Interestingly (or not), German and Italian articles don't mention "Franz" at all; Russian and Portuguese do. LoC also lists in the Latin form as "Ahrens, Franciscus Henricus Ludolfus". Si Trew (talk) 11:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ludolf Ahrens, it's ludicrous if that is his (second) middle name to have it as a title; Keep Heinrich Ludolf Ahrens as (very) likely search term, WP:RFD#K3. Si Trew (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ludolf Ahrens only. Keep the rest. Si Trew has demonstrated the usefulness of Heinrich Ludolf Ahrens, and the first two seem like logical strings of first, middle, last name. Sure, this guy had two middle names, but maybe that's not apparent in a reader's source. I don't see the harm if they're unambiguous. --BDD (talk) 17:05, 1 December 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.

Wang Li (chess player)[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) 17:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect. Wang Li (male) and Wang Lei (female) are two different chess masters. See FIDE profile for Wang Li. Zanhe (talk) 08:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete simple person A does not equal person B. Legacypac (talk) 08:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and Wp:R#D2. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 and WP:REDLINK. I don't know if chess masters are inherently notable but if someone wants to write about Wang Li they can. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yikes. Softlavender (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I nominated this at CSD at 13:35 UTC for WP:CSD#G6 housekeeping (saying it was something of a test case to bring it under G6, stating I was not involved and I still am not, and stating a WP:SNOW here at RfD). It's still in the CSD queue (currently 120 entries.) Sorry to be cynical, but are they drawn off in sort order?Si Trew (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary or advisable to speedy these anyway, we're just jamming the queue. There are enough admins paying attention to this that WP:SNOW deletes will be as expedient as they need be. Let the CSD queue be for the really necessary-to-delete cases, like the G10s and such. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubbify with some basic information -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I doubt he's notable, so stubbifying would be inappropriate. Sideways713 (talk) 13:04, 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.

George von Beckedorff[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) 17:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A range of Neelix invented variations on a guy with a one sentence bio. These clutter up search and make it hard to find anyone else (there are several) people that have the same last name mentioned on the site. Legacypac (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "George von Beckedorff", which is how he is often called, and possibly the second. I can't in fact see any other "von Beckedorff"s at all in WP, except one in a list at X Corps (Grande Armée), which is why "von Beckedorff" redirects to him. Since he was given the title, and it is not a common name, only his descendents will be "von Beckedorff". The 3rd can go. Johnbod (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean to Nom "George von Beckedorff" - withdrew that one. Legacypac (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Delete the 3 as now nominated. Johnbod (talk) 10:55, 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.

Singleslits[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 Deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury under R3 (non-Admin close)Legacypac (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is single, how can this be plural? It just invented nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 07:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Or, it's an {{R from verb}} as third person singular, "he or she singleslits".... which it isn't. Si Trew (talk) 11:03, 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.

Singlesidedness[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 as unopposed. Deryck C. 19:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single siding and all these variations are not even things (Google them). All seem like useless redirects Legacypac (talk) 06:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've PRODded both target articles, which are disambiguation pages consisting entirely of partial-title matches. --BDD (talk) 17:01, 1 December 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 ships[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) 16:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Single-ship actions is clear, but these redirects could mean all kinds of things, including the state of not being married. The fact they now target two places is a good example. Legacypac (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, not helpful, potentially misleading. —Kusma (t·c) 10:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, WP:RFD#D8 novel or obscure synonym. If the "singleship" was an attempt at a synonym for singularity#Natural sciences, target it there. Si Trew (talk)
  • Comment a "singleship" is a type of warship in the Known Space fictional universe, which is crewed by one person, and uses a fusion drive as a primary weapon, along with bomb-pumped X-ray lasers. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:33, 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.

Singlesexing[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) 16:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many things that are single sex, from washrooms to schools. Guys go to bars looking for it. There is no mention of these terms at the target. Legacypac (talk) 06:39, 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.

DWLC-TV (Studio 23 Laoag)[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) 16:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_19#DWAS-TV. Si Trew (talk) 06:30, 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.

Piatkus Books[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 fixed by Salavat (non-admin closure) Legacypac (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Si Trew (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The target page has been changed to Little, Brown Book Group (the correct Little, Brown company) which mentions that "Piatkus" is an imprint of the company. As a result their should be no more confusion. Salavat (talk) 06:29, 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.

ATOM Books[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 fixed by Salavat (non-admin closure) Legacypac (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Si Trew (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The target page has been changed to Little, Brown Book Group (the correct Little, Brown company) which mentions that "ATOM Books" is an imprint of the company. As a result their should be no more confusion. Salavat (talk) 06:29, 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.

Central bell panel[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 6#Central bell panel

Japanese wood-block printings[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 6#Japanese wood-block printings

Nug nug[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 SNOW CLOSE and Retargeted (non-admin close) Legacypac (talk) 13:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense redirect. Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:35, 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.

Cooking gas[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 Discussion lead to retarget to fuel gas. (non-admin close) Legacypac (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cooking gas isn't always natural gas. For camping, for example, it's usually propane, and butane I think is used sometimes as well. There isn't just one cooking gas, but I can't off-hand think of a better target. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Coal gas (← town gas) and liquefied petroleum gas (← LPG cooking gas) too. Basically, any gaseous hydrocarbon (which article doesn't meantion cooking or anything related). I couldn't find a good target either. Si Trew (talk) 05:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Set-indexify create a set index for the most commonly used gases for cooking (propane, butane, methane, ethane, natural gas, biogas, coal gas) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support that, if you're volunteering. You forgot LPG. Si Trew (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't try cooking with that, you'll blow yourself up! Johnbod (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no alternative adequate redirect Johnbod (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Index per 70.51. Don't forget white gas. I can see this being a search for the gas commonly used in household gas cooking appliances, which is (I think always) natural gas. As far as I know it's the only gas delivered directly to households as a utility, whereas the others are sold in portable containers or delivered individually by tankers (i.e. propane heating gas). But it was just created yesterday, so at best I'd say natural gas should have a position of prominence in the proposed set index. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 08:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In rural areas, propane is used the same way natural gas is used in urban areas, except periodically delivered by truck. Most natural gas appliances can be converted to propane use, either by the dealer or by purchasing a kit. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, not delivered by pipeline is what I meant. It's also possible to do that conversion in reverse on a propane appliance, if natural gas service is available. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When North Sea gas came into the UK in the 1970s, they just changed the burners on the top of the stoves, cos natural gas was about twice the calorific value of town gas. Saved having to change the meters etc, they just doubled the cost of a British Thermal Unit (according to the meter) and knocked down the output when it mattered. (And of course, had to change if the meter couldn't cope with the higher pressure). Si Trew (talk) 17:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI propane is delivered in pipes just like natural gas in some towns that lack access to the natural gas distribution system. For example [3] Legacypac (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless index/list is written. —Kusma (t·c) 10:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTDOIT then. The normal way is for someone to do a Draft:Cooking gas or put it similar under the R. I will do that, but as a DAB, cos I can't be bothered to look up whatg should and should not be in a set index, and someone else can do the work to knock it into that (perhaps 70.51.... :) ) Si Trew (talk) 16:59, 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.

1987 Lone Star Soccer Alliance[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) 16:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects imply details on that respective season, but there's nothing of note at the article save for a list of league champions. Someone searching for a specific season would end up disappointed by getting nothing but a general overview of the league. Delete per WP:R#D2. -- Tavix (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These seem to have become R's as a result of a merge decision at a deletion discussion here (March 2015). Two real uses, in articles Tony Bono and Richard Benigno. Si Trew (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for double checking the links. They have been fixed now. Also, the decision was redirect, not merge. -- Tavix (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was, but actually nobody !voted for a retarget; they !voted for a merge. One way or another a redirect would have popped out, so it's not that important. Si Trew (talk) 15:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 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.

Mickeyland[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) 16:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, why Orlando and not Anaheim? My search also found a clothing company by this name. -- Tavix (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete City does not equal amusement park. Also, Disneyworld is technically in, umm, some non-Orlando city in Florida (Buena Vista?) That said, Disneyland might be a reasonable target. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Ireland.sorry, was taking the mick Si Trew (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The clothing shop in Toronto seems to be out of business. Is this an alternate name for Disneyland? It's not coming up in my search results as though it is. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; even if it means Disneyland it could easily mean any of Disneyland (disambiguation). —Kusma (t·c) 15:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Disneyland and maybe (probably not) throw in a hatnote to Mickey (mostly because I think it would be amusing to have "Mickeyland" redirects here at the top of that article). --NYKevin 18:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it's a silly and ambiguous redirect as one could easily make the case that "Mickeyland" could refer to more than just Orlando, FL or the Disney World resort located there. TheAstuteObserver (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of some amalgam of Cloud cuckoo land and Mickey mouse money ( → Japanese government-issued Philippine peso, perhaps a bit specifically), but it doesn't seem to be used in that kind of "imaginary" sense. Si Trew (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, and I know this is a bit off-topic, should the target Japanese government-issued Philippine peso have a {{redirect}} hatnote to Disney dollar? Si Trew (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've just done it with this change. Si Trew (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Mickeyland might refer to one of several Disney properties, but I don't actually see that this term is being used commonly or even uncommonly for any of the Disney parks. -- Whpq (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Walt Disney Parks and Resorts which covers all the Disney resorts -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:04, 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.

Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.[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) 07:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any value to redirects that differ only by a period or comma? Note there are other redirects with extended versions of the name too. Legacypac (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment they all fail WP:NCCORP anyway, but I'm constantly told that does not apply to redirects, even though presumably one intent of that policy is to prevent needless clutter with the legal form of the name. I dare you to look at the R's for Little, Brown and Company. Si Trew (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, frankly I see no problem here. Plausible redirects, as Rowman & Littlefield is often referred to with this extended name (including all the minor variations). I see no benefit in deleting these legitimate redirects, and for the record my comment is probably consuming more bytes than these redirects do. Cavarrone 13:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The theoretical problem is that it create a maintenance headache if the target is moved; also a reader headache if two things that read as if they are distinct entities are in fact the same one. (This tends to happen most with titled people, it seems.) I doubt it would be a practical problem here. Si Trew (talk) 15:14, 25 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.

Tap-riz[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 and refine to Tabriz#Etymology. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

strange misspelling. Legacypac (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it's a proposed Pahlavi language etymology for the city's name [4], though it's not mentioned on the target now (not sure if it was in the past) and I don't know whether more recent sources have deemed this theory plausible or implausible. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refine to Tabriz#Etymology. This etymology was mentioned & reliably-sourced (e.g. to Britannica) on the target back when the redirect was created in 2007. It was removed in 2011 by an anonymous editor who did not give any reasons for the removal and who also deleted other content from the article without explanation. Someone later reverted one of that anon's edits, but not the anon's previous edits. I'm assuming that was an error, and I've restored the etymology section. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refine per 210.6. Thanks for restoring it; also I didnt't know about Special:Diff, so I learned something. (there's also {{diff}} but I don't see what practical advantage that has over just pasting the URL.) Si Trew (talk) 09:00, 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.

Thamus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 6#Thamus

America's top hat[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) 18:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, joke redirect that doesn't get much use. -- Tavix (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no purpose. Canada is better then a top hat for the US. Legacypac (talk) 01:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, though I found it humorous.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 01:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not discussed on target, nor should it be per Wp:WEIGHT. It also doesn't seem possible to add encyclopedic content about this nickname anywhere else either (e.g. Canada–United States relations), since the the tiny number of reliable sources which mention the nickname [5][6] don't do any analysis of it, meaning the only things you could really say would be either Wp:OR or Wp:TRIVIA. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete amusing joke but unlikely synonym --Lenticel (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I used it myself just yesterday, but indeed there is no content supporting it at the target, nor at 51st state#Canada where America's Hat redirects. Not useful, then. Ivanvector 🎩 (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: 🎩 - —Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:17, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_20&oldid=1146236618"