Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 1, 2015.

2013–14[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. WP:SNOW. --BDD (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously created in error. Implausible search term, and there are 60 NBA and NHL articles alone for this season, never mind any other sports leagues or non-sporting instances where these two years overlap. Resolute 23:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since the only appropriate action for anything connected to this title is the contents of merging the pages 2013 and 2014, and that isn't happening. Steel1943 (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is a slam dunk, even if you restricted the date range to refer to hockey, instead of to every field of human endeavor dealing with chained multiple years. Ravenswing 23:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' - I agree completely. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:08, 2 September 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.

Jangmadang[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 procedural close/wrong forum. I reverted Ravenswing's cut-and-paste move of Ceosad's sandbox since that splits attribution histories, which is against the attribution policy. However, Ceosad, for future reference, if you need to publish an article at a title that already exists, please utilize WP:RMTR; whenever you are ready to publish your draft, feel free to go there and post your request. Until then, since no rationale has been presented to delete the redirect as harmful, I'm going to go ahead and close this discussion. Please feel free to contact me with concerns. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I want this deleted. I have a half done article about North Korean black markets in my sandbox, but this redirect blocks me from moving it to main space. The targeted article is very bloated, so this content cannot be reasonably added into it. Not to mention that the article, and the targeted section, have virtually nothing on the black markets. Redirect itself would be reasonable, but it is harmful for me. See reason 10 from WP:RFD#DELETE. Ceosad (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: What prevents you from a straight cut-and-paste? Nothing, apparently, because I just did it: [1] Ravenswing 23:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • close since the redirect is made into an article now --Lenticel (talk) 00:06, 2 September 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.

Cary Price Montreals star goaltender[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) 13:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - implausible search term. Also, editorializing somewhat. Resolute 22:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Quite aside from Resolute's take, just typing "Cary Price" is enough to bring up the proper article in the search box. Ravenswing 00:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that only people who have javascript enabled and who are using the internal search box will see search suggestions in this manner and there are many other ways to search and browse Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Resolute. I would consider Cary Price goaltender and even Cary Price Montreal's goaltender as plausible search terms, particularly if there were other notable people by this name, but this is not a good search term. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Rubbish computer 22:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with WP:SNOWBALL and WP:CONCISE. I would {{nac}} this, but can't actually delete it, so that would be pointless. Si Trew (talk) 00:34, 3 September 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.

NHL's first multiple-player trade[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 8#NHL's first multiple-player trade

Etimoni Timuani (footballer)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed as no other individual by this name. Originally created as a result of birthdate confusion as the individual partakes in two sports. Not required as unlikely to be a plausible search term. Fenix down (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 13:19, 2 September 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.

Technology of Command & Conquer[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) 13:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These terms are not identified at its target page, so readers looking for this information are led here to find nothing in regards to "technology". Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I have been playing an old shoot em up → shoot 'em up on a ZX Spectrum I have here. Something on cassette tape from Mastertronic. I seem to be losing, I think I shall try Paperboy (game). Si Trew (talk) 14:44, 3 September 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.

Other Canadian pioneers in early Hollywood[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) 13:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear what "Canadian pioneers in early Hollywood" it is meant to exclude, especially since it currently targets Canadian pioneers in early Hollywood. Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep someone searching for this will find what they are looking for at the target article, regardless of what they want to exclude. This would make a poor link from the target article, but that does not mean that it's not a good redirect in other circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree. Redirects essentially serve as an index to encylopaedia content. If the index is too cluttered, it is harder to search, not easier. One ends up with a surprise (depending on how one searches) when all roads lead to Rome. Judicious paring down of the index is one of our jobs, isn't it? Si Trew (talk) 00:50, 3 September 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.

Miscellaneous information on West Virginia[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) 13:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any other information that this redirect presents that West Virginia doesn't since ... the redirect targets West Virginia. Readers looking up this term while looking at West Virginia will be confusingly going back to where they were due to this being a circular reference to itself. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak soft redirect to Wikidata d:Q1371 (the West Virginia item). While the user will find miscellaneous information on West Virginia at the target article, they will be poorly served by a prose article. I don't think that this being a useless search term when search for from exactly one page out of the however many million we currently have, or the many billions of other pages on the internet they could start from is an argument that holds much water. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Strong oppose to Thryduulf's proposal per WP:ASTONISH. There's a good reason why we don't have any soft redirects to Wikidata. A layperson does not have a want for Wikidata and it wouldn't be helpful to them. -- Tavix (talk) 00:45, 3 September 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.

Dark Castle (1984 video game)[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) 13:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. The inclusion criteria for the list appear to have changed since the redirect was created, such that this game is unlikely ever to be mentioned.

There are many other redirects to the same article (List of Enix games) which may also need review, but let's focus on this one for now. SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: what criteria changed? The current selection criterion appears to be "videogames published by Enix". If Dark Castle is a video game published by Enix, it should be included in the list. While it is common for selection criteria to include a requirement for listed items to have articles, it is by no means standard, and this list has a large number of entries with no bluelink. That being said, I'm having trouble verifying that the game actually existed; my results are dominated by Dark Castle, a Macintosh game released in 1986. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My wording was a little sloppy; the problem seems to be less about the actual criteria than the rigor with which they are enforced. There was probably an effort at some point to clean non-notable/redlinked games out of the list, which is also presumably why it switched from an alphabetical format to "console"/"computer"/"online" (thus unfixably breaking the anchor in the redirect). I admit I hadn't really looked at the target article's history that closely; doing that now, I noticed that the current organization seems to have been put in place with this edit, but I still need to find the point at which the list was sorted alphabetically. The talk page appears to have been inactive for several years. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 1 September 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.

Wakopedia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 18#Wakopedia

Gutter cleaning[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 Gutter cleaner. --BDD (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The target article states that the subject of the article needs cleaning on a few occasions, but doesn't identify specifically what the cleaning is. Also, there are also street gutters and "gutters" in bowling, so even if the subject of the redirect was identified in its target article, the redirect could be seen as ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I could see Gutter vacuum or Gutter sucker redirecting there, but not the nominated redirect. This redirect could give the reader the idea that they are going to locate a concept, not a piece of equipment. Steel1943 (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been casting around as well. Street sweeper? But three regulars have three variants, so perhaps Convert to DAB. I'll make a draft for your consideration. Si Trew (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At Draft:Gutter cleaning. The first three I can source, the last I am trying hard to but this is in the way. Si Trew (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I may have been led up the garden path here. "Gutter sucker" is a good tongue-twister though; fortunately I have only to type it. Si Trew (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with either that dab or the retarget I suggested above. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right now, nothing on the draft dab really meets MOS:DABPRIMARY. And I'm not sure how common this phrase is; wikt:gutter cleaning is red (so to speak). With my suburban American background, the phrase makes me think of Rain gutters first; cleaning them is a perennial problem. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually do not think the disambiguation page draft is helpful in its current state. The draft mentions that "Gutter cleaning is the action of...", etc, but doesn't actually refer to any articles whose subjects are actually referred to as "gutter cleaning". In fact, if anything, the examples listed on the page right now could erroneously be called "Gutter cleaner". Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would expect to find articles about things that do gutter cleaning on a page called "gutter cleaner" and vice versa, so I really don't think that is a problem. It may though be better to have the dab at Gutter cleaner and repoint this redirect there. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that makes sense, to put it at cleaner. And if we go for the DAB, I should add Gutta-percha as an outlier. The lede mentions its use in cleaning. I don't wish to add it now, as I don't want to confuse this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 00:56, 3 September 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.

Next Greek legislative election[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:ARTICLETITLE. The page has been previously deleted as an implausible redirect. Page has been repeatedly created so requesting WP:SALT. Curb Chain (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tsipras already dropped the writ (there are several BBC articles on the election, for example). I've found leaving the redirect in place since, for example, my browser is set to find "Next Greek legislative election" more easily (I've been using that link to follow polling for several years, since it always points to whatever the "next" election is, be it this year or next or whatever). So please, leave it in place until the election happens and then "de-direct" it in September.50.206.51.2 (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the above, the election has already been called [2]. How is it CRYSTALly? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment to User:Thryduulf.Curb Chain (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are many "Next ... election" redirects, and while consensus about them isn't strong it has generally fallen to keep when they are predictable. When we have a specific article or section on a future election they should point there, when we don't they should point to the article that notes when the next election will be to the degree of precision currently known (e.g. "the next election will take place on or before day month year"). Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTNEWS #2 (especially) and #4, articles should not be created unless it is enduringly notable. These "Next ... election" redirects are simply being used as a repository of reports until they are "considered" official, as is clear from the rest of these comments. If the article is going to be moved anyway, then it would fail WP:ARTICLETITLE since articles should have the proper title in the first place.Curb Chain (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For elections, you can't have the "[Country] general election, [year]" format used in article titles until the election is assured to be held at a certain date, because otherwise it would fail to meet WP:CRYSTALBALL #1. But also as per CRYSTAL #1, future elections are notable and certain enough to take place at some point to take them into consideration, specially because it is not difficult to find enough relevant information to keep the articles going (Electoral system, opinion polls to be constantly updated, etc). Impru20 (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So is this a problem with the article? I know we aren't discussing the article, but if you take Next Irish general election, it seems to be an WP:indiscriminate repository of information regarding the NEXT Irish general election.Curb Chain (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm posting while logged out (I lost the login to my account years ago), but I'd like to make a point here that might feed into a broader discussion: I've long found the Wikipedia articles on the "Next [Country] [Body] election" to be a truly useful way to follow political patterns in various countries. Other than the US and UK, I can't find similar repositories in English anywhere else. I'm not opposed to having a discussion on how to handle such articles (for example, there should probably be a standardized convention on whether to refer to a "legislative", "general", "parliamentary", or "federal" election...I think I've seen all three used), but I do think they are both useful and within the scope of Wikipedia.65.124.217.199 (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No sense for this. Tsipras has resigned, and the legal process that will lead to a snap election in either 20 or 27 September has already started. "Next Greek legislative election" should be keep so that people are redirected to the September election, and once it is held, the article can be re-used for the next election. Impru20 (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFD#K5 as this seems useful to the reader: updating these redirects for national elections would not cause much extra work. Rubbish computer 15:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 since the election it refers to is the current election; the next election is whichever one follows the one next month. Which also helpfully illustrates why we should not create these redirects generally. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivan. As soon as the election is over, the redirect will be outdated and we'd have to revisit this. Since we're already here, let's just delete it like we've done three times in the past. -- Tavix (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As soon as the election is over, this can simply be retargeted per my comment above, without drama or need for any hot air while continuing to provide a way for people to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's why we shouldn't have redirects like that. They'll go out of date and require a fair amount of maintenance. Are you volunteering? -- Tavix (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't remove things from articles because they go out of date and require a fair amount of maintenance, and the same principle holds entirely for redirects. Have you got any evidence that these redirects are not being updated when required? Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with User:Tavix here. It seems to be argued that the redirect should be kept because people are going to find it useful. But it isn't useful because we don't know excatly when the "next" Greek legislative election will be held but we know when it cannot be held after. If we are to maintain a redirect, then create an article, this is simply speculation about the next election.Curb Chain (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: there is a fundamental difference between those events and the next Greek (and Spanish) elections: predictability and encyclopaedicness. Legislative and similar elections are predictable and there is always encyclopaedic coverage about the next one. Right after the preceding election that is simply the date it will need to be held by, but this date is known and as the date gets closer the encyclopaedic information grows. Political party leadership elections are not predictable, and there is no encyclopaedic coverage of them possible in advance of them. It is not knowable if there will be another Australian constitutional referendum, if there is what it will be about. Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Curb Chain: Just because we don't know the exact date does not mean that the redirect is not useful - someone looking up this (or similar) redirects is going to find the answer "on day month year" and "before day month year" equally useful. I say this with confidence as this has been true for me on several occasions in the past, and will continue to be so in the future. As long as we report the answer to the degree of precision reported in reliable sources (which we do, and which is entirely independent of this redirect) the reader is served. Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As per my comments on the Spanish election section below. Check naming conventions on future election articles in WP:NCGAL. Also, remind you that we are talking about general elections here; that is, the kind of elections that start parliamentary terms and that have a fixed maximum duration. We are certain about when the "next" general/parliamentary/legislative election would be held at latest. Referendums and internal party leadership elections do not abide on those legal rules, since they are elections of a different kind and are, thus, not comparable. It may be decades before a new given referendum or a new leadership election is held, a time-span not measurable not predictable, but we are sure that a new parliamentary election will be held, at most, within a 3, 4 or 5 year period (depending on the country). Impru20 (talk) 11:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, editors need to update but it is a plausible search phrase. No WP:CRYSTAL elements, there will always (most likely) be a "next" election, and where the redirect targets a recently passed election, it could also be retargeted to Elections in Greece if lack of updating is a concern. Montanabw(talk) 16:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply to you below (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 24#Next Spanish general election).Curb Chain (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points. Rubbish computer 18:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The redirect was created when the page was moved after the election was called, and I do not see any harm in keeping it per WP:CHEAP. As far as the redirect becoming outdated, it could always be retargeted to Elections in Greece after the 20th until an article on the next Greek legislative election is created. Furthermore, the page should not be salted as there will be a "next" election in Greece, and until a date for the election is set, "Next Greek legislative election" is the proper name for the article.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I chimed in above arguing for keeping the article, but two points jump to mind. The first is, as TD11060 noted, this discussion will be obsolete in just over two weeks regardless since the September 2015 election will have happened and the then-next election (tentatively 2019, I believe, but quite likely sooner than that given how the polls look) will earn this title. Second, I think it is reasonable to say that a consensus is not likely in that time. I default to preferring a keep, but it strikes me that (with two weeks to go until the election) this debate is akin to rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. I would vociferously oppose WP:SALT for this since there's a prevailing protocol that if an election date is not reasonably fixed, this format is used for other countries and overturning that via a one-shot salting seems a bit "off"; if anything, I'd argue to salt against killing the redirect since otherwise we'll end up re-enacting this drama whenever the next Greek government collapses. 65.124.217.199 (talk) 00:10, 5 September 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.

Maltese Brazilian[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) 13:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Maltese immigration to Brazil is not mentioned whatsoever at the target article, nor at Culture of Malta#Maltese emigration and expatriation (Wikipedia's most extensive coverage of the Maltese diaspora). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is not exactly a WP:REDLINK situation; the redirect is the result of an non-admin closure of an earlier AFD (arguably out-of-consensus, since all but one participant suggested only outright deletion, not merger or redirection). In any case, I can't see that any content from Maltese Brazilian was ever merged into Immigration to Brazil (there was nothing to merge, not even a population figure), so there shouldn't be copyright issues with deleting this. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per there being no suitable target. Rubbish computer 18:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Immigrants from Brazil to Malta (being a member of the EU) may be notable, especially considering the trade winds and such that would float their boats. However I can't help thinking that "Malteze Brazilian" is the first line of a song, Waltzing Matilda. But only I would ever have thought of that. I am waiting till my billy boils. And she'll come, the Maltese Brazilian with me. Si Trew (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete. I can't help but think, though, that this could be a bad way of singing Waltzing Matilda, for which I shall demonstrate.

Maltese Brazilian, Maltese Brazilian
you'll do Brazilian if I malt your tease
and they sat and they sang
as they played upon their honeymoon
you'll come below your Brazilian with me.

Only I would think that, but I have been at too many bad weddings, not all of them my own. I guess it would be like a Brazilian (pubic hair) but in the shape of a Maltese Cross. Si Trew (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But then, I would say that, cos I own Malta, and Canada too, apparently (except maybe the French bit). Si Trew (talk) 05:02, 4 September 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.

屋崙[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) 11:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED. GZWDer (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - directs the readers to what they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 07:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to Chinatown, Oakland. I think that's the closest target for these symbols given the concentration of people that speaks the Chinese languages within the area. I would like to ask editors who can read the symbols if they are indeed accurate for Oakland (I labelled this as "Weak" because of this issue). --Lenticel (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Google translate translates it as just "Oakland". zh:屋崙 interwikis to Oakland (disambiguation). The difference is that en.wp treats "Oakland, California" as the primary topic for "Oakland", zh.wp has the disambiguation page as the primary. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ambiguous (could either mean Oakland, California or Auckland, New Zealand; e.g. zh-yue:屋崙 is about the latter) and not suitable for a {{Chinese title disambiguation}}. Does not mean "Chinatown" either. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per the arguments stated above, I don't think the redirect is helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - although Oakland has a somewhat significant Chinese population (article says about 9%) other comments above show that this is ambiguous anyway, and not a likely candidate for disambiguation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. Rubbish computer 18:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the symbols just means "Oakland" and is vague --Lenticel (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:R#D8. -- Tavix (talk) 19:57, 2 September 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.

免费[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) 11:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED. GZWDer (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not mentioned on target disambiguation, nor on any of the pages linked from it, and the overwhelming majority of the items on that page would not be called "免费" in Chinese. There's also no other suitable target on English Wikipedia which would explain why the user is being redirected there from this title. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Gratis - which should really be mentioned on the Free page, since a reader who writes Free is almost certainly looking for it. WilyD 07:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment can any Chinese speaking editors tell us if these symbols mean gratis or libre (probably even both)? --Lenticel (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Thanks 58 for the clarification. We might be better off deleting this entry to pave way for a potential article. We do have a lot of articles that cover how China deals with "libre" like Censorship in China. Perhaps we can make an article that covers "gratis" as well--Lenticel (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I might have a go at that, @Lenticel:. Obviously Gratis is Latin but is used in my London dialect, it is also understood in Hungarian, to mean "free, giveaway, for nothing". I might have a trouble kinda sourcing this, cos slang is hard to source. But I might make a stab of it for your consideration. Si Trew (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gratis seems to serve the turn quite well. I am not sure that "libre" is so good for an English-speaking audience, what would it mean? And presumably that is the B/V distinction found in modern Spanish e.g. cerveza in Mexican Spanish is is (an English) "B" for the "Z" sound whereas in Spanish SPanish it is an (English) voiced "Th" sound.
I mean, in French, "livre" is apparently any of several sets of defunct currency, whereas I thought it was a book, or is that libre which is a DAB about stuff to do with freedom, but doesn't mention "library", which is a place that lends freely, more or less. (And not to be confused with a Librarie, which is a bookstore: false friend). (Bibliotheque fortunately is red). So you see the V/B confusion there. It's not much related to "livre", pound (in weight and currency). Libro, libra in other Latinate languages, and from which we get Liberty, for example, but not Livery. WP:NOTDIC, and I think that would only serve to confuse.Certainly confused me. Si Trew (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)<up>La lucha continua![reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the redirect has no incoming links. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. Chinese language has no special affinity to the concept of giving things away for free; this is unhelpful to English-language readers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. Rubbish computer 18:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:R#D8. -- Tavix (talk) 19:57, 2 September 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.

マイクロソフト[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 Microsoft Japan. JohnCD (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft is not a Japanese company. GZWDer (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete per WP:RFFL. Not strongly associated with the language in question.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to weak delete per the retarget suggestion below. The characters listed at the target article below differ slightly, so assuming it is an appropriate target for these foreign characters (not ambiguous, vague, or having other issues), I have no issue with redirecting to Microsoft Japan.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 11:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to what they're looking for, which is the whole purpose of a redirect (and necessary to make the project worthwhile at all). No argument has been presented for deletion. WilyD 07:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Microsoft Japan instead. I believe that article is strongly associated with the Japanese language --Lenticel (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Lenticel. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Lenticel. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Lenticel. Rubbish computer 18:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. I would usually be against these per WP:FORRED but it's there in the lede, though imperfectly because it has both Katakana and Kanji representations and they are not well separated (at least on my screen). I will fix that, without prejudice to this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Duly fixed with this edit. I've taken out the "Co. Ltd" in the infobox as I don't think we usually do that, although I will add back under official_name or some such when I look up the template doc for {{infobox company}}. Of course, these edits are to the proposed retarget article and are not intended to prejudice the discussion about the redirect itself. Si Trew (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I "fixed" the infoboxes with [this edit], adding the Hiragana under native_name. @Lenticel:, can you check that I haven't completely cocked that up (i.e. copy edit please). Si Trew (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: Si Trew, I think you should revert "Co. Ltd". It's the closest translation to Kabushiki gaisha which is part of the company's official name--Lenticel (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lenticel: yeah I wondered about that. We don't usually refer to companies with their full legal status, do we? And even if we did, "Co. Ltd." is an abbreviation of Limited Company, so we are running around the houses there. I was wondering how best to do that. It is not as if "Co. Ltd." is literally transcribed into the kana, what to do? I shall revert pending your opinion. Si Trew (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've put back the "Co. Ltd" in the infoboxes on the name= tag, but didn't roll back or revert technically: here with this edit. I left the "Ltd" without the trailing full stop because, depending on style, if the last letter of the abbreviation is the last letter of its name in full, it should not be stopped. But that depends on your style guide and MOS:PUNC has nothing to say on it. (So "Co." should be stopped but if it were "Cpy", it would not be stopped, according to Fowler, anyway.) At least I didn't entirely cock it up then, I was more worried as there was a pipe character in there cos I think it was a pipe not a Hiragana characterKatakanaMy mistake saying hiragana meant katakana Si Trew (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC), so I removed that. Si Trew (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some misunderstanding here. The company name does not have "both Katakana and Kanji representations"; it has one Japanese representation which is 日本マイクロソフト株式会社. That name consists of four words: 日本 マイクロソフト 株式 会社 (literally "Japan Microsoft Stock Company"). FWIW, none of those are Hiragana; the second is Katakana and the rest are Kanji, but while a dictionary might find that fact worth mentioning, an encyclopedia shouldn't; it would be like interrupting the lede of Microsoft Incorporated to point out that "Micro" is Greek, "Incorporate" is Latinate, and Soft and -d are Germanic. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replying briefly because I am translating from French at the mo, I slipped to say Hiragana I meant Katakana. I agree with you that "Co. Ltd" or its transliteration/translation interrupts the flow. I didn't make myself clear that I think it should be in the lede as indeed it is, with its full name, but should not be in the infobox. Indeed, to nobody's surprise Microsoft Incorporated redirects to Microsoft and you can take your pick from Microsoft Inc, Microsoft inc, Microsoft, Inc., Microsoft Inc., Microsoft inc.. (Microsoft anyway is a contraction (linguistics) from microcomputer and software so it may smell Greek but it isn't. Ultimately from Ancient Greek micro 'small', Latin computare 'to count', English soft and English ware 'goods, merchandise' (it's not particularly Germanic but OE? German shafft or English shwa for example arrive by different trains) and then contracted so it is a hybrid word if anything: but it isn't, it's a brand name.)
Somewhere we need to put its legal status: and it's in the lede. I think it is fine just only to be there, but Lenticel suggested I should put it back, so I did. My Japanese is very rusty, so I took Lenticel's advice. Si Trew (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the plot thins. 株式会社 does indeed go to Kabushiki gaisha, although that's a bit odd to me that that is in kanji not in katakana, an odd mix really I think for an English-speaking audience, but if that it is the right way to write it, that's what we should say. So I am still in a puzzle with how to put the native-name, should I link it thus via 株式会社 (a WP:PIPE would seem even more confusing). Again I state, this is discussing the proposed target not the redirect, so is somewhat off topic. I am wholly in agreement with retargetting it there, but we can do a little cleanup at the target too. Si Trew (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@58.176.246.42: is it OK if I copy-paste our rather uncontroversial comments from your and my talk pages over to here? Si Trew (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just saw this, {{ping}} doesn't work for IPs. That's fine. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:58, 4 September 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.

Aubergine/Eggplant[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) 11:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:SUBPAGE; the redirect contains no history as an article, and does not have any incoming links, so the risk of harm if this is to be deleted is low. Steel1943 (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible search term. Either one or the other, can't imagine someone searching for both — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talk • contribs) 05:34, 1 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. user:FOARP moved the Eggplant article to this "neutral title" in May 2009. The move was reverted 29 minutes later, so incoming links from outside Wikipedia are unlikely. Unfortunately it seems traffic statistics are not available on stats.grok.se for pages with a / in the title. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not conform to page name standards and doesn't help users. --Macrakis (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per its implausibility. Rubbish computer 18:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not used anywhere, hits are negligible (there were 24 hits the other day but I guess that was due to this discussion, they usually rumble at one every couple of days from bot activity, I guess). Si Trew (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above reasons --Lenticel (talk) 07:04, 5 September 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.

Nutritious fruits[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 Fruit#Nutritional value. JohnCD (talk) 11:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is an WP:NPOV violation, given that "nutritious" is an opinion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:59, 1 September 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 Gumby, dammit![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 Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 1981–1982#Gumby. --BDD (talk) 13:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this is a phrase stated by the actor in a skit on Saturday Night Live. However, the phrase targeting the actor himself is probably not helpful. For comparison, this redirect is in Category:Saturday Night Live catchphrases; all other titles in this category are either articles, or redirects to the article of the character who said the phrase (such as a redirect targeting The Church Lady). And I would not recommend retargetting to Gumby since Eddie Murphy portrays a Gumby parody in this skit and not representative of the character Gumby itself. Steel1943 (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then strike and change your !vote, @CoffeeWithMarkets:. Si Trew (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So this is all American again, and I shall not remind you of the list of countries that are not the United States but just say that this word was invented from a country that is not the United States. WP:WORLDWIDE.
I have no idea how this came to be primary. Hint: Because there is a WP:USBIAS. Hint: ask Michael Palin, and I have his credit card, which he gave me atg the Proms when I was in the three-and-nines and he was in the stalls, but I think it expired and I doubt he remembers me. I think it probably had expired when he gave it to me... he never gave me his PIN code, the little rotter. Si Trew (talk) 15:26, 3 September 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.

NHL team draft pick redirects[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) 11:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break – NHL team draft pick redirects[edit]

Delete per WP:XY and per WP:HOCKEY's consensus that it is not helpful to have individual players redirected to a draft pick article. See also: WP:RFD#Pier-Oliver Pelletier. -- Tavix (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. per nom, and per at least six other RFDs on the same links. Resolute 02:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: per nom, and per previous such discussions; this blizzard of implausible redirects constitutes bad faith on the part of the creator. Ravenswing 06:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, these aren't all from Dolovis. Some of the others were done in good faith, but remain just as confusing per WP:XY as the ones created specifically to get first edits. Resolute 13:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and prior RFDS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:REDLINK and per nom. Whether or not Dolovis created them, these are improper redirects because there is little to no content about these non-notable players at the targets. If they become notable, someone will write about them, but there's little evidence that drafted players are likely to become notable. Of the 12 similar redirects which were nominated previously, 12 were deleted; only one is not currently a redlink. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:REDLINK. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 18:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:REDLINK does not apply because most of these players are nn. These redirects under discussion have been created over the past 5 years by a number of different editors including myself, User:Alaney2k, User:Canuckian89, User:One95, User:Shootmaster 44, User:Uncleben85, and User:USA1168. What was once considered an acceptable and even helpful edit pursuant to WP:RPURPOSE as a ”sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article”, are now vilified as “bad faith” edits. I don't believe any of these redirects were created in bad faith; and if there is now a consensus that it is wrong for players to be redirected to a list of players drafted by NHL teams, then let's hold a discussion on that point followed, if warranted, by the mass deletion of all such redirects. Dolovis (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very few if any of these meet the definition of "topics which are described or listed within a wider article". Some are only listed (WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies), some aren't even listed. You can see that there is no consensus supporting creation of these redirects by the number of discussions that there have been on this over the last two years (they're listed above and at ANI) which have all resulted in the redirects being deleted, yet you (and others, granted, but mostly you) keep creating them anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The others created these redirects before we formed the consensus here at RFD that these are not viable redirects. Only Dolovis has been continuing to create such redirects after multiple such deletions. That is where the bad faith comes in. Resolute 00:02, 2 September 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_September_1&oldid=1099639152"