Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 2, 2016.

Béton[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 Beton. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing particularly French about concrete ("Béton", "France" and "French" appear a total of 0 times each in the target). Thryduulf (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Animated Google[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 Google Doodles. JohnCD (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure what this means. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Animated Google" may be a reference to Google Doodles. No idea on whether we should keep the redirect or not though. Feinoha Talk 01:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Google Doodles I don't see a program called Animated Google. But general searches refer to making the logo animated on special events, which is all about the Doodles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

World Chess Championship 2015[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 16#World Chess Championship 2015

Comandante generale[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 Commandant-general

From what I can gather this a translation error. I presume the title is in Italian if so it is not commander in chief of a nation which is the subject of the page to which it points but the commander in chief of a particular corps as per this article. https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comandante_generale. The Italian page for commander in chief is titled https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comandante_in_capo Domdeparis (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm concerned that the redirect is misleading for the reasons stated above. As well, the topic has no direct affinity to Italy per se. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Commandant-general. The existing article is the exact equivalent of the Italian rank, and the Italian usage is even discussed in the article. Place Clichy (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Thumbprint cookie[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 Cookie#Classification. JohnCD (talk) 16:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If it is a notable classification of cookie, it needs a decent definition as with Pancake#Varieties_of_American_and_Canadian_pancakes for silver dollar pancakes. It could also go into List of cookies as an entry. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and mention in the article (they are a real type of cookie). Pikachu RP25 17:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think it would be most correct to say these are a class of cookie, as opposed to a type, since there are many variations. I think most are drop cookies with a central depression usually created with a thumb or small spoon before baking. I've added this to the cookie article, though I have no reference for it. Mindmatrix 19:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the new mention of the topic sufficient, or is there further ambiguity that needs to be resolved?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Waterfountain[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 Drinking fountain. -- Tavix (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only came across this thanks to my spacebar not working - I'm not entirely what the point of this redirect is as we already have Water fountains so it's pretty much a useless redirect?, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 17:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Water fountains also redirects to fountains that should probably be retargeted too, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 18:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point of keeping this redirect is that people use it and it's harmless. Given the age of the redirect and the continued usage it is very likely that there are links from elsewhere than the English Wikipedia (and thus outside our ability to know about, let alone change) including in printed works that cannot be updated. Breaking links brings us no benefit and makes it harder for people to find the content they are looking for, so we do not delete redirects without there being a good reason to do. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thryduulf - Ahhh I didn't think of it like that, Exactly there's no need to break various links etc, Anyway thanks for explaining that, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is very slightly off topic, but I'm going to move Water Fountain (song) to Water Fountain. It's a redirect to Nikki Nack but not to a section, and not catted in any way. I'll happily do a bit of tidy up there but wanted to mention it here in case it's at all relevant... Si Trew (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am bemused that an edit I made 11 years ago is subject to so much debate, and that technology that didn't exist at the time just moved in the physical world in response to an email sent to an account opened a decade after the edit because someone was discussing it in an online forum. I find the crosslinked edit histories of redirects among waterfountain, water fountain, fountain, bubbler, and drinking fountain to be quite hilarious. As the originator of the page in question, I believe the original intent was to point to content of the nature presently found at drinking fountain. —WAvegetarian (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see a use for the CamelCase or single word version of this. Was there usage of this as one word in the past? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to drinking fountain per Thryduulf and partly per Steel1943. I think I must have missed something though, this title is not CamelCase. As I understand it CamelCase requires there to be lowercase letters before an uppercase letter (e.g. WaterFountain, not Waterfountain). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Picasso sculpture[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is vague and ambiguous, considering that it is not an alternative name for its target subject, and since Pablo Picasso created several sculptures. Steel1943 (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The term could refer to sculptures by Picasso in general, a specific sculpture by him (while the target is possibly the most famous it is one of many) or a statue of Picasso (there are at least two - Malaga, Spain and Osijek, Croatia). Suitable targets would therefore be (1) an article or section about Picasso's sculpture but there is no specific article and the main article is not organised by type of art; (2) a list or set index of notable sculptures by Picasso (we have Category:Sculptures by Pablo Picasso, and nine lists of his works organised by decade but none organised by type - even the infobox lists "Paintings and sculpture" together) but no list or set index); or (3) A list or set index of statues of Picasso but there is none and the statues are not mentioned in the article about either settlement; or (4) a disambig between these. I would not object to retargetting this to the category, but as it's such an ambiguous term that's going to be wrong for as many people as it will be right so deletion is my first choice, at least until we have some better results to give people. Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no List of Picasso sculptures to redirect. 23:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngusWOOF (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as there is no obvious reason to single out this particular sculpture out of Picasso work. Place Clichy (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dumbslate[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. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. Also, not finding definite proof that the subject of this redirect and the target are one in the same. Steel1943 (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article where they call it a slate, smart slate and dumb slate. [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The target article says that a clapperboard is also called a "dumb slate," but I am willing to change my vote if someone can show that a "dumb slate" is something different. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Capone's castle[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) 16:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it seems that Al Capone frequently was at the subject of the redirect's target, I'm not finding proof that the redirect was an established alternative name for the target. Steel1943 (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Unfulfilled religious predictions[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I request deletion as Christianity is not the same as religious. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Unless Christianity is the only religion to make predictions (it isn't) then this is not appropriate. A retarget to a more general article would be better but I can't find that one exists. Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with nom that while Christianity is a religion, is not a synonym for religion. Onel5969 TT me 21:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no Christian Wikipedia, no Jewish Wikipedia, no Muslim Wikipedia, Hindu Wikipedia, etc. There is only Wikipedia. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The one and only Wikipedia, which is true and holy. – Uanfala (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vague. Many religions have predictions that are not fulfilled. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

FAQ redirects targeting Effects of legalized cannabis[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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFAQ. Unclear if questions are answered as well, considering that the questions are more complicated that a "yes/no" or numeric answer. Steel1943 (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects (per my extensive explanation on RfD a few days ago) and the subject of this article is exactly about the answer to this question - that the question does not have a simple yes/no or numeric answer is irrelevant as that is not what those using these search terms are looking for. They want to know what happens when marijuana is legalised (i.e. what the effects of legalisation are), and by reading the target article they will learn the answer to that question. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "extensive explanation" about NOTFAQ is at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_24#When is Christmas?. We don't seem to have consensus on whether NOTFAQ, or any other WP:NOT, is relevant to redirects. Si Trew (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was intending to show that the search engine trips up when a reader searches for common synonyms of a topic, but it actually does do an OK job of contextual searching slightly better than half of the time, it's hit-and-miss and seems mostly to depend on the existence of other helpful redirects (like wacky tobacky). I still think that if a redirect exists and points to a target that satisfies the query then we should keep it, particularly since we can't exactly predict how the search engine will respond. However in this case I'm changing my !vote to delete all because the search results for various synonyms of cannabis shows that this is not a single-target situation, and search results are likely to suit the reader better (notably, substituting the search string with "ganja" brings up Indian-specific results, and things like that). Neural nets are neat. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Michael Moore vs. Donald Trump[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) 16:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be an alternative title of the target subject. Thus, the redirect is misleading, especially for those who may be looking up this tee trying to find a court case of some sort, considering that they are formatted like this. Steel1943 (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete catchy headline used in some commentary on the film, but I don't see it as an alternative name. I agree with Steel1943 here. It could be unduly confusing. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Criteria of True Prophet[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 Prophet. JohnCD (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I request deletion as the title is general, but it redirects to a specific interpretation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update I agree with the comments of those below and would prefer a retarget. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Prophet (where True prophet redirects) as this contains an overview of what prophet means in various religions, including in some cases the criteria by which true and non-true prophets are judged. If someone wants to know more detail they can follow the links in the article to other pages dealing with the specific religion they are interested in. I agree with the nom that the current target is too specific for the title. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Prophet. Note though that the redirect was a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criteria of True Prophet. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Prophet. Place Clichy (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Trump sucks[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 by User:PhilKnight as WP:G10 attack page. (non-admin closure) by 84.3.187.196 (talk) 05:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in the target article. Due to that, this is a borderline WP:BLP violation. Steel1943 (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Remove rockettab mac[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. -- Tavix (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While there is sort of an answer to the implied question (either how or why to remove rocketttab on a Mac computer) at the target, someone searching for this term is probably best served by a site other than Wikipedia (as it seems more likely they are looking for instructions than an encyclopaedic discussion) and so we should not get in the way of sites who can and do offer what they want. Thryduulf (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it appears that the very brief instructions at the target (to uninstall the application) accomplish what is asked by the redirect title. We don't and wouldn't have comprehensive uninstall instructions, but might as well give the reader something. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTHOWTO the redirect title is also badly formed. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Trump COI[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. JohnCD (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about this redirect, considering that COI is a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Trump is a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be kept, nobody will expect to go to COI if they type Trump COI. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Emir of Wikipedia: I overlooked the fact that Trump is a disambiguation page as well. Not sure if that changes anything. Steel1943 (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting then. It means that the phrase consists of two words which alone go to disambiguation pages. Perhaps keep the link and a note on the top of the page clarifying the situation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Where is Santa Claus[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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure that someone would expect the answer to be "on a novelty recording", but not really sure what else to do with it. WP:NOTFAQ. Si Trew (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Santa Claus#Home where this question is answered and discussed. A hatnote to the current target (as the question in English is a significant part of the lyrics it seems) would not be inappropriate. WP:NOTFAQ is not relevant to redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Disregarding the WP:NOTFAQ part, (which I am neutral about), possible targets are endless, and may I add Santa Claus Village as well as the aforementioned. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Santa Claus#Home - answers the most likely question behind the search. Just Chilling (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:PTM and WP:FORRED. We can argue until Christmas (ha!) about which of the many appropriate titles is the best for answering the question posed by this redirect, in which case we would typically delete the redirect (disambiguating questions is a nightmare). But this is complicated by the fact that it's a perfect title match for the current target, other than being in another language, and there are no competing title matches. We should just leave it alone, then. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:35, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector. This is the English language version of a proper title in a foreign language. We can hatnote to one or both of Thryduulf's suggested targets. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as the English translation of a Spanish song title. It is present at the target within the first sentence of the lead. WP:NOTFAQ has no bearing if the current target is retained because the title of the work being described there is itself a question. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mamacita, ¿dónde está Santa Claus? (Mommy, Where's Santa Claus?)[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(not Eubot) Delete, I think. We don't generally put translations into titles. If the song title has the ellipsis as part of its full name, that's a different matter, I imagine. Si Trew (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

?Dode Esta Santa Claus?[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) Misspelling + wrong question mark = WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. There are plenty of other trouble-free redirects to get people to this target trouble. Si Trew (talk) 05:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom since it's misspelled. Steel1943 (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mamacita ?Donde Esta Santa Claus?[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) 16:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot). The full title does have the "Mamacita" in it, and we have a redirect at Mamacita ¿Dónde Está Santa Claus?, but with the full title, lack of diacritics, and inversion of the inverted question mark, put it all together you have a rather unlikely search term bordering on WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There are quite a few other rather odd retargets to this target. I count about 30 out of 45, but others would probably keep some that I'd delete. Si Trew (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is just the full title rendered in the manner easiest for an English keyboard user to type making it a perfectly valid redirect, parcticularly for links from environments where diacritics and ¿ are not avaialable. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf, but retarget/refine to ¿Dónde Está Santa Claus?#Kumbia All Starz version. The original version of the redirect's target doesn't seem to use the title of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is common practice to place redirect without diacritics from acceptable terms with diacritics. I am happy with the Refining option suggested by Steel1943. Place Clichy (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Thomas Hoerl[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) 16:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) Weak delete. The target is Austrian so this is is kinda a valid transliteration of "Hörl", but I can't find any evidence of real-world use in English. I found this site giving details about this person as "Hoerl" (ladies-skijumping.com), but it's in Polish, although the stats may have been grabbed from an English page. Si Trew (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. It's not incorrect and it's entirely harmless. My keep is weak only because it is barely used (but not never used). Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hörl is a Germanic surname, so this is the correct way to render his name without the umlaut. -- Tavix (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Secondary ooecyte[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) 16:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bundling -- Tavix (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot) Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Target does not have diacritics as rcatted, and oöcyte is not German. Created via secondary oöcyte, according to the WP:ES. Si Trew (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I only nominated the first one, but delete the other two also. Primary ooecyte and Ooecyte are red, as implied. Si Trew (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. "Oöcyte" is used in the lead of the article and supported by reliable sources found on the first page of Google. Ooecycte is a rare but acceptable alternative spelling, so no benefit at all from deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never said "oöcyte" is not valid. I just said it's not German. In any case, I only nominated "secondary ooecyte", for which I could not find any uses in the wild. The other nominations were bundled with mine by Tavix without making it clear that Tavix, not I, was the nominator for them. I think they should be unbundled so that I can comment on them separately. Si Trew (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To put the implausibility of these spellings in perspective, Молдовеняскэ language has received more hits this year than these three redirects combined. Sideways713 (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I'm not sure what the fuss is about. If the nomination is that "ooecyte" isn't a valid variation of "oöcyte", logically this would apply to all redirects that contain "ooecyte". I don't understand how one would want to keep one but not the others. Nevertheless, even if one wanted to do that, it'd be easier to explain why in one comment since they're clearly related redirects rather than have two or three separate discussions. -- Tavix (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Flin Flon--Northwest[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) 16:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Eubot). Unlikely with the two hyphens. Bizarrely catted as {{R from title with diacritics}} instead of {{R from other punctuation}}, but gone are the days when we use two hyphens as a substitute for an em dash. Essex-Kent with one hyphen has the same target, but not Essex–Kent with an en dash. Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Per Dash, When an em dash is unavailable in a particular character encoding environment—as in the ASCII character set—it has usually been approximated as a double (--) or triple (---) hyphen-minus. It's conceivable that someone would use substitute an em dash with two hyphens. Since em dashes are hard to type, I don't see why we would deny those people from using this method to find what they're looking for. -- Tavix (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Flin Flon--Northwest (and Flin Flon—Northwest, not nominated but I don't see how one would be deleted and not the other) per Bearcat. -- Tavix (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the articles really should not be moved, at least not the latter three. Whether you agree with the usage on typographical theory principles or not, the official proper name of a Canadian electoral district is whatever Elections Canada says it is according to its practices. Whether their usage is "right" or "wrong" is immaterial — their usage is what it is, and it would be original research for us to call them anything other than exactly what Elections Canada calls them. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. What they should or should not use is not relevant, they currently do use emdashes and so these are useful redirects. They will likely continue to be useful even if the target is moved. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have my doubts about "Flin Flon--Northwest", as I can find no indication that an em-dash is actually present in actual usage of that name. But the other three are former electoral districts, and whether it seems "plausible" to you or not, Elections Canada really does actually sometimes publish documents in which it does use double-hyphens instead of em-dashes in electoral district names. (It's far less common now, because it's an old holdover from the days when most documents were typewritten — typewriters didn't have em-dashes, so double-hyphening was the only way to create an em-dash where one was needed. But the result of that is that there are a lot of old documents where the electoral district names were denoted double-hyphen, so it's entirely plausible that some users will see the old documents and not realize what the real convention is.) So while double-hyphen is obviously never the correct name for a Canadian electoral district, it is plausible enough to warrant retention as a redirect to the correctly titled article, because it is a thing that some percentage of our userbase will still mistake for the real thing. Also, there are instances where Canadian federal electoral districts and provincial legislatures' provincial electoral districts have had the same name as each other with the differing hyphenation conventions being the only thing that actually distinguishes the federal Calgary—Nose Hill from the provincial Calgary-Nose Hill — so if you don't know how to type an em-dash, the double hyphen is your only other way of getting to the federal district if that's where you want to go. So yes, there are real reasons for this in the case of an actual electoral district. Keep the latter three — but Flin Flon--Northwest and Flin Flon—Northwest should be deleted, with the redirect retained only at Flin Flon-Northwest, because I can find no evidence that an em-dash is ever actually used in that instance. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Talkativeness[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix). "Talkativity" or "talkativeness" is not the same thing as "verbosity", though the meanings overlap. The target article is already tagged as maybe needing a move to Wiktionary. Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense; Wikipedia is not a thesaurus. Si Trew (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm undecided whether these are useful or not at present, but they are nothing remotely approaching nonsense as the target is clearly related to the term and while not a perfect match there is significant overlap. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right that it's not nonsense, I was probably under the influence of things like Garrulousnesses, a Neelix creation that was fixed by a bot as a double-redirect.
I guess that Prolixity was an article, subsequently deleted, and recreated (on 13 February 2011 by User:CMBJ) as a redirect; since these redirects' creation predates that (to 29 April 2008) but the double-redirect fixes were on 15 February 2011 bby RussBot. There's no history of what it was doing in the meantime, I guess an admin could look past the deletion. (Surely the redirects weren't created as redlinks?) I'm taking a bunch of the more obviously nonsense ones such as Verbiages to WP:X1. Sorry for being so Prolixious in my explanation. Si Trew (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, looking at some others, Grandiloquence was merged into verbosity with this edit of 13 February 2011 by User:CMBJ; some of the double redirects might stem from that merge. But not all: some never pointed to grandiloquence in the first place. Grandiloquence was turned from a redirect into an article on 13 July this year by User:Wally Wiglet; I've changed grandiloquent to point to it. The plot thins. Si Trew (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia was never meant to be a dictionary, though at times that is certainly what it seems to have become. We don't need another pointless redirect for a common word. KDS4444 (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Taciturnly[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) 16:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Created by Neelix, retargeted by User:Thryduulf on 18 July this year. This is on User:Anomie/Neelix_list/6#T. It's a {{R from adverb}}, and I've changed it to that from the more-general {{R from modification}}, but none of the entries on the target (a DAB page) are for "taciturnly", and we're WP:NOTDIC. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. Si Trew (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete See my comment on the above discussion on Talkativeness. KDS4444 (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sī[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) 16:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another Neelix creation, User:Plantdrew has rcatted (properly) but there is no particular affinity to Tongan: the plant is widespread across the Pacific, as far as I can tell from the article. (IW is to to:Sī). WP:RFD#D8 as WP:RFOREIGN. Sī Trew (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure why this one was singled out though. There are a bunch of foreign language redirects to this plant (several from Neelix, several from other authors) which should perhaps also be deleted (the Maori ones should be kept; there's a big push in New Zealand to adopt Maori plant and animal names into English usage). Plantdrew (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just coincidentally singled it out because I was going through the Neelix R's and got distracted or was following through, so never got round to listing others. I'd rather not add others now this is has been here five days, but probably should do once it closes. Si Trew (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But failing that (and we can't expect Chinese experts to be dropping in any time soon) deletion seems appropriate. It can always be recreated at a later date if the Chinese surname article gets written. KDS4444 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Meat Grinder (dance)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article. Steel1943 (talk) 03:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Repub[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) 21:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PTM, unsure if better to retarget to Republic as an abbreviation. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could also refer to Republication. Perhaps a disambiguation is the best idea? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about republication, too, which is itself an {{R to section}} Edition (book)#Republication (and I've tagged it as such). It's used a lot in references, although seemingly not those generated by {{cite}}: its documentation section Template:Cite/doc#Republications, or edited quotations in a periodical article describes the use of publication-date which does not generate the text "repub" or "repub." but "published", as you can see:
  • {{cite|last=Trew|first=S|title=Wikipedia|date=2 December 1845|publication-date=17 January 2017}}
produces:
  • Trew, S (2 December 1845), Wikipedia (published 17 January 2017)
We don't have republished or republish. Si Trew (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of these targets are about republication -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agreed. KDS4444 (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirecting this anywhere would be guessing what an incomplete word was supposed to be. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2016_December_2&oldid=1088109917"