Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 23, 2016.

Distinct[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 Distinction. Upon reviewing the nominator's rationale, the rationale for the revert which led to this discussion ("These pages are meant for the mathematics term") and the comments in the discussion which pertain to deleting Distinct (mathematics) and actually do not pertain to this redirect, the consensus and the result seems clear and I see no reason to relist. Here's why: Distinction is a disambiguation page and Distinct (mathematics) is now mentioned there. If there are links to Distinct which refer to Distinct (mathematics), they can be corrected (and some bots will notice the bad links if there are too many and tag Distinction.) In addition, the majority of the discussion below seems to pertain to the target article and not the redirect itself, so a lot of the discussion below is in the wrong forum, and improvements to the article itself should be performed and discussed elsewhere, possibly at Talk:Distinct (mathematics). Lastly, pertaining to Uanfala's comments: If the content at Distinct (mathematics) ever gets to the state where it becomes a broad-concept article, it should then be moved or proposed to be moved through the move request process; at this point, Distinct (mathematics) seems to obviously not be in a broad-concept article state for moving to the "Distinct" title. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Distinct to Distinct (mathematics) implies that "distinct" has to have a non-mathematical meaning. The redirection to Distinction was reverted, so now RfD is needed. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not sure why the move was done in the first place. It seems to me that the only "technical" (and its not really very technical at that) meaning for the word is in mathematics (and apparently physics, according to our article). Probably there is no real need for an article at all. Paul August ☎ 21:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EurekaLott: Can you clarify on what would have been a wiser decision? propose for deletion? or start a deletion discussion? --VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, either of those would have been better. A WP:BLAR is sometimes appropriate, but only when the material is better covered elsewhere. Redirecting it to a disambiguation page that doesn't mention the subject isn't helpful for readers. - Eureka Lott 17:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no difference in how the term is used in mathematics as opposed to elsewhere–two things are distinct if they differ in some respect. The only technicality in mathematics is what is allowed to be called "different" (i.e., elements of an equivalence class may be considered to be "the same" in some situations). I agree with Paul and don't really see a need for this article at all and I have reservations about the physics citation, but that is a different discussion.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 17:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcherowi: Bill do you meant delete the article Distinct (mathematics)? As long as we have that article, under that name, then Distinct needs to redirect to it. Paul August ☎ 17:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I may have my procedures fouled up here but I intended to say that this article, even before the redirect, did not seem to go beyond the definition of the term and so should be considered for deletion. I was thinking that a first step in that direction would be to eliminate this redirect ... but maybe that is not the right way to proceed? --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcherowi: What would happen if the destination page gets deleted? I couldn't find anything about this. Otherwise two deletion discussions should be started.VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The original article was about the word distinct. I think this article should not be on Wikipedia since it does not have a proper subject(Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary). However my experience with proposing an article for deletion is that it can get contested with arguments that do not solve the problem of the article.[1] So I tried a redirect to a slightly more specific article instead, which to me looked like the easiest way to remove some of the shitty content. A different action might have been better. -VeniVidiVicipedia (talk) 12:46, 27 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.

South Koreans[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 9#South Koreans

Template:CC[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. It appears the hatnote is already in place. -- Tavix (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, ambiguous, could easily be confused with a Creative Commons license template FASTILY 02:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 23 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.

2016 Yahoo hack[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. It's refreshing to see a productive relisting. -- Tavix (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misleading redirect. There were no 2016 hacks on Yahoo (at least not that we know about), but rather the hacks were disclosed in 2016. FallingGravity 18:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may be okay then as it helps the user find their way to the data breach article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time and chance for input to be provided addressing AngusWOOF's comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a valid search term and it's in use. Daß Wölf 23:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from error}} as a plausible search term until notable 2016 Yahoo! hacks are reported on. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - both plausible and helpful as a search term. Accuracy is not a factor when deciding whether to keep a redirect. Just Chilling (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yes, this is a mistake. It's also, as mentioned above, a rather plausible mistake for people to make. The redirect is useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2017 (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.

Sergey Dmitriev[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. An applicable hatnote will be added to the target article to direct readers to JetBrains. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Similar name, but different person. The person of this name is the president of JetBrains, and so this should probably redirect there instead. See also this AfD. Adam9007 (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment wherever this points needs a hatnote to the other person. Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since there is a real person of this name, if not notable, of some significance, and the current redirect is a reasonable misspelling (leaving out the y) of Dmitriyev, I think that this redirect should be turned into a dab, pointing to the footballer and the JetBrains articles (the latter, naming its president). Onel5969 TT me 13:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to JetBrains and add hatnote as this is a twodabs for now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is and add a hatnote to JetBrains on the footballer's article. Putting the "y" or leaving it out is a matter of transliteration, and with Cyrillic there are dozens of ways to do that, not even counting various misspellings produced by media. Thus I'd argue the footballer stakes as much claim on this spelling as the company president, and add that it makes more sense to redirect to someone who does have an article. Daß Wölf 23:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dass Woelf. This is a common alternative transliteration from Cyrillic. It's also an {{R from move}}, noting that the target article was formerly at this title from 2008–2014. -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Daß Wölf and Tavix. Onel5969's idea is sensible too, but I don't think there is enough material for a dab page yet. – Uanfala (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2017 (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.

Kathryn Davies[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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable person redirected to her husbands article Amisom (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. In some cases redirects to family member's/spouse's articles are fine if there is some content about them at the target and they have some sort of public profile or other reason people might search for them even if they aren't notable enough for an article. However, there is essentially no information about Ms Davies other than that she used to be a student of his, they married and now are divorced, so it's unlikely she will increase in prominence in any way related to her former husband. The only incoming link is from Catherine Davies, a three-item dab page that's not linked from any of it's targets (and probably should be replaced by hatnotes (which I'm about to add) and deleted). Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see Thryduulf's reasoning about a weaker standard of notability for redirects, but I'm not convinced Wikipedia gets better by losing this redirect. Mihirpmehta (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag with {{R from spouse}}. Thyduulf's point supports the status quo IMO. If she were currently doing something borderline notable, maybe REDLINK deletion would make sense, but this may well be the most we'll be able to say to her. But... where I have some sympathy for deletion is the common-ness of the name. See Katherine Davis (dab) or Kathryn Davis, for example. How many people using this as a search term are really looking for the politician's ex-wife versus someone with a very similar name? --BDD (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 23 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.

Sharp Knife[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. Per the discussion, I do not see consensus for retargeting the redirect to the section Andrew Jackson#First Seminole War, but no prejudice if anyone WP:BOLDly targets that section. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that most people searching for a sharp knife aren't looking for the 7th President. --Nevé–selbert 06:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can't seem to find a good target for sharp knife. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People are hardly going to be searching for a sharp knife on an encyclopaedia in any case! They'll just search for Knife. However, Sharp Knife was a well-known Indian nickname for Jackson (as his article says), hence the redirect. I created the redirect since I knew it was a nickname for someone, but couldn't remember whom, and doing a search for "sharp knife" was just bringing up many articles on knives; when I did discover who it was, I created a redirect, which I think is a helpful one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine to Andrew Jackson#First Seminole War which is the section of the article that mentions this nickname. I'll tag the redirect as {{R from nickname}} without prejudice to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine per Thryduulf and add hatnote. I do see searches for "Sharp Knife" the song by Third Eye Blind on the album Ursa Major. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is an article on knife sharpening. -- Tavix (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't see anyone searching for "sharp knife" to find that article; we're not a "how to" website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per additional info from AngusWOOF and Tavix. Mihirpmehta (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Necrothesp, oppose disambiguation (also per Necrothesp) as currently discussed. Maybe if we were working with a term like "Sharpen knife". The song is something, and Kopassus mentions a military exercise, Exercise Sharp Knife, that may or may not be notable. But I would need to see another solid, encyclopedic usage to see a dab as an improvement. --BDD (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD and Necrothesp. This is by far the most prominent and encylcopedic usage of "Sharp Knife". Really, the only other topic is Ursa Major (album), and that's so minor (NPI) that I'd be wary of even a hatnote. I'm ambivalent about the refining idea. It's a nickname for Andrew Jackson himself, the only reason to refine would be if it's more likely than not for someone to be wondering how he got the nickname. -- Tavix (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly refine to the specific section and add a hatnote to the song. The military operation doesn't look worth mentiononing, and Knife sharpening is somewhat far off. – Uanfala (talk) 13:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the primary topic for this capitalization. I agree with Tavix in regard to a hatnote. Knife sharpening would be a concern if the redirect was Sharp knife. Neutral on refining to Andrew Jackson#First Seminole War. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 18:12, 5 January 2017 (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.

Centre to Centre-right[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) 15:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY nobody will search for both terms in one. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's pretty common to refer to political parties this way (e.g. Party X is Centre to Centre Left), and technically a party that is centre to centre-right is also by definition, centre-right. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Patar knight. Almost completely synonymous. I suppose "Centre to Centre-right" also would include absolute centrism, but you wouldn't use such a phrase unless you were primarily talking about politics that are right of center, to varying degrees. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - My understanding is that the political labels of "center-right" and "center to center-right" (however you spell it) are largely synonymous; at least, well, reliable sources act as if that is the case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:09, 24 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.

Democratic organisation[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. I'll put this one down, as I created it. wbm1058 (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this one, Democratic organizations seems to be most likely, but we ain't got democratic organization itself. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Baptist Lui Ming Choi Secondary School Student Union is a democratic organisation which consists of two main bodies: the Executive Committee, which is the cabinet executing mandated power, and the Representative Council (diff – voila... disambiguated). In other words, the Student Union is a democracy – democratic organizations (small "d") are democracies. That list is a list of Democratic Party (United States) organizations (capital "D"). Democratic organizations is the title that should be considered for renaming, as that title doesn't implicitly imply Democratic Party (United States). – wbm1058 (talk) 05:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other words, democratic organisations are democracies. wbm1058 (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    But democracies are governments. Any organization run by democratic principles could be called a democratic organization. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was surprised to see that democratic principle was a theory of gravitation, or something to do with physics that I don't understand. However, democratic principles redirects to democracy. Presumably, the article about a system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly would describe the same system and principles as a corporate governance or open governance, or does "democratic organisation" need disambiguation? A "democratic organisation" could be a government, a "corporate government" (board of directors), an "open government, or... wbm1058 (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. Yeah, I'm also surprised at Democratic principle. My concern is that "democratic organization" is what our friends at Wiktionary would call a "non-idiomatic phrase". That is to say, "democratic organization" doesn't mean anything more than an "organization" which is "democratic". We wouldn't dab a phrase like "Red car" with a list of cars that are red... --BDD (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. I can accept the idea that "democratic organisation" is an everyday, well understood term, and that linking to it would be overlinking, so we can just delete the redirect and the link in "The Baptist Lui Ming Choi Secondary School Student Union is a democratic organisation..." because a general article on democracies does not lend any further insight to describing what that student union is than "consists of two main bodies: the Executive Committee, which is the cabinet executing mandated power, and the Representative Council". wbm1058 (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, Democratic organizations is wildly inappropriate as a title. When this discussion is over, I intend to rename it, and leave the old title pointing where this one does (or leave them both red). --BDD (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the discussion above. I would have expected to see some relevant content at Organisation but given that there isn't any, I think that at this time all this redirect provides is an example of a not very insightful cross-categorisation. – Uanfala (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2017 (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.

Super secret tech[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 super secret delete. -- Tavix (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Target is a disambiguation page. I see no connection between the redirect and the target, or any topic on the page. bd2412 T 17:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

  • It's a card from the Magic: The Gathering set. It actually is mentioned at Unhinged (Magic: The Gathering). A little while back I nominated several redirects from individual Magic cards and all were deleted except one of the most prominent cards in the game, though those were not mentioned anywhere on the project. --BDD (talk) 18:41, 23 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.

Japao[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. (I will note, however, that the Portuguese word is Japão. I'll leave it as {{R from misspelling}}) -- Tavix (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Portuguese. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, alsi I remember seeing some early English texts that use the word.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:28, 23 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.

Hellow[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. -- Tavix (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be a plausible typo. Common word nevertheless. A Wikipedia search shows many musical tracks with this name, so perhaps a weak disambiguate is what I'm suggesting. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This seems to be a very common misspelling (not typo) of "Hellow" judging by the search results. The songs almost all seem to be partial title matches and I'm not sure if any are notable, so they don't make a good target. There is/was a Hellow Festival but that has no article and is again a partial title match. Thryduulf (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:25, 23 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.

Hello! Canada[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 9#Hello! Canada

Special snowflake[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 Generation Snowflake. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has been disagreement at Talk:Special snowflake (mainly between two contributors) about where this should target. It flipped back and forth between a soft redirect to wikt:special snowflake syndrome and a hard redirect to Generation Snowflake with the soft redirect still present (the latter, though good intentioned, isn't a properly formatted redirect). — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's focus on where this redirect should target. Almost a partial reiteration of Talk:Generation Snowflake#Redirect for discussion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 13:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MaxBrowne's suggestion of also redirecting "Generation Snowflake" is contrary to the recent survival of the age specific topic (Generation Snowflake) during recent AfD, while (Special Snowflake) which does not appear to be age specific, did not survive a recent AfD. There is a major dispute on Generation Snowflake right now. Moving that page would need to occur under a discussion specific for that page. I tend to agree it would be nice to have an article on the broad snowflake phenomena in the English language, but I looked into the sourcing, and it doesn't seem to be there yet. So far "Generation Snowflake", has received a lot of coverage. "Special Snowflake" (the prior topic) doesn't seem to have that much written about it, and plain "Snowflake", which is apparently only recently being used since Trump won, as a way to insult Clinton supporters, is new enough that it doesn't have much either yet. --DynaGirl (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting nasty, the constant assumptions of bad faith. Plain "snowflake" goes back at least to 1996 with Chuck Palahniuk's Fight Club. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But the use in Fight Club wasn't plain snowflake. it was special snowflake The exact quote form Fight Club was "beautiful and unique snowflake". Anyway, the special snowflake usage of fight club didn't get much coverage in reliable sources. It's getting a little bit of renewed coverage now that "Generation Snowflake" has broken out and become popular and become one of Collins Dictionary 2016 words of the year (Add: there's nothing "nasty" about my original comment. It is based on policy and recent AfD's) --DynaGirl (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Sure - I initially opposed this redirect on article talk page. Upon further consideration, I'm not sure if it's appropriate or not. The result of the AfD to delete this page was soft redirect to Wiktionary for Special Snowflake Syndrome. I think that is most appropriate, but that wiktionary link is also included in Generation Snowflake, so maybe it's ok to redirect there too. --DynaGirl (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 'Generation Snowflake' for now... although, I have to say, I'd probably support a deletion vote to get rid of that article given the many problems with it. Still, as things stand right now, this appears to be the right move. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Generation Snowflake. We don't create wiktionary redirects when there is a relevant wikipedia article. – Uanfala (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2017 (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.

Vice President 2012[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) 01:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vague search term, a country is not specified, so could refer to a lot of things. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:19, 23 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.

Android 8[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) – Uanfala (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere is this term mentioned in the target, I suppose this is more likely a search term for a version of the operating system that has not yet been released. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The character is briefly mentioned in the section of the article redirects to. The text in question is Mechanical Man Number 8 (人造人間8号 Jinzōningen Hachi-gō, "Artificial Human #8" or "Android #8"), one of the army's defunct androids who is kindhearted and dislikes fighting, befriends Goku and later lives peacefully with the locals of Jingle Village (ジングル村 Jinguru Mura), and is seen at the end of the series giving energy for Goku's Genki-Dama to destroy Majin Boo.[ch. 63, 67, 515].--64.229.167.158 (talk) 06:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Granted it's not much but it's clear that the claim that the character is listed nowhere in the target is false.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per the IP. When we have an article about the operating system version this can be reconsidered. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it already points to the particular section: List of Dragon Ball characters#Red Ribbon Army Should a new product be named as such, the product will likely be the primary topic and means a hatnote or redirects Android 8 (Dragon Ball) and Android 8 (character) can then be created. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:09, 4 January 2017 (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.

Geige[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) 01:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No particular affinity for German. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm sure we had a discussion recently about specific foreign language redirects to a target related to classical music (possibly German to an instrument) but I can't immediately find it. In that discussion someone made a point about such redirects being useful, but I can't remember who that was or what the outcome of the discussion was. Thryduulf (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that, partly, too. It was about a musical notational term and I suggested that since these are usually in Italian, it made no sense to have it in German, if I recall it correctly; I think the reply was that it made sense because often on German scores they are in fact in German, and this was a German opera. But that is a very vague recollection, too, and I am probably wrong in every particular except that it involved kinda whether it was WP:FORRED or not. I probably proposed it, but as you can imagine my Contributions list is rather long with listing all these Eubot redirects. Si Trew (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I think it was Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 28#Trompete where Rigadoun said

Music encyclopedias (such as the most prestigious one, The New Grove, but others as well) generally cross-index musical instruments (and some other music terminology) from major musical languages (usually German, French, and Italian), presumably for the reason that those are the terms encountered in classical music scores, which are not usually issued in translation and thus are frequently encountered by English-speaking musicians. Basically this is a matter of WP:UEIA. (I can't think of a similar context where they are likely to see the senses of proboscis or waterspout, so I don't really see it like WP:XY.) In Grove, these names in other languages then appear under the heading for the English term. ([The term] should of course appear somewhere in the Trumpet article, though.)

For this reason I'm leaning keep, but I will wait a couple of days for them to comment here if they wish to make sure I've understood it correctly first. For reference, I found it by looking at changes related to Category:Redirects from German-language terms. Also pinging @Patar knight, Gorobay, and Champion: as the other participants in that discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Doing Wikipedia/Google searches would indicate that this is the primary topic, and there's basically nothing else to point to. Assuming use in musicology works, that's enough to keep IMHO. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't know whether this should be kept, but I can say that if it is not, the name can be useful for an article about a specific kind of medieval fiddle. I have enough for a short stub article.Jacqke (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Jacqke: I encourage you to write your article regardless - just use the title Geige (fiddle) or something like that. If this discussion ends in deletion then you can move your article to the base title. If this is closed a different way, or is still open, then add a hatnote at the redirect target pointing to your article. If this discussion is still open note your article's title so that hatnotes can be updated and/or your article moved if necessary. Whether your article is primary topic or not is probably best discussed after it has been written. Thryduulf (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I will do that. ThanksJacqke (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasons I gave at Trompete (quoted above). I'll add that the term was notable in English enough for inclusion in the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica as s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Geige, which is not just "see violin," but a substantial article in its own right. It's a strange article, though; not so much about any particular instrument as the history of the term. Should we have something like this? And how does the instrument Jacqke mentions (an article I also encourage) fit into this? Perhaps a deeper perspective is called for. Rigadoun (talk) 02:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The 1911 Encylopædia Britannica you mention appears to be the same instrument that I am going to add. I will be using The New Grove Dictionary of Musical Instruments for its more recent research (1986) concerning the instrument.Jacqke (talk) 16:29, 28 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.

Hostage work[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 8#Hostage work

פיל[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) 01:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Hebrew. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:57, 23 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.

Bruce Spiegelman[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) 01:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. Redirect confuses readers who expect an article about a person, not about a gene that is only one subject of the persons scientific interrests. Article contains no information about the person. Drahreg01 (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same for the name of an enterprise redirecting to that gene. Article contains no information about this enterprise. --Drahreg01 (talk) 08:02, 23 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_23&oldid=1138580912"