Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 13, 2016.

Foo Foo[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. @SimonTrew, Some Gadget Geek, and SMcCandlish: Please continue discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 14#Foo Foo (dog). Deryck C. 11:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the name "Foo Foo" significant enough such that it should redirect to the character? Or should it redirect to the same target as Foofoo or a disambiguation page Foo foo? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to DAB. Surely we can't expect people to remember if there's a hyphen or not: at least, the DAB at Foo-foo thinks so, because it has an entry for "Foo Foo", "Little Bunny Foo Foo" and a song "Foo Foo" all without the hyphen. (The search engine also thinks so, unless there is an exact match, it will take a hyphen as a space and I think vice versa.)
But if this kept we probably need a {{redirect|Foo-foo}} hatnote in the current target.
We also have Foo Foo (dog) → Fufu (dog), even though Foo-Foo and Foo Foo are also dogs. See next day's listing at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 14#Foo Foo (dog).
Si Trew (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It was used in navbox {{Beano}}, so the internal link count is misleading. I've changed that now to Foo Foo (Beano character), purposely red, unfortunately it's still showing up in the What Links Here even when I force a re-parse of the transcluding pages. Si Trew (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to DAB. A baby-talk string like this is unlikely to have a conventional spelling in many people's minds.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:01, 15 February 2016 (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.

Pleasanton (Amtrak station)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 20#Pleasanton (Amtrak station)

Get Real (song)[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 revert and refine to Outside (David Bowie album)#Alternative versions. Deryck C. 18:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect to a disambiguation page. It should probably change to a redirect to a more specific page. Yesterday, the redirect was changed into a redirect to a talk page, and I reverted this. Stefan2 (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2016 (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.

Talk:Get Real[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 Speedily deleted. Moved intended page to destination.] ZsinjTalk 00:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the talk page of a disambiguation page, but the talk page is redirected to another talk page which is not a disambiguation page. Stefan2 (talk) 21:38, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Get Real has been tagged for speedy deletion (G6). <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2016 (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.
Ahem, [1] --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Various redirects of Template:WikiProject banner shell[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 Template:WBPS and Template:Wikiproject Shell Banner as unhelpful typo redirect; delete Template:Shell to make way for a different template; keep all others. Deryck C. 18:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following redirects are unused or hardly used (all <25 transclusions), and I am trying to reduce the large number of redirects to this template for ease of maintenance reasons. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep all. Nom reason is to reduce maintenance, which cost is zero afaik except this effect. Reduce cost by withdrawing rfd pls. And deletions will undermine understandability of talk page discussions using redirects, which imposes unnecessary costs on others. Or will Nom commit to edit every Talk page usage to explain where the redirect linked to? (I doubt they would). Even if they do that imposes costs on editors' attention by clogging up watch lists. So keep all. --doncram 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most. Two really should be deleted (for different reasons). All the rest should be kept, and we don't need this sort of RfD, honestly. It's a waste of editorial attention and time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. "...for ease of maintenance reasons" is not a valid reason for deletion. Sure, these redirects may not be used in transclusions, but that doesn't mean that they may not be useful search terms. One cannot expect the entire Wikipedia community to know this template by its primary name before knowing how to find templates' primary names (for the less technical side of the community.) On a related note, though, I could see Template:Shell being retargeted, but to "where", I don't know, but keeping the redirect in its current state is better than deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, I just don't buy the "trying to reduce the large number of redirects to this template for ease of maintenance reasons" argument. Find a decent argument and I'll take this RfD into consideration. Cavarrone 19:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Wikiprojectbannershell[edit]
  • Delete discourage merged words. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as hardly readable —PC-XT+ 18:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep no reason for deletion, plus Wikipedia used to create titles like this so it is an expected form -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per Rich Farmbrough. Eman235/talk 03:10, 15 February
  • Keep. I was invited here because I created one of these redirects, I think in order to make a Talk page link make sense. Keep to discourage frivolous RFDs which cost attention here and call for change that would give no benefit and would cause costs. Nom reason is to reduce maintenance, which cost is zero AFAIK. Reduce cost by withdrawing rfd pls. And deletions will undermine understandability of talk page discussions that used redirects, which imposes unnecessary costs on others. Or will Nom commit to edit every Talk page usage to explain where the redirect linked to? (I doubt they would). Even if they do that imposes costs on editors' attention by clogging up watch lists. So keep all. --doncram 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep: This is just the regular template name without the annoying camelcase, so it's useful for people with RSI, or who otherwise avoid using capitals unnecessarily.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Shell[edit]
  • Delete namespace pollution. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as namespace pollution; possibly useful for other purposes —PC-XT+ 19:08, 13 February 2016 (UTC) or retarget to {{Royal Dutch Shell}} per Tavix —PC-XT+ 21:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Template:Royal Dutch Shell. -- Tavix (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete many article-space topics can use this -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. Eman235/talk 03:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was invited here because I created one of these redirects, I think in order to make a Talk page link make sense. Keep to discourage frivolous RFDs which cost attention here and call for change that would give no benefit and would cause costs. Nom reason is to reduce maintenance, which cost is zero AFAIK. Reduce cost by withdrawing rfd pls. And deletions will undermine understandability of talk page discussions that used redirects, which imposes unnecessary costs on others. Or will Nom commit to edit every Talk page usage to explain where the redirect linked to? (I doubt they would). Even if they do that imposes costs on editors' attention by clogging up watch lists.
    So keep. doncram 05:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete namespace pollution / potential later use.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template:WP banner shell[edit]
  • Template:WP banner shell → Template:WikiProject banner shell  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Keep although I wouldn't use this, its a sensible short-cut people might expect to work. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Only has 11 transclusions, so no one has found it particularly useful. WPBS is shorter. Don't see any need for this variant. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep no reason for deletion, plus WikiProject banners have redirects that use this form, so can be expected that the bannershell should also be so accessible -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as little-used, though with more potential than most of these. —PC-XT+ 18:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Eman235/talk 03:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was invited here because I created one of these redirects, I think in order to make a Talk page link make sense. Keep to discourage frivolous RFDs which cost attention here and call for change that would give no benefit and would cause costs. Nom reason is to reduce maintenance, which cost is zero AFAIK. Reduce cost by withdrawing rfd pls. And deletions will undermine understandability of talk page discussions that used redirects, which imposes unnecessary costs on others. Or will Nom commit to edit every Talk page usage to explain where the redirect linked to? (I doubt they would). Even if they do that imposes costs on editors' attention by clogging up watch lists.
    So keep. doncram 05:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's hard to remember how exactly to spell thing thing. Redirs are cheap.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Very plausible, and less carpal tunnel syndrome.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template:WBPS[edit]
  • Template:WBPS → Template:WikiProject banner shell  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Delete although I support people who want short-cuts, this one is a typo of a shortcut that could be useful. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as typo that probably shouldn't be supported —PC-XT+ 19:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unclear typo form -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a weird typo. Eman235/talk 03:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was invited here because I created one of these redirects, I think in order to make a Talk page link make sense. Keep to discourage frivolous RFDs which cost attention here and call for change that would give no benefit and would cause costs. Nom reason is to reduce maintenance, which cost is zero AFAIK. Reduce cost by withdrawing rfd pls. And deletions will undermine understandability of talk page discussions that used redirects, which imposes unnecessary costs on others. Or will Nom commit to edit every Talk page usage to explain where the redirect linked to? (I doubt they would). Even if they do that imposes costs on editors' attention by clogging up watch lists.
    So keep. doncram 05:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:DGAF-level, albeit not entirely implausible, typo. We keep a lot of iffy typos for mainspace, but have no use for them in templatespace.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:06, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Wikiproject Shell Banner[edit]
  • Template:Wikiproject Shell Banner → Template:WikiProject banner shell  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Delete if it makes you happy. But pretty harmless. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
    It would make me really happy ;) Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though 21 transclusions makes this the most used of the nominated redirects, this one seems near the lower end in appropriateness —PC-XT+ 19:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete kind of a weird title, but seems to have some use. Eman235/talk 03:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was invited here because I created one of these redirects, I think in order to make a Talk page link make sense. Keep to discourage frivolous RFDs which cost attention here and call for change that would give no benefit and would cause costs. Nom reason is to reduce maintenance, which cost is zero AFAIK. Reduce cost by withdrawing rfd pls. And deletions will undermine understandability of talk page discussions that used redirects, which imposes unnecessary costs on others. Or will Nom commit to edit every Talk page usage to explain where the redirect linked to? (I doubt they would). Even if they do that imposes costs on editors' attention by clogging up watch lists.
    So keep. doncram 05:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No one calls it this; the rest of these should mostly be kept because they're quite reasonable variants of the odd camel-case name of this thing, but this one is just gibberish. It is a banner shell (a shell for banner), nota shell banner (a banner for shells). I'm not desking at my sit, or keyboarding on my type. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Wikiproject banner shell[edit]
  • Template:Wikiproject banner shell → Template:WikiProject banner shell  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Keep useful when one can't remember the non-standard spacing and capitalization of these things. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak delete as unused (0 transclusions) though I would have expected it to be used —PC-XT+ 19:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep no reason for deletion, plus we frequently create uncapitalized redirects. This redirect has no capital letters (the leading letter isn't really a capital since Wikipedia treats the first letter the same whether lower or upper case) -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above; this was my logic in creating the redirect. Eman235/talk 03:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was invited here because I created one of these redirects, I think in order to make a Talk page link make sense. Keep to discourage frivolous RFDs which cost attention here and call for change that would give no benefit and would cause costs. Nom reason is to reduce maintenance, which cost is zero AFAIK. Reduce cost by withdrawing rfd pls. And deletions will undermine understandability of talk page discussions that used redirects, which imposes unnecessary costs on others. Or will Nom commit to edit every Talk page usage to explain where the redirect linked to? (I doubt they would). Even if they do that imposes costs on editors' attention by clogging up watch lists.
    So keep. doncram 05:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's hard to remember how exactly to spell thing thing. Redirs are cheap, and this is the kind of plausible typo we should be keeping in T-space.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template:WikiProjectBanner Shell[edit]
  • Template:WikiProjectBanner Shell → Template:WikiProject banner shell  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
  • Keep useful when one can't remember the non-standard spacing and capitalization of these things. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as only used in one transclusion —PC-XT+ 19:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As PC-XT says, it's only been used once. And it only existed since December 2015. We can't expect to maintain redirects for every possible spacing and capitalisation, can we? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to unlikely spacing. Eman235/talk 03:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was invited here because I created one of these redirects, I think in order to make a Talk page link make sense. Keep to discourage frivolous RFDs which cost attention here and call for change that would give no benefit and would cause costs. Nom reason is to reduce maintenance, which cost is zero AFAIK. Reduce cost by withdrawing rfd pls. And deletions will undermine understandability of talk page discussions that used redirects, which imposes unnecessary costs on others. Or will Nom commit to edit every Talk page usage to explain where the redirect linked to? (I doubt they would). Even if they do that imposes costs on editors' attention by clogging up watch lists.

    So keep. doncram 05:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Doncram; RfDs like this waste editorial time and attention. Because our template namespace is subject to no nomenclature standardization, any sane redirect should just be left as-is. Redirects are cheap. RfDs are not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    These RfDs "waste editorial time", but you have voted delete on several of them ... so is it only the nominations that you disagree with that are wasting your time? And no one wasted your time by forcing you to comment here anyway. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template:WikiProject Banners Shell[edit]
  • Delete AFAIAC - but if others find it useful then keep All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as unused (0 transclusions) and I'm not sure the plural is that intuitive. I know there are multiple banners, but with Shell on the end, the plural sounds wrong to me. —PC-XT+ 19:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would keep this as the creator (and it was intuitive, to me); but I'm not particularly attached to it. Eman235/talk 03:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was invited here because I created one of these redirects, I think in order to make a Talk page link make sense. Keep to discourage frivolous RFDs which cost attention here and call for change that would give no benefit and would cause costs. Nom reason is to reduce maintenance, which cost is zero AFAIK. Reduce cost by withdrawing rfd pls. And deletions will undermine understandability of talk page discussions that used redirects, which imposes unnecessary costs on others. Or will Nom commit to edit every Talk page usage to explain where the redirect linked to? (I doubt they would). Even if they do that imposes costs on editors' attention by clogging up watch lists.

    So keep. doncram 05:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious keep. This one is way more plausible than even the redir above this one also nominated.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:41, 15 February 2016 (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.

Scouting for Trolls[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 18:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this was a potential future Discworld book several years ago, but after the death of Terry Pratchett, no more books are planned at all, and the target section doesn't exist. Planned or cancelled topics can still be notable; indeed, we have an article at Raising Taxes for another such Discworld book. So there may be warrant for an article here, but it's not helpful as is. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and restore, with adjustments, reference removed here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]
That interview transcript doesn't say anything about the book:
TP: No, it's just that the things I want to do right now—finish Wintersmith and get on with Unseen Academicals and Scouting for Trolls—aren't SF.
[... one Q&A about Wintersmith ...]
AN: Is there anything more you can tell us about Unseen Academicals and Scouting for Trolls?
TP: Er...no.
Si Trew (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep if we have information about planned future works, then why not have the redirect? Just restore the information about planned works that were not to come about due to the author's death -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it doesn't seem to have any info except this one source as a working title, so we really have nothing to say about it except that. I couldn't find any other sources (reliable or otherwise) that give more information, but if that's enough, then so be it. I just thought we usually hold up our hands and redlink something when the only information we have about it is that we don't have any information about it. Si Trew (talk) 06:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless info about the would-have-been book is added to the article to which this redirects. It need not have an entire section, just be in there somewhere. If it's not, the redlink will encourage the article's creation, if it's notable. If it's not notable, WP doesn't care. If it's encyclopedic but not quite notable, someone will add actual content with a real source about it to the article, and can recreate the redir.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SMcCandlish's analysis. Cavarrone 19:37, 17 February 2016 (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.

Prune cognac[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 as unopposed. Deryck C. 18:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PruneDelete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. No evidence that this term is used to mean slivovitz in real life: gsearch gives recipies using prunes soaked in cognac. "Prune" is at target only in a somewhat tangential sentence discussing the importance of plums to a region in Bulgaria that – unsurprisingly – also makes slivovitz; "prune cognac" (or indeed "cognac") is not at the target.

I am well aware that cognac and brandy are nearly synonymous in English, but prunes and plums aren't.

No internal links, stats at zero. Si Trew (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete The only decent hits I got with this were for a dish that incorporates prunes and Armagnac. Mangoe (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2016 (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.

Slivo[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 18:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. No internal links, stats at zero. This just means "plum", not "plum brandy" (and the root form ends in -a, not -o, in most of the languages discussed at the target). No internal links, stats at zero. Si Trew (talk) 16:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only reason I added the redirect was because it's apparently the short form of the drink. --Satani (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if they use the -o suffix to differentiate it from the word meaning plum, though it is probably still slang. It's hard to say keep without a reference showing how it is used. —PC-XT+ 20:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only references I could find were from Urban Dictionary as Slivo-biffed, by a contributor who has made only that contribution (and with no other sources), and Facebook as "We love Slivo", and they're not referring to Slivo Pole in Bulgaria. Si Trew (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not as far as I could tell, but I didn't search in Cyrillic. It's not mentioned as being called just "Сливо" in the Bulgarian article (at bg:Сливо_поле), and bg:Сливо is red. Having just done a gsearch for "Сливо -поле" I get few hits; one is English Wiktionary wikt:сливо which says it is "vocative singular of слива‎(wikt:sliva)", which answers PC-XT's wondering, by the way. Bulgarian Wiktionary doesn't have it as a separate entry (but has "слива" as the headword). We could make it a soft redirect to Wiktionary, I guess (but personally I don't like those, because WP:NOTDIC). Si Trew (talk)
  • Delete per above discussion —PC-XT+ 18:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC) Actually, weak keep since this is the English encyclopedia, so we don't need to worry about the meaning in other languages as much as the usage in English, and nothing else would be called just Slivo, AFAIK. If there is something else, it could be turned into a DAB. —PC-XT+ 00:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Things do not have to be notable or reliably sourced to be kept as redirects. If we have any evidence of usage as nickname/slang short form for Slivovitz, or Slivovitz-based drinks, the redir should be kept. "Weak" keep, because I'm too tired to go check that the FB and UD examples are for sure referring to Slivovitz.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say reliable sources. But this looks, at least on the net, like a nonce word; not in any dictionary, even UD. Both refs I gave do mean slivovitz, but one as a compound term which also seems a nonce. Surprising, perhaps, but that's how it seems to me. 84.3.187.196 (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Si Trew's findings. --Lenticel (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2016 (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.

Shlivovitz[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 24#Shlivovitz

Mc Method[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. The discussion below showed that "Mc Method" with a small C and a big second M isn't useful. However, this RfD outcome does not preclude possible creation of "MC [M/m]ethod(s)" → Monte Carlo method. Deryck C. 18:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Nothing links to it, stats are two in the ninety days before this week, not at target.

My gsearch without quotes shows the target as top, and then a lot of other results that have the search result "Monte Carlo Method" highlighted but do not say "Mc method" (or "MC method").

IUPAC's Gold Book has an entry for Monte Carlo (MC) method, but nothing ever seems to refer to anything as "Mc method" or "MC method" on its own. Sometimes abbreviations are used when Monte Carlo is combined with other methods e.g. PC-MC method, which as you see is red, as indeed are MC method, MC Method and other similar combinations.

We could perhaps just add it to the target, but if it's not used "in the wild" then that seems WP:OR. "The McMethod" appears to be an approach to copywriting (website here), although MC may also represent total heat capacity (e.g. "Application of MC Method-Based H2 Fueling". 16 April 2012. doi:10.4271/2012-01-1223. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)). Si Trew (talk) 12:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it could just as easily mean how McDonalds does business. Legacypac (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thought of that, but doesn't seem to be. Nor the McCandless Method, McKenzie method, McGuinness method or McNeil method. Si Trew (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's "MC Methods". SiTrew as IP 84.3.187.196 (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2016 (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.

Assassination of Theo van Gogh[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈(conjugate) 01:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant redirect as the murder coverage is not so significant. Better needed cleanup SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 11:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (I've added the section to which this redirects to the nom). Seems a perfectly reasonable redirect, significant coverage at the target (four paras, two pictures, mentioned in lede). Si Trew (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a clear part of the edit history of the target article. Content was moved off that page, changed, moved back and generally subject to all the normal disputes of editing on a wiki. The redirect and the history behind it enables all future editors to see that same history. There is not point to deleting it. It is neither harmful nor confusing. "Redundant" is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect. Rossami (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be well covered in the target article --Lenticel (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Ravensfire (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is big edit history there. And redirects are cheap. What is it with this forum for RFDs, seems offhand like the forum should be deleted to stop RFDs from being started. Or could there be a limit or cost imposed on nominated to reduce these. doncram 00:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this forum didn't exist it would be necessary to invent it. SiTrew as IP 84.3.187.196 (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2016 (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.

Charles Porter (Australian politician)[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 per comments here and at the requested move discussion; the Queensland politician has been moved to this name. Cúchullain t/c 16:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Porter is never, ever referred to in public as Charles: I live in his state, am very familiar with his career, and the first time I'd known it was his legal first name was when I tried to work out why the heck this page was redirecting to him.

"Charles Porter", however, *is* the name of his equally notable politician grandfather, and there's a ton of links to his grandfather by what is his actual name across the encyclopedia that I really would like to not have to bother unnecessarily disambiguating because there is a manifestly silly redirect to his grandson here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stubbify for Charles Robert Porter, or delete as Wp:R#D2 confusing. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:XY (I think that makes sense even if X is an article but Y is not); WP:REDLINK. Christian is linked at the DAB at Charles Porter, so we don't need another disambiguation. If his grandfather has a stub or article (and I'm tempted to start one if my wife stops taking me shopping) then we can cross-ref the two with a hatnote or naturally in the running text. Si Trew (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the target article points out, his proper name is "Charles Christian Porter" so readers no knowing that he goes primarily by his middle name (and knowing our usual naming conventions) might very plausibly hunt for "Charles Porter". That said, it seems there is a decent argument for an article about the grandfather. There is no need to delete the redirect to create that article, however. Just overwrite the page with content. And when you do, be sure the articles cross-link so those readers looking for Charles Christian can find the grandson. So keep but not as-is. Rossami (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who would look for him at a name he's never, ever known by? Google turns up zero results for him as "Charles Porter" in connection with any office he's held. This redirect is manifestly pointless and this attitude is really unhelpful; if you're not going to personally volunteer to write the stub, please get out of the way and allow it to be a returned to a redlink so someone else can. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I was/am going to create a stub article, overwriting the redirect. Perhaps I misinterpreted the intention in nominating this – @The Drover's Wife: are you intending to do it? Rossami's right, of course, the redirect can just be overwritten without needing to come here first; that's wholly encouraged. Si Trew (talk) 16:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A stub article would be greatly appreciated, but I have a real hatred of this bizarre notion that I should have to bump a topic to the top of my to-do list simply because deleting pointless, unjustifiable redirects that serve no purpose is seen as a Bad Thing and a Big Deal. If someone wants to write it, I will gladly thank them, but in the absence of a volunteer I think expecting editors to do it instead of just deleting the damn redirect, since the redirect's existence breaks the red link system in relation to that topic unless people do unnecessary disambiguation that will have to be undone later, is contemptible. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't expect you to do it; I merely asked whether you were intending to do it so that I didn't tread on your feet if I did. Sorry to be so contemptible. Si Trew (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That absolutely wasn't a criticism of you if you were planning to write the thing; I just get very angry at the Rossami-ish attitude of "nah, we shouldn't clean this mess up so that someone interested can fix it, I want to volunteer you to have to either leave it in place or write an article because of Reasons". Just because it's civilly worded doesn't make that an intensely obnoxious thing for them to say to another editor. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No offence taken, I realised after it wasn't really aimed at me. I'm not (or at least wasn't) a deletionist myself but there is (or was) no good target for this. I don't see that "keep, but not as-is" is a useful !vote" "keep" implies "as-is". Othweriwse it's a retarget (or something else). Si Trew (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Queensland state election, 1977, Queensland state election, 1969, Queensland state election, 1972, Queensland state election, 1974,Results of the Queensland state election, 1966 (M-Z), Results of the Queensland state election, 1969 (M-Z), Results of the Queensland state election, 1972 (M-Z), Results of the Queensland state election, 1974 (M-Z), and Results of the Queensland state election, 1977 (M-Z), Murdoch_state_by-election,_2008 and points to the wrong person in Ginger_Group_(Queensland). In fact it points to the wrong person in every article in which it is used – in Murdoch_state_by-election,_2008, links to both the grandfather and grandson are in the same sentence.
Since its was included (as a redlink) in many of these articles before the redirect's creation on 26 January 2011, it appears that it has redirected to the wrong person from the outset, although in some (e.g. here at Ginger Group (Queensland) it happened after the R was created. Or was the page previously deleted? Si Trew (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually quite a lot about him online: the sad thing is that there's a different editor working back writing articles on that area over the last year, and that if it hadn't been for this redirect falsely bluelinking everything he probably would have a decent article already. The red links well predated the redirect, and again, had it not been for it he would probably have an article considering progress in recent years. I don't get the confusion about the 2008 by-election article: Christian Porter was correctly linked, his grandfather was correctly linked, and then someone later created the redirect that broke every redlink to do with the grandfather. They were all created at the right name; the only reason they don't point, at worst, to a redlink on that name, but more likely an article on that name, is this redirect. There is a fairly lengthy profile of the grandfather here if anyone wants to write the stub, and as he was in public life before Australian copyright applies to newspaper digitisation there's likely to be useful references at the National Library's Trove Newspapers. I'm not trying to be snarky if you're going to write the article (it's why I linked those sources!) but please don't underestimate how annoying reluctance to delete redirects in this situation is to editors who want comprehensive coverage and don't want to automatically be expected to spend ages of their time fixing what could be very easily fixed stuffups. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Drover's Wife: Yep, it should probably have been red. I couldn't find much online about the senior politician myself, but that might be because of "European Data Protection laws", as Google puts it. I couldn't even find out his dates. Thanks for the links, I'm making the stub; won't be much but at least the scaffolding will be done. Si Trew (talk) 07:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to redlink it. Legacypac (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've added a very brief referenced mention – not linked – of Sir Charles Porter at the target (his grandson) and at Chilla Porter (his son). Si Trew (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close, please: I've converted it to a stub article. Thanks to The Drover's Wife for providing some links. Si Trew (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget or delete to make way for move. I have created a stub at Charles Porter (Queensland politician) as another red link for the same person, as mentioned above by SimonTrew. I will leave it to people more familiar with the group to decide which should ultimately be the redirect and which should be the article, but it seems that Charles Porter (Queensland politician) and Charles Porter (Queensland politician) should be the same article at this stage, with at most a hatnote to the grandson (I mentioned him in the text). Sorry Si - I made the stub before I read your extra comment that you were doing similar. Feel free to merge them, as I don't intend to work on it more. --Scott Davis Talk 08:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottDavis: Thanks for doing it, like buses nothing for ages then two come along at once. I've copy-pasted mine over most of) yours because mine says (a bit) more than yours does and little less; I'll redirect Charles Porter (Australian politician) to it since it's the better, unambiguous, title and let a bot sort out the resulting double redirects. I don't see the point of a histmerge since it's just kinda development edits from both of us. This leaves this R open, because we might want to retarget it elswehere (e.g. to the DAB at Charles Porter, or make it a WP:TWODABS), after the bot has done its stuff. Si Trew (talk) 08:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: No worries. I put the minimum effort into it that I could justify to myself, just so I could see somewhere sensible to retarget the redirect to. --Scott Davis Talk 08:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to those who wrote the stub, but can we please put this at Charles Porter (Australian politician)? There are literally no sources referring to Christian Porter as "Charles Porter" (please, if you want to argue with me on this point, I dare you to find even one), and vast numbers of them referring to his grandfather by what was his actual name. There is only one politician known whatsoever as Charles Porter who has ever sat in an Australian parliament, and it's confusing to further disambiguate it because it implies otherwise. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's really a move request, but I've got no great worries if it gets moved there. That being said, I think it's better to keep it at (Queensland politician) as absolutely unambiguous. I've fixed up the articles referring to it there, but not to pre-empt this discussion; simply that even if they are swopped they will still not be broken (whereas if this were retargeted e.g. to the DAB then they would still be broken). I've left courtesy notes per WP:RSECT in the election results articles to which I refer from the infobox. Si Trew (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is why WP:RFD is a horribly exasperating process. I've challenged anyone who claims this is ambiguous to come up with one single reference calling Christian Porter "Charles Porter" (hell, I'll even accept a non-WP:RS to prove the point), and no one can. The redirect should not exist, it is nominated, people generally lean towards "bad redirect, delete"...and well-intentioned people create the stub at the wrong damn name - and we're still left with a bad redirect because RFD is so comically averse to actually deleting anything that people would literally disambiguate around a pointless redirect than agree to delete it. The only reason there would be to need a "move request" is because people ignored what had been said and created it at the wrong title without discussion. I mean, what's the point of ever coming here? If someone creates pointless redirects on a notable topic that break the red link system and go against WP:REDLINK, it's almost impossible to ever get it deleted and it never winds up in a useful outcome because people treat the existence of a redirect like other people might protect a holy site from intruders. We have so many articles on unquestionably notable topics that don't get created because they're incorrectly marked as blue links because of this and yet it always plays out the same way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "challenge" about finding things about Christian Porter being called Charles Porter is a red herring, because neither the redirect nor its target go to Christian Porter. It's hatnoted, and if you think the hatnote is unnecessary, remove it: it would be up to anyone re-inserting it to show cause why it needs to be there.
So where is the pointless redirect? There is a new article is at Charles Porter (Queensland politician) and the redirect targets it, that doesn't seem pointless to me. It's no big deal to move the article because "people ignored what had been said and created it at the wrong title without discussion." (huh? I thought this page was called redirects for discussion). People are perfectly entitled to make an article at any sensible page name, and then WP:RM can kick in to move the page over the redirect. I sometimes create stubs from RfDs in draft namespace, for example, and that always requires a move afterwards (if the outcome of the RfD is to do so.) But If you'd prefer not to have the article, take it to WP:AFD – or would you like me to? The redirect will go if the article goes, so you'll get your redlinks back. Si Trew (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The hatnote is fine, and the text of the article is fine; the issue is that people still did the unnecessary disambiguation of creating it at (Queensland politician) because of the silly redirect, and in the absence of any evidence that there is any other Australian politician known by that name it seems reasonable that it should be at (Australian politician), where it was requested. I can go to WP:RM but it seems like a process designed to be as frustrating and force as much bureaucracy to get an outcome that isn't purely based on circumventing deleting the bloody redirect in the first place. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree. The process tries to find an equitable outcome without much fuss. As it is, the article got created rapidly, so it makes no sense to delete it. I would regard that as a positive outcome. That's WP:NOTPERFECT, by better. That's the last I shall say about it.SiTrew as IP 84.3.187.196 (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No offense intended, truly, but this was a useless unnecessary discussion. Good people's time can be consumed by this. Abolish RFDs altogether, or impose limits like 1 nomination per month per person, except they lose a month every time their RFD fails. doncram 00:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's forcing you to take part, but that suggestion is irrelevant to this nomination anyway. SiTrew as IP 84.3.187.196 (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It could very easily be avoided if idiotic redirects like this could just be speedy deleted, as would be a logical solution. Wasting even more editors time (or preventing editors cleaning up messes like this altogether) is what I'd call useless. Go away and stop wasting real editors' time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ignoring the whole grandfather/grandson issue that started this discussion, as a more general convention, I actually think we should be disambiguating based on where they served. So if they served in the Qld parliament, then they get disambiguated (when required) as (Queensland politician) and if they served in the federal parliament, then as (Australian politician). Of course, there will be folks who serve in more than one of the parliaments but redirects can deal with that. So I prefer the (Queensland politician) disambiguation in this particular case, but for this general reason. Kerry (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2016 (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.

No Pork No Lard[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 24#No Pork No Lard

Dirección General de Aeronáutica Civil of Turkey[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 00:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Turkish aviation agency isn't particularly tied to the Spanish language... Raymie (t • c) 02:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This page (Archive) called it by a Spanish name which was why I made the redirect WhisperToMe (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's an error alright on the NTSB's part. It looks like the actual acronym for this agency is SHGM. Raymie (t • c) 04:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one erroneous use should not justify an erroneous redirect. Legacypac (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' per WP:RFD#D2: "For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion". (My emphasis.) Si Trew (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2016 (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.

Kauai Bible College[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 18:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. There is no information about "Kauai Bible College" at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2016 (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.

List of Sexual Records[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 18:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an appropriate target, there are a plethora of sexual records that have nothing to do with human penis size. -- Tavix (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom uh... let's just say I'm unable to find any good targets at Category:World Records --Lenticel (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's actually very surprising, given the size of WP's "write about pornstars all day" contingent. I'm nonplused.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment was this merged back in 2006 to the breast and phallus articles? If so, we'd need to keep the edit history somewhere (though not necessarily at this title) The target of this redirect is not appropriate, since sexuality exists beyond human male phallii. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 06:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, as far as I can tell, it was simply redirected to human penis size. I didn't see any evidence of a merger taking place, so we don't have to worry about attribution. -- Tavix (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2016 (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/2016_February_13&oldid=1136083063"