Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 16, 2016.

Whiteslave[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, keep, and no consensus, respectively. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fake compound words not used in real life except as hashtags. Wikipedia should not originate nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you may know, many early camel-case redirects were former titles, when the MediaWiki software didn't allow spaces in titles. The articles on Obama and Romney date to March and January, respectively, of 2004, which was after that time. "BarackObama" was created in December 2011, and "MittRomney" not until August 2015, I'm surprised to see.</tangent> --BDD (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep whiteslavery, it's plausible enough. Delete the other two, too muches modifated tobe plausibant. Interestingly, BarackObama is very active (133 hits in last 30 days) while MittRomney practically doesn't exist. And as BDD said, none are {{R from CamelCase}}ses. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They're not even CamelCase, let alone {{R from CamelCase}}. Si Trew (talk) 04:49, 20 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.

White-slaves[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find any real life uses of this fake hyphenated words made up by Neelix Legacypac (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. The addition of a hyphen is not "fake". These redirects are plausible and there is no potential for confusion. Rossami (talk) 03:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment wouldn't these be the adjective form? -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. Even "White-slave traffic" wouldcould imply that it was white slaves that were doing the trafficking. Si Trew (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't (for example: White-Slave Traffic Act). All appear to be adjective forms. Peter James (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How are "White-slaver", "White-slaves" and "White-slavery" adjective forms? (Whatever that is; adjectival form -> adjective.) They're nouns. Nouns acting as compound modifiers of other nouns are called different things by different grammars, but they're certainly not adjectives. Si Trew (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:22, 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.

Iana Matel[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix nonsense misspelling of a name for no reason Legacypac (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Misreading an "i" for an "l" in a foreign name is a plausible typo. Keep. Rossami (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's not just an easy visual misreading to make, but the diagonal connection between 'i' and 'l' on many keyboards (such as the one I'm using right now) also make it an easy typing error to make. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:03, 21 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.

Blackishness[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 first and last items; no consensus on the middle ones. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix word play. WP is not a dictionary. Everyone can see black is the root word of these, but the reader will get no further insight into any of these at Black Legacypac (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These things are never Blackest & Whitest. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - no info on these non-words at the target. Ok, "blackest" is a word, a superlative of the target, but still no info on it there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or retarget all I agree with Ivanvector -- these are unlikely search terms, and people would just search for "Black". Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 00:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and by the way, in the color-ish redirect argument that Tavix mentioned, Blackish redirected to Black-ish. But does "Blackishness" have that same approach? Or should it be redirected to shades of black? Or should it be deleted altogether? Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 00:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Whitest should be considered as well here, since its concept is almost the same. Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 00:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "blackly". Oxford Learner's Dictionaries. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 21 February 2016.
It's WP:NOTPERFECT that "black comedy" deals primarily with comic works, rather than black humour more generally (in passing remarks, practical jokes and so on), but that's the way it is. I'm aware of WP:NOTDIC but Wiktionary does not have an entry for "blackly" so we might serve readers some small turn by redirecting thus. Si Trew (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For Blackishly, most online dictionaries define it simply as "in a blackish way", but as noted blackish -> Black-ish, a TV series, so that's no help to knowing what to do with this derivative: I'm going to (re)list "blackish" separately at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 21#Blackish, for other reasons, and this one might fall out of the discussion for that. Si Trew (talk) 07:49, 21 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.

Pulp stone[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 pulp stone (tooth) moved to pulp stone. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have found no evidence that "pulp stone" can refer to endolith. This redirect is likely a result of confusion due to a minor use of "endolith" to refer to Pulp stone (tooth). A2soup (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I'm trying to clear the way for that move. I hope it's okay to do this here instead of WP:RM, because existing redirect really is invalid and there's no significant history. Of course, if an admin is willing to make the Pulp stone (tooth) --> Pulp stone move right now, I'll withdraw this. A2soup (talk) 05:07, 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.

Member of Knesset[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 List of Knesset members. JohnCD (talk) 12:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why the 19th Knesset specifically? There's no list for the entire Knesset, and it's ungrammatical anyway, so unlikely to be searched for. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a retarget there, it's a better way to do it than my suggestion. Good work, 70.51 -- Tavix (talk) 05:00, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_16&oldid=1037901799"