Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 22, 2016.

Encore Consumer Capital[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Encore Consumer Capital and Encore Capital Group appear to be two unrelated companies with different websites. I can find no evidence (aside from the appendix of this PriceWaterhouseCoopers document, but it might be a typo) that they are the same corporation. Thus I'm suggesting delete for the redirect. /wiae /tlk 23:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Legacypac (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redlink it. I'm not sure that the company will pass notability but a redlink will at least offer the possibility of discussion. I concur that they are unrelated entities. Rossami (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from creator. If they are indeed separate companies, feel free to delete this. I was guided by articles like [1],[2] or [3] which call the company both "Encore Consumer Capital" and "Encore Capital". But looking more closely, it seems correct that the two are not the same, so thank you for finding this error, and feel free to delete it. Fram (talk) 07:58, 25 January 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.

Bubblenest frog[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all without prejudice against recreation of bubblenests and bubblenester by another editor who wants to take ownership of that decision. Deryck C. 23:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like this to be a precedent for the Neelix frog redirects. He likes to stick words together and make fake compound words. These spread error across the web, clutter search results, and don't help the reader find anything. If it's a compound word that just sticks real words together in a frog name I'd like to see it speedy deleted based on this RfD. Legacypac (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Bubblenest frog, which looks like a species common name. Weak keep Bubblenester, which is used in the plural at the target article, suggesting it could be a likely search term. Weak keep Bubblenests, which seems like a plausible modification of the plural. Weak delete Foamnest and Foamnests, which do not seem like likely modifications (for me, it comes down to how the phrases sound and the words look). --BDD (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Bubblenester also seems to be used in the wild, but we don't generally have nester to mean something that makes a nest, for example. I've changed the article to use "bubble nest" consistently rather than "bubblenest" (which it did not define as an alternative name but simply introduced). We should probably be a bit conservative with new word forms (we have, for example, empty nester but not emptynester). We don't have bubblenesting, bubble nesting and the like, although in English there is no noun that cannot be verbed. Adding Bubble nester to this proposal. Si Trew (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a fish or frog (not a bubblenester) builds a bubble nest, . Legacypac (talk) 06:36, 23 January 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.

St. Lukes Church[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 all. (non-admin closure) sst✈ (speak now) 12:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These duplicate redirects with the ' so they don't help the reader, just clutter the search results with bad grammar. Legacypac (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RPURPOSE, which includes "alternative spellings or punctuation." -- Tavix (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep clearly helps the readers. Just looking at internet spelling sees tonnes of dropped apostrophes -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per WP:RPURPOSE. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this appears to be a plausible mistake.--174.91.184.47 (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible misspellings --Lenticel (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Not harmful. Plausible variants. Rossami (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Search results are only one consideration. If someone links to St Lukes Church while editing an article, which is very likely, then a redirect to the dab page is much better than a red link that will never be picked up on. —Xezbeth (talk) 09:36, 25 January 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.

Video gaming industries[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 Video gaming industries and Video games industries. Convert to set index Gaming industry, Gaming industries, Games industries, Game industries. (Closing two sections in conjunction as suggested.) Deryck C. 21:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: (and IP editor) - I'm not sure what's the appropriate content for the SIA and which is the best page title, so I'll leave you to do it. Deryck C. 21:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typos. There is only one video game industry. You would not write about the car industries or gold mining industries either. Legacypac (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Video gaming industries and video games industries, the phrase could possibly be used a sentence like "the video game industries of France and the United States...". Commented on the third link below.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the video games ones, per Prisencolin, it might refer to several more-specific industries treated collectively. Marking {{R from plural}}. While games industries is perhaps a bit vague, game industry has the same target. Si Trew (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conform "Games industries" to what is done at #Game industries for "Game industries" -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep "gaming industry" / "gaming industries" these are clearly gambling per Legacypac (who did not nominate these two) -I will note that the Nevada Gaming Commission is not about anything except gambling. - 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Added two more, and suggest we merge with the discussion for #Games industries, below. While "gaming" is perhaps a different thing from playing a game, the distinction is rather subtle. Certainly the gaming industries are more than just casinos; in fact Gaming industry redirected to video gaming industry before it was retargeted on 22 January by Legacypac. Si Trew (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gaming industry is a very common term mentioned at the new target. I fixed the Neelix redirect on it. However, I'm open to the idea that these terms are fairly meaningless without a modifier like casino or video etc. Legacypac (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Exactly how to define industries varies by context. Any normally-formed English plural is a plausible redirect. Agree that "Games industries" should be consistent with with #Game industries below; it seems mis-listed here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab/set index "games industries", "gaming industries", "gaming industry". I've heard these all relating to gambling and video game industry. I'm not sure I agree they're implausible typos but I don't believe they should be linking to either casino or video game industry. Keep "Video gaming industries" and "Video games industries" per others. --Izno (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Game industries[edit]

As opposed to Games industry which is a better redirect, this suggests multiple industries. Board games, sports etc. Not that useful as a redirect. Legacypac (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Prisencolin: huh? That page is red, and always has been. Si Trew (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
relocated next to related discussion Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's necessary if you want it to point there, unless this is a really circumspect vote for deletion, since that would make it G8 eligible. --BDD (talk) 19:29, 24 January 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.

Lord, Protect My Child[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comma just clutters search results and does not help the reader. Legacypac (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is entirely plausible that readers may add an extra comma when searching for the song. In fact, refrain (though not the title) in the lyrics posted at bobdylan.com is written: "Lord, protect my child." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure you can add 3 commas and all the other extra punctuation you like and the search engine will return the correct title. Try it with another 4 word title (not this one because the redirect exists). Legacypac (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • All redirects will clog search results to some extent, but they exist to facilitate navigation when the readers utilize alternative punctuation. In fact, WP:RPURPOSE lists "Alternative spellings or punctuation" as one of the reasons for creating and maintaining redirects. That said, "Lord,,, Protect My Child" is an ungrammatical form of punctuation (and an unlikely search term), and I agree that if "Lord,,, Protect My Child" existed as a redirect, it should be deleted. Here, however, it is entirely plausible that a reader may look at the song's lyrics and insert an extra comma after the word "Lord" when searching for the song title. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this redirect helps our readers find what they're looking for. The "problem" with this redirect isn't a issue. -- Tavix (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the exact phrase does occur in the published lyrics, as well as the general plausibility that readers may add a comma on their own. Most style guides would recommend a comma in this construction.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Rossami (talk) 05:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above --Lenticel (talk) 05:54, 25 January 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.

Scotty Wotty[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. 23:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target article; presumably non-notable. BDD (talk) 22:43, 22 January 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.

Ball juggler[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 obvious result is retarget so done Legacypac (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible; I could see an innocent person getting sent to Oral sex through this. Should be a redirect to Juggling. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 22:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. Wikipedia is not censored, but I think the current target would WP:ASTONISH more than it would help readers. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacypac closed this before I could post my comment. Many thanks for taking care of this! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ya bit of an edit conflict. Can't see the point of debating the obvious. Legacypac (talk) 22:57, 22 January 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.

Geneva Mercadel Tucker[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix took different parts of the subject's birth, stage and married names and mixed them together in various ways. No evidence she used any of these variations. Legacypac (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all except any for which reliable sources are provided.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - the only two legitimate redirects would be Geneva Leona Mercadel and Gee Tucker, none of which are on this list. Onel5969 TT me 03:19, 27 January 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.

Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant Film[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 speedy delete. --BDD (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually targets a deleted section of the article Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant#Entertainment and there are several dozen redirects with every conceivable variation on spelling and puctuation already. Legacypac (talk) 21:58, 22 January 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.

Truth Red White and Black[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slight variations in punctuation that make the target harder to find in search. Search ignores punctuation. Delete all and let the reader get straight to the actual article. Neelix cleanup. I don't think any have incoming links so they are not needed for ease of linking. Legacypac (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. Variations of punctuation and interchanging "&" and "and" are plausible differences. Steel1943 (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. I agree that these should be kept as plausible misspellings, especially considering that the cover does not appear to use a colon in the title. Legacypac, can you explain how these make it harder to find the target when searching? I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. If anything, it will allow readers who are unfamiliar with the correct punctuation to find the target, where they will learn what the correct punctuation should be. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok we can't assume the reader is looking for this comic. If they are looking for the comic the search engine will give them the comic as an option or the result if they type any of these combinations - without the existence of the redirect. They might be looking for any of various other things too. When you type in Red White Black "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Red+White+and+Black&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1" your results are cluttered with all these redirects, making it harder to pick out the actual articles that include these keywords. There is a film with a similar title and other stuff in Wikipedia that uses these three words together in various orders, but search results are overwhelmed by all these slight variation redirects to the comic. They hurt search. The search engine is pretty smart already unless we essentially link bomb it with redirects to force other results off the front page (a common spammer move). Legacypac (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all confuses search results, which is the exact opposite of what redircts should be - Nabla (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, I'm sorry but confusing or clogging search results isn't a reason for deleting redirects, and I'm unconvinced that it's even a real phenomenon. The only reason the search results are "clogged" now is because the software doesn't classify these pages as redirects due to the RFD tag. On the other side of the coin, there is reason to keep these redirects. They are useful in helping our readers find what they're looking for, which is why we even create redirects to begin with. -- Tavix (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Tavix, I am as much sure (I am sure, no joke) that the search engine may avoid showing all these redirects as I am sure that it may show "Truth: Red, White & Black" at the top of the search when someone inputs "Truth Red White Black". That is, this kind of redirects are useless, when not confusing. Having them is assuming the search engine is dumb, which it is not, as you say (though it does need improvement with some silly faults). We do not need to spell out every permutation of titles words, that is the search engine's job. - Nabla (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects often have nothing to do with searches, but what people enter into the URL bar. I almost never use the search function here unless I'm looking for content within pages (and even then I usually use the advanced version to constrain the namespaces). I doubt I'm alone in this pattern: I enter what I think the title likely is into the URL, then obvious variants, then I go look at the likely category, or I use a Google "+Wikipedia" search. Our own search feature is poor, and we should not disable helpful redirs to force people to use it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. As has already been said, redirects do far more than merely support the search engine. These are not harmful and there is no obviously better target. Rossami (talk) 05:04, 25 January 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.

Ronnie Drake[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 Cilvia Demo. --BDD (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is a plausible birthname not mentioned at the target. Ronnie Drake is more commonly the title of an offensive rap song. Delete or maybe disambiguate if someone can prove Eckstine was ever known by Drake? Legacypac (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Cilvia Demo, the album where the rap song is mentioned, with {{R from song}}. No dab needed yet unless it is established that Eckstine was ever known as Drake in reliable sources. A certain Ronnie Drake was a member of the 1970s backup group Sound 70 [4], which apparently did some TV jingles and record work, but I can't establish notability for that group, let alone that Ronnie Drake, so again until there are plausible alternate targets no dab needed. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:03, 22 January 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.

Bamey-mugging[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 deleted via CSD Legacypac (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible, not even in urban dictionary. Maybe a badly kerned version of barney-mugging? BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 16:25, 22 January 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.

Table Soccer[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, but move Table soccer (disambiguation) to Table football (disambiguation) to match. --BDD (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is Table Soccer (Redirect) and I did Table soccer (disambig). How it should be look in English Wikipedia? I'm polish and I'm not from any English-language society. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also suggest wieddling it [5] like to Russian Wikipedia. Dawid2009 (talk) 11:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I`m not sure about primarytopic, because table hockey hasn`t it. Table soccer is main popular as thing foosball but other table soccer games are totally other. Actually only the same name, not genesis and other. Table football aren`t wrong as primary topic but table soccer I`m not sure. Dawid2009 (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 21:21, 23 January 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.

Grayishbrowns[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Made up words that shove two colors together, by Neelix. We've deleted dozens of these already (example [6]), and here are some more. Legacypac (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to go ahead and vote delete, notwithstanding the fact that the target article says that the "colors [taupe] denotes fall into a range from dark tan to grayish brown or brownish gray". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • grayish brown or brownish gray are terms that contain real words. Legacypac (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. English doesn't work this way. This is English Wikipedia, not German.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep brownish grey, gray brown and grayish brown (and spelling variants) as plausible aliases that actually are in use in English. The lack of a space is an entirely plausible typo. Rossami (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, I am arguing to keep all but the "browngray" variants. The others are acceptable English usage and while the absence of a blank space in the rest is an error, they are minor and plausible. Rossami (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only brownish grey, gray brown, and grayish brown per Rossami. Delete all the rest as made-up. -- Tavix (talk) 05:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ones called out as keeps are not in the nomination to clarify. This similar AfD found for deletion [7] Legacypac (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good call, I was looking at Rossami's comment and not the nominated list. -- Tavix (talk) 19:34, 25 January 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-water[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 that batch-nomination is not conducive in this case. I'm closing as no action. @Legacypac, Arthistorian1977, and SimonTrew: please nominate subsets separately. Deryck C. 23:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Various Neelix invented words and phrases that have an incorrect dash in them. He built out a whole string of these, and we should eliminate the errors to prevent them from spreading. Search ignores the dashes, so they don't help people searching, just confuse the results. Legacypac (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep White-water, White-tip, White-supremacy, White-space, White-slavery, White-slave, White-guy, White-man, White-nose, and White-mouth as plausible misspellings, as legitimate compound modifiers (e.g. "white-water rapids" or "white-guy appearance"), and WP:CHEAP. I have no opinion on the rest. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Per nomination. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Whitewater"'s first sentence starts "usually spelled 'white water in both American and British English". Since that is the case, it should be swapped with the redirect and respelled throughout per WP:COMMONNAME. There's no mention of a discussion about this on its talk page, although "whitewater" is evidenced with an unreliable source and "white water" with two sources (I've removed the dead link to Yahoo!), which looks like it was to Oxford Dictionaries anyway.) It's been this way since 2003 (not the result of a page move). Si Trew (talk) 05:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete White-nose and White-noses, and Whitenose and Whitenoses for that matter. There are lots of things that have white noses (the white-nosed coati, for example); a DAB page is possible but unnecessary. I seem to recall a similar RfD about this one. Delete white-mouth as just plain confusing; if anything (and white mouth, which is not nominated). I think these should go to white rhinoceros#Naming, but didn't we have that discussion already? Si Trew (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe we dealt with white-lipped before. These all exist without the dash too, so just deleting them will only help the searcher get to the right place faster. Legacypac (talk) 07:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some, only those that are attested as actual adjectives in use, e.g. white-water but not white-supremacists. Agreed with SimonTrew that several others need to be added, and that generic (valid) adjectives like white-nose / whitenose that can have more than one referent should not go to one specific article. There should be DAB pages for these, with the compound spelling/puncutation variants redirecting to it. Cf. the DAB page Ringtail (though it should really be at Ring-tail for clarity; we should not default to a fully fused compound unless that's the overwhelmingly most common usage across all the referents being disambiguated).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Some of these are entirely legitimate redirects that meet every criterion not only for an allowed redirect but one that we actively encourage. If there are one or two that are patently wrong, they should be nominated and discussed separately. This mass-nomination of redirects crossing multiple topics is unhelpful. Rossami (talk) 04:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: If the consensus is to keep White-supremacy, or if you find there is no consensus with respect to that term, can you revert the speedy deletion? It looks like this may have been deleted by someone who was unaware of this discussion. Thanks, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The white-supremacy redirect was speedied as part of a list about 15 similar terms not used in RS. I just checked the top 100 results for "white-supremacy" in quotes (to force Google to look for the hyphenated version) and could not find a single use of the term that included a hyphen. Legacypac (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't dispute that the term didn't turn up in google search results, but when there are multiple "keep" votes at that redirect's RfD, then I think we should wait to speedy per WP:G6. Otherwise, we would allow one or two people to make decisions that may conflict with the community consensus that is developed at RfD discussions. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel strongly about keeping it you can recreate it under the G6 Neelix exception. Legacypac (talk) 21:49, 29 January 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.

Speaker men[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 speedy deleted G6 by Sphilbrick. JohnCD (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly thought out Neelix redirects. Could cover guys that set up a rock concert. Some are not really words either. Legacypac (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Incidentally, Mrs Speaker, Madam Speaker, Madame Speaker, Soundwoman, Sound woman, Soundperson and Sound person are all red; I've marked Soundman, Sound man and Spokesman as {{R from gender}}.) Si Trew (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as both implausible and confusing. My first thought was it was some creole/pidgin term for spokespersons.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:55, 24 January 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.

It is a major river[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are major rivers (broadly defined, if even) in every country on earth, and I don't think this sentence is a logical search term for any river, including the lists at Lists of rivers. --Animalparty! (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unhelpful, no good target at the moment. —Kusma (t·c) 11:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Maybe Wp:CSD#G6: clearly an error, looks like the creator was trying to add a piped link on Geum River (where this phrase appears in the lede). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the opinions expressed above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "there are no streams or rivers" in the geography of Tuvalu. Si Trew (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Si Trew (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Korea has no major rivers. There's no comparable rivers to the Nile or Amazon, etc -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague at best --Lenticel (talk) 05:56, 25 January 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.

Occasional[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 1#Occasional

Springers (disambiguation)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DAB pointed at a DAB, only history is created by Neelix. Nothing links to it. Housekeeping delete? Legacypac (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment isn't this recommended by Wp:DPAGE bullet #2? Or does that only refer to cases where both the redirect and the target have "(disambiguation)" in their title? 58.176.246.42 (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Springer, a disambiguation page Keep. Springers currently redirects there, and there are at least three topics on the disambiguation page which the plural form could refer. Steel1943 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is what it targets now. My concern is that it is labelled as a dab but it is a redirect. Nothing points at this redirect. It is just clutter in search. 21:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs)
      • I highly disagree with your logic in that statement. If a redirect without "(disambiguation)" in its title targets a disambiguation page that is not an exact title match to itself, then it makes complete sense that its "... (disambiguation)" equivalent targets the same page. Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lots of people know about the "ABC (disambiguation)" naming convention used here. Many people would also know that "Springer" is a common name likely to need disambiguation. Attempting to jump direct to that page is entirely plausible. There is no purpose to presenting such a reader with a blank page. This redirect is doing exactly what a redirect should do. Rossami (talk) 04:55, 25 January 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.

Cossets[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 disambiguate between the surname and the verb. Deryck C. 21:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This term means "care for and protect in an overindulgent way" which can obviously mean parenting like at the target, but other sources refer to animals like lambs and dogs. Worth changing?. Legacypac (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently Cosset targets François Cosset, a French composer (created on 19 April 2013 at 01:03 by Neelix, five minutes before this one). But we also have a redirect Sébastien Cosset → Kerascoët, which could go on there (and I don't think either is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). "Cossets" is then an {{R from plural}} as a plural noun of the family name, like "Joneses", "Flintstones".
Corset has a {{confused}} to Cosset which of course redirects to the composer, which is perhaps WP:SURPRISEing. So, a WP:TWODABS would seem the cleanest way to fix all this, as on the draft I have put a link to Wiktionary for "cosset" and a {{confused}} back to Corset. Si Trew (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we also have Cosseter and Cosseted(but not Cosseting) but I think that they can stay put, since they're being used as verbs (or verbal nouns). I imagine nominator was aware of those. Si Trew (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the 2nd one. I think I saw that as reasonable before seeing the others. I looked at Cosseter and Cosseted and found these words were primarily related to the target. Cosset was a very rare word that an author picked up and used in discussing helicopter parenting. That one book, and discussions of it, throw everything off in search results. If anyone wants to tackle the newly reorganized Neelix redirect project [8] to [9] it is broken into an 5 editable vanishing lists now. Legacypac (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think it was a particularly rare word, at least not in British usage. Si Trew (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those lists are not very helpful without having links to both the redirect and the target. I seem to recall User:Anomie tailoring the previous request to do this, at my request. Si Trew (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:SimonTrew the lists are basically grouped by target because he built redirects as many as 399 in one sitting at a target. I learned if you turn on 'popups' in your preferences you can see the target and a preview which is often enough to assess the reasonableness, especially for reasonable redirects like ones for alternate names in the lead and variations on word form like a redirect from plural to singular. Legacypac (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabify and redirect the plural to the new dab page per SiTrew -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 11:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAB My main concern is that anyone unfamiliar with the surname (almost everyone) is still fairly likely to be familiar with the word (more in the form of "cosset[t]ing" and "cosset[t]ed", depending on ENGVAR). I would expect Cosset to go to a DAB page that distinguishes cosseting and the people named Cosset. Cossets can just redirect to Cosset. PS: I've never seen the phrase "helicopter parenting" before, and suspect an RM is in order on WP:NEO grounds. But I have not spawned, so maybe I'm just missing out on really common parenting jargon. I'm skeptical, because I'm familiar with plenty of other parenting jargon like "play date" and "terrible twos", and was familiar with cossetting (cosseting, whatever; I learned to read in the UK and I live in the US, so they're equally valid spellings to me.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd never heard of this word in a parenting or any context, and I live in Canada but went to university in the US. It's a real but obscure word, popularized by a single fairly recent book as best as I could tell. Legacypac (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard of cosseting, but I've heard a lot about helicopter parenting. I doubt an AfD would be successful there. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per SiTrew --Lenticel (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify the singular, but delete the second. Since we'll just have a listing of surnames, neither of them would be referred to as "Cossets". --BDD (talk) 15:30, 29 January 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.

Happy 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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the "happy slave" a common stock character in Jim-Crow era minstrel shows? Redirecting this to a claimed mental disorder doesn't not match people's expectations. If there isn't a good retarget, it should be deleted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I considered a retarget to Minstrel show, which has in the lede "Racial integrationists decried them as falsely showing happy slaves" (my underline). But Happy slave and Happy Slave are red. Searching for Happy Slave is fruitful in finding lots of uses of the expression "happy slaves" (including the one above), so I think this redirect just obstructs the search; WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Si Trew (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per search obstruction rationale. Otherwise, redir it and the singular form (without the title-case capitalization) to Minstrel show, and boldface "happy slaves" in the article as a redir term. The current redir is boneheaded, because what it links to is the opposite.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:08, 24 January 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.

Lieutenant Palmer[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mae Jemison wasn't the only person to play "Lieutenant Palmer." I also hit on Elizabeth Rogers. In addition, several articles also mention a Lieutenant Palmer, including Mount Breakenridge, Action of 8 March 1795, Battle of Genoa (1795), HMS Berwick (1775), and others. Our readers would be better served by search results. -- Tavix (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redlink to encourage article creation is appropriate. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to set index to list all characters/people LT Palmer -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't make sense as there isn't anyone notable by that name. -- Tavix (talk) 06:07, 22 January 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.

SCTN[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 disambiguate. Deryck C. 23:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The org shortens its name to SCTNow, not this. Many possible better targets, the best of which seems to me to be a company Schematic technologies that uses this as it's stock ticker. Maybe a good article? Or other suggestions for retarget or a DAB? Legacypac (talk) 04:40, 22 January 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.

Kukalaka[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTWIKIA. This is the name of the character's teddy bear. Not mentioned at the article. -- Tavix (talk) 04:25, 22 January 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.

Subatoi[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, middle name of a fictional character. I don't see any evidence that he's known as "Subatoi." -- Tavix (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:REDLINK ; if this name is notable, as all "real" names would be, then a name article should be created -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What next, are we going to create a link for Chewbacca's middle name? I bet that's in some Star wars source somewhere. WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTWIKIA. Super weak retarget to Subutai since this term seems to be a very obscure variant of the general's name --Lenticel (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading. More Neelix nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 00:26, 27 January 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.

American Federation of Reformed Young Mens Society[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 29#American Federation of Reformed Young Mens Society

Chief Sepass[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 Turned into article Legacypac (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Theatre is named after a real person. I'd like to see this redirect deleted per WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation on the actual native leader who I'd like to know more about. I added a sentence to the school article so it will show red. Good research job for a student at the school. Legacypac (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is that User:Legacypac has created Sepass on 22 January 2016 pointing at this R, which is a bit of a foregone conclusion. Adding that to the nom (I've marked it as {{R from short name}}, too). Si Trew (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In all scenarios Sepass should point at the guy's name Chief Sepass even if redlinked or left to point at the place for now. Lots of buildings, parks etc are named after people, but we don't usually point the name of the person at the place as far as I know. If anything we write an article about the person and note places that are named for them. Terry Fox for example. I found a good source now (could not see one earlier) so starting the article myself. That should end this discussion. Legacypac (talk) 08:15, 23 January 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.

Arnold Schwarznigger[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 as deleted. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Schwarznigger → Arnold Schwarzenegger  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, while "Schwarzenegger" is a hard-to-spell name, I'm afraid this spelling could be seen as a WP:BLP violation due to the n-word being in it. Stats are below one hit/day. -- Tavix (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete stats suggest this miss-spelling is barely used. Jolly Ω Janner 03:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as BLP violation. Legacypac (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I share the BLP concerns expressed above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as BLP violation. Yoninah (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and perhaps salt, though that might be premature. Si Trew (talk) 08:09, 23 January 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.

Declinedly[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 speedy deleted, G6, by Drmies (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very very rare word. Not found in dictionaries. Basically Neelix adding extra suffixes. Legacypac (talk) 03:08, 22 January 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.

Unknown Soldier (2015 film)[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 by Anthony Appleyard. --BDD (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not mentioned at Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography and I can't find anything but rumors. -- Tavix (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete If one can't find a film with Schwarzenegger from the PAST year, it does not exist. - Nabla (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. It was rumored but it's not real. Legacypac (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete as hoax --Lenticel (talk) 00:36, 26 January 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.

Governor Arnold[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague. An incomplete list of governor's named Arnold include: Benedict Arnold (governor), Lemuel H. Arnold, and Arnold Wienholt Hodson. Search results would serve our readers better. -- Tavix (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into that. I hadn't even thought about disambiguation as an option since I thought that <[position] [name]> disambiguations were being rejected: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Edward is still fresh in my mind. Disambiguation could work, but I'm afraid of the combinatorial explosion (Si's phrase?) that could occur since there are a LOT of positions and a LOT of names. I think I still prefer deletion, but other things to consider include retargeting to the dab/name page as a {{R from ambiguous name}} or keeping it with a hatnote to "Arnold." -- Tavix (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Combinatorial explosion is not exactly my phrase. But use a lot I do it. (Or is that a permutational explosion?) Si Trew (talk) 14:08, 23 January 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.

Broken condom style[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable parody that isn't mentioned in the article. -- Tavix (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it's not only not notable, it is not that good a watch. Legacypac (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete misheard lyrics shouldn't have redirects? -Andrew PNJJJ (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as joke redirect --Lenticel (talk) 00:08, 27 January 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.

Trouser snake[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. JohnCD (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible slang term. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 01:07, 22 January 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.

The rich[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 29#The rich

Debt of Third World countries[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. JohnCD (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our own article on the term "Third World" says that it is a "stereotype" to refer to poor countries under this label. It really means they haven't picked a side of the Cold War. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Origins ≠ definition. Third-world has referred solely to underdeveloped countries for several decades and its current meaning, while derogatory, has nothing to do with the cold war. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, per Oiyarbepsy. That is what redirects shoudl be all about, go from alternate (and poorer) expressions to the Good Title (tm) article - Nabla (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not everyone is a Millennial, and "developing country" still borders on a neologistic euphemism, with "Third World" being familiar, for many people. WP:NOTCENSORED; titles some people have a distaste for but which are entirely plausible should still get people to the proper article. If one is convinced that "Third World" is obsolete or even offensive, and "developing world", "developing nations", etc., are perfect replacements, then redirects like this serve a directly educational purpose by "correcting" the reader on what the current term is. Last I looked, Peking and Bombay get you to Beijing and Mumbai, respectively.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:48, 25 January 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.

Planting season[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can start planting certain seeds like Kale in the summer, and still get a good crop. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Depending on the crop, any season could be "planting season." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "planting season" in a traditional agricultural society is in spring when the community goes out to plant, just as "harvest season" is in autumn, when the community goes out to harvest, and we have harvest festivals and harvest moons. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment, could retarget to Sowing... The only thing against that is that there is no mention of seasonal information there (but maybe there should be?) - Nabla (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2, confusing. Adding Sowing season. No mention of seasons at the target. It seems quite a brief article for such an important topic (it doesn't even have many "see also"s to things like crop rotation, history of agriculture and so on). Both of these created very recently, on 20 January 2016. Si Trew (talk) 15:00, 23 January 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.

Lisabeth[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. This remains a set index rather than a redirect. Merge or delete discussions may proceed if desired, but it's now out of RfD's scope. --BDD (talk) 14:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are several women with articles carrying this name. The target is likely not notable and has been AfD'd. Delete or maybe do a DAB page? Legacypac (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. -- Tavix (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Travix closed with: "The result of the discussion was procedural close, no longer a redirect. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)" but based on additional comments below the close, I've reopened. Hope he does not mind. Legacypac (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They are different names. -- Tavix (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are many unified name pages with variant forms included in them. There are also many unified disambiguation pages with small variations included. -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence that these are variants. It's an assumption being made because they appear similar. -- Tavix (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all of these to Elizabeth, of which they are just regional spelling variations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merger of Lisabeth and Lizabeth into Elizabeth. I had actually just looked at these pages and had the same thought. Legacypac (talk) 03:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SMcCandlish, Legacypac: It's NOT a variant of Elizabeth, it's a surname in it's own right. His name isn't "Kenny Elizabeth," that would be incorrect. Therefore, merging would also be incorrect and would strongly oppose such a move. Also, the page is no longer a redirect, this isn't the correct forum to discuss this matter, hence the procedural close. -- Tavix (talk) 05:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that the given name Elisabeth and a few of its many, many variations have over time become surnames for some people doesn't seem all that compelling. There may well be more variants of that name than any other, and we don't need 100+ two-to-five-entry DAB pages for each of them separately, especially when only in a handful of cases will it be used as a surname, and they can be listed on the same DAB page. If someone just put the lone name "Lisabeth" or "Lizabeth" in as their search, odds are very high they're looking for either information on the name as a name (only last year I looked up Elspeth to be certain it was actually a variant of Elizabeth and not the unrelated name Elswith), or for a mononymic noble or saint attested under this spelling but better known translated to "Elisabeth" (or even some other form) in current English sources, e.g. Lisabeth of France [10] who we have as Princess Élisabeth of France.

      But, if consensus goes against a merger I would support the nominated redir becoming a DAB page, of course. Kenny Lisabeth (who?) isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Lisabeth".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've got a strong feeling that someone searching "Lisabeth" is doing so purposefully. They aren't looking for an "Elizabeth," but just in case they are for whatever reason, it's a link in the see-also, so that person would only be one click away. There's also no evidence that Lisabeth and Lizabeth are short-forms of "Elizabeth." Of the four people with either as a forename, only Lizabeth Scott is reported to have a different birth name, and it was Emma. Sure, the names are similar, but we can't assume. In addition, I feel like a merger will make it harder for our readers to find what they're looking for, which is never a good solution. -- Tavix (talk) 14:38, 25 January 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.

Inequality in the United States[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Inequality" does not always relate solely to how much money one is taking in. This could also be applied to racism, sexism, etc. Seems more like Discrimination in the United States. That article is of poor quality, however. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling the Bern, Si? --BDD (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. People have to be more specific than this in the information they're looking for. Redirs exist to help them find that, not to try to tell them what they must be looking for if they're not sure.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:14, 24 January 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.

Butter worth[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 29#Butter worth

Neither rich nor poor people[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does not make sense to me. Sounds more like Middle class (though I wouldn't redirect it there either). Mr. Guye (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also per nom -Andrew PNJJJ (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible redirect (as well as nom's rationale). No one expects our articles to be at random descriptive phrases. You wouldn't look for Middle age under "people who aren't all that young, not decrepit yet".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:33, 25 January 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.

Nordic communism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The target article makes no mention of communism. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This also implicates neutrality issues because "Nordic communism" is not an established term and it is unlikely to be useful (see WP:RNEUTRAL). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both the rationales above, and because it's a potentially viable article on its own.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:30, 25 January 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.

Democratic communism[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Communism" and "socialism" aren't synonymous. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment wouldn't "democratic communism" be a proper subset of "democratic socialism" thus a viable redirect? -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is an oxymoron. Legacypac (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Communism is not a subset of socialism, nor vice-versa. Theoretically, it's not an oxymoron, it's a tautology . Si Trew (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my rationale in the related one immediately below this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:27, 25 January 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.

Communist democracy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect assumes that "communism" and "socialism" are the same thing, even though they aren't. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment isn't communism a proper subset of socialism; and thus a subtopic? (ie. the Moldovan Soviet Socialist Republic called itself socialist though its ruling party was a communist party) -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Communism is not a subset of socialism, nor vice-versa.
Orwell (a self-described "democratic Socialist") points out somewhere, I think in Politics and the English Language, that all countries call themselves "democratic" and none wants a firm definition in case they are themselves excluded. Si Trew (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Debatable. A large number of people, including plenty of communists and socialists, consider communism (at least as envisioned if not as implemented in nation-states so far) to be a subset of socialism.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While a "subtopic" argument can be debated, the article does not actually address anything that could specifically be called "communist democracy", so the redir is misleading and seems a little polemic. The topic is actually a valid one, to cover the approach to certain features and institutions of democracy in communist countries, as well as communist theory on democracy, the interplay of increasing democratization in surviving communist countries, and other relationships between communism and democracy. Having this be a redlink would encourage creation of the article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:18, 24 January 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.

Socialistic democracy[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 Socialist democracy. JohnCD (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think "democratic socialism" is different from "social democracy", even though they are similar. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:09, 22 January 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.

Middle-income country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The same user that created this redirect also created various redirects (e.g. Low-income country) that go to the same target. Low-income country = Middle-income country? It is too confusing. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and then some. This one doesn't even make sense apart from the redir contradiction since the developing world is not what anyone thinks of as "middle-incoming countries". Ireland and Greece are middle-income countries.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:29, 25 January 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.

שוורצנגר[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. -- Tavix (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. There is no special relation between Hebrew and Arnold Schwarzenegger. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no relation to htis language for this target -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:47, 22 January 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.

Basilan Island[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 Basilan. JohnCD (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First choice: an article about the island. Second choice: deletion of this obvious misinterpretation of a redirect. The island and the people are not nearly the same topic, there is some overlap but that's it. This also is true for the province Basilan. Interestingly, Talk:Basilan Island is also a redirect but with another target. And, of course, there are two Wikidata sets for island and province: Q810053 and Q13737 → «« Man77 »» 21:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've just realized something in the history. → «« Man77 »» 21:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Basilan the ec of the change above says why it was change to a redirect there originally (i.e. that the island and the administrative unit are coterminous). It doesn't look like much, if any, information was lost by doing that. Si Trew (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Basilan per above, of course someone can just overwrite the redirect with geological info about the island --Lenticel (talk) 00:38, 26 January 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_January_22&oldid=1077827216"