Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 27, 2016.

Mount Misery Road[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) 16:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to be a good redirect. There is no indication that someone searching for the road would necessarily be searching for one particular building on the road. Moreover, there is also a Mount Misery Road in New York as well as the one in New Jersey (where the Pinelands Center is located). ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a road is not a good redirect to a building on it. Wikipedia is not a map. Legacypac (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Gjs238 (talk) 12:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the above reasons. 8bitW (talk) 03:57, 1 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.

Cucumber salads[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. Article creation is encouraged. In the discussion below, everybody agrees that these redirects should not stay. With deletion being the majority opinion and alternative targets not agreed upon, deletion is taken as the best course of action. Deryck C. 23:38, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at target about salads. Retarget or delete to encourage article creation? Legacypac (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to salad. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 19:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to salad, or maybe even Israeli salad (the base of which is primarily made with cucumbers and tomatoes), but I'm sure there are other types of salads that consist almost entirely of cucumbers. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation (or to discourage it). Cucumber salad is a dish distinct from any of these topics with its own tradition and recipes, and more specific than our salad article. Importantly, the cucumber in such a salad is not pickled, although it may have a vinegar dressing. We needn't have redirects from every vegetable you might put in a salad to the generic article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Greek salad is largely cucumbers too. Never seen a salad with pickled cucumbers but anything is possible. Legacypac (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sure, I've seen it too. I once had a salad with bread-and-butter pickle that was amazing. But it wasn't cucumber salad. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget cucumber salads don't necessarily use pickled cucumbers -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The topic, as stated above, is a specific type of salad. The current redirect is pretty ill-suited, especially when many of these salads don't have pickled ingredients in them in the first place. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the singular to encourage creation. Weak retarget the plural to List of salads, which lists various salads that might be referred to by this name. My preference would be an article on the actual cucumber salad with the plural redirecting there, but absent that article, the plural still seems somewhat useful as a search term. --BDD (talk) 16:52, 3 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.

Nonvoted[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) 16:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This term has a much stronger meaning then the target. It refers to public expenditures that do not require a vote by legislators or the public (interest on national debt for example). Retarget ideas for this Neelix word play redirect? Legacypac (talk) 17:17, 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.

Non-vote[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) 16:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This term has a specific meaning and usage in US public company law, not the generic target it goes to now. It was created via Neelix word play and I doubt he considered the meaning. Retarget ideas since the current target is not very appropriate? Legacypac (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 19:10, 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.

Anglingly[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 by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very rare word, with no obvious connection to fishing as currently targeted, Legacypac (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Complete nonsense, probably invented by creator. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 16:56, 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.

Angled[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 by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angled has meanings in geometry and architecture and countless other areas. Redirect to fishing is not right. Legacypac (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 16:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we could retarget to angle (disambiguation) which lists several possible meanings, but I really don't think that redirecting terms like this really helps anything. Honestly I think someone typing "angled" in the search box would be better off with search results, rather than a list of topics which may or may not apply. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or retarget to angle (disambiguation). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. not worth the retarget. WP is not a dictionary. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I have deleted it. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 23:07, 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.

Wikimedia Tunisie/MedinaPedia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. I'll link to the original target in the deletion summary. Deryck C. 23:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A very unlikely search term in the mainspace, pollutes mainspace for very little actual profit. Note that the target isn't even in English, making the chance of it being looked for on enwiki even smaller. It is a smallish project with Tunisian editors and has no direct relation with enwiki. Fram (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Andy, if you have a link to that newsletter, that could help settle this. Or was it printed?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mainspace redirect to off-wiki content that is not end reader material. Further WP:SUBPAGE/WP:SLASH location for subpage on off-wiki WMF site should not use a slash -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:49, 28 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.

Adult Association[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 DGG. --BDD (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of Adult Associations in the world. This is confusing and misleading. Legacypac (talk) 08:37, 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.

Reductionality[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. JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These Neelix entries with suffixes are not explained at the target which is a big DAB. Therefore they are not going to help the reader find what they want (likely a dictionary definition). Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 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.

Disheartener[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. JohnCD (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of those theoretical words with very little real world use. Does not really match the target. Can't see a reason to keep this, it is just confusing Neelix word play with extra suffixes. Legacypac (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, delete Dishearten too. Look at this list for other poor matches. http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py?page=Depression_(mood) Legacypac (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow ... I can see there is lots of work to be done. I'd say 80-90% of those are a poor match for "depression." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the redirects were created by Neelix with no thought. Please someone work the linked list and Retarget or RfD them. Legacypac (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Travix added the rest of the similar list now. We can deal with them together. Legacypac (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Um, it's Tavix. But, anyway, none of those was marked as being at RfD. Naughty, naughty. Si Trew (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of these were created over a year after that move, so, presumably, they took their model from Discouragement rather than Discourage (which is not to say that would have been a great model either).
There was also a very brief skirmish over the target of Despair between User:Anthonyhcole (changed to target the DAB on 5 May 2013) and User:Bkonrad (changed it back on the 8th suggesting WP:RM). I'm not really sure why the DAB at Despair was moved out, though on 18 July 2013 User:Christian75 rcatted it as {{R with possibilities}}.
Slightly off-topic: Sometimes I wonder whether the bot "fixes" of double redirects is a good thing. After all, when an R is at RfD it fails to work silently as an R, I don't see why that should not be the case for a double R. As it happens it just leads to these kinds of games of Chinese whispers. Si Trew (talk) 03:57, 30 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.

Jamie Samson[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 Ultraexactzz. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the subject lived over 100 years ago, and that Jamie is a very informal (often female) name, it is very unlikely that someone would need this to find the subject. It is therefore a misleading redirect and harmful. Legacypac (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in the absence of anything else reasonable to put at (or redirect from) Jamie Samson. There's nothing misleading about it, because there's not another target to which a reader might expect to be sent to instead of this one. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On second look, I read that as James Samson - another Neelix redirect, but in this case a perfectly fine one. I've gone ahead and speedied the Jamie redirect, but strongly recommend that the James redirect be kept. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:32, 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.

Big-Hearted[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 per Neelix G6, no need to drag this out. BethNaught (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big-hearted is a very common term. A redirect to this book was a big surprise. Legacypac (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Nothing in particular seems to be known just by this term alone, ruling disambiguation out. Big Hearted Herbert also exists.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:50, 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.

Multi-Coloured[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) 15:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very misleading as there are many things that are multi-colored. Very surprising redirect. Legacypac (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for confirming that there are lots of multi-colored things. If someone wants to do a dab, have at it, but it seems like search results would do the same thing. Legacypac (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notecardforfree: Multicolor is a trade name, like Technicolor, and is never spelled that way, so we can't retarget to that or to anything specific on Wikipedia.
  • Technicolour often is 'misspelled that way, especially in the allusive phrase "in glorious technicolour". Si Trew (talk) 04:41, 28 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.

Rapere[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 by User:Anthony Bradbury per CSD WP:G6. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix creation. Not seeing this at target, but search says it is an ant-drone device. Legacypac (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Um, wut? Softlavender (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A distinct meaning in Latin, wikt:rapere, which is very weakly related at best to the subject it currently targets. This isn't the Latin Wikipedia, and rape has no special resonance with it (WP:RFOREIGN). Could retarget it to Rapier (disambiguation), but it's a bit far off for my taste (WP:RTYPO).—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. I was going to say what Godsy said. Latin equivalent to an antiquated usage of the word in English, referring to theft or seizure, but without any of the sexual connotation now associated with the word and in an entirely different context to what the target is about. This is a perfect example of why we shouldn't have foreign-translation redirects. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible, notwithstanding the Latin definition. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:07, 30 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.

All woes[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 by User:78.26 per CSD WP:G6. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this at target, but might have been a translated meaning, which we have been deleting. Legacypac (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "Allwoes" (no space); probably delete "all woes" (with space). "Allwoes" was Odysseus's subterfuge for identifying his father, Laertes, upon his return to Ithaca. Added at article with ref. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarity, Allwoes is not nominated and was created by another editor. Legacypac (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 24.151 and per Allwoes having not been nominated. With a space, this is an extremely vague search - readers should get search results for this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:12, 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.

Glassish[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 by User:Sphilbrick per CSD WP:G6. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My searching suggests this is a fake word, with no definition. Legacypac (talk) 03:40, 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.

Template:WikiProject SIA[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 resolved. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to use this template for WikiProject Sia, and I don't believe the redirect is being used on talk pages to direct readers to WikiProject Smithsonian Institution Archives. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list of what links here suggests otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:WikiProject_SIA&limit=500 Now IF you can remove all those links and repipe them to the full template name, maybe the title can be reused. Legacypac (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's because the search engine is generally caps-insensitive, even though pages aren't. It's usually not a big deal: if both pages exist, it'll take you to the version you searched for. As an example: search Sia and SIA and you'll get to different pages (although they went to the opposite pages I would've expected). -- Tavix (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the short term, keep and just use {{WikiProject Sia}} - wikilinks are case sensitive as Tavix pointed out (compare {{Esp}} and {{ESp}}). Longer-term, if you are dedicated to appropriating {{WikiProject SIA}}, ask for a bot to subst: all the transclusions of the redirect, then when that is done and there are no incoming links left, go ahead and use it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait, we repurposed those. Compare apple and APPLE then. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, I'll close this then. -- Tavix (talk) 23:46, 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.

Gottfried Friedrich[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 Heinrich Credner, delete the rest. JohnCD (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading and unnecessary Neelix nonsense playing with names. Legacypac (talk) 02:59, 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.

Dagnu[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) 08:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not the correct spelling. Legacypac (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Our own article on Dagon lists it as an alias - or at least, an alternate transliteration from the original Ugaritic. Until that's shown to be incorrect, I don't think you have a very good argument against this redirect. Keep. Rossami (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with the reasoning DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not only is being a misspelling no reason for deletion, a plausible misspelling is a sound ground for a redirect. In his case this word even appears in the article! Just Chilling (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rossami --Lenticel (talk) 01:24, 3 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.

Nourish[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. JohnCD (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there has to be better targets for these Neelix redirects. Nutrition is not the only meaning of Nourish. You can nourish with love. Maybe a stub should be created? Legacypac (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Nourish is just a dicdef word (and does NOT mean "nutrition"), and the last is just Neelix's evangelical spam. Softlavender (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the current target of Nourisher. Neutral on all else.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I can't think of better targets for them. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 17:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - Just get rid of them. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:57, 31 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.

Connubial[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) 11:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Word means" of or relating to marriage or the relationship of a married couple; conjugal. "their connubial bed"

But you will not figure that out at the target. Can we retarget ? Legacypac (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. too many possible meanings. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 30 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.

Afrikaans language bird redirects[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. Thanks, Tavix, for creating the batch-delete page. Before deleting, I'm removing the non-Afrikaans redirects (Oceanodroma leuchoroa, Colius indicus, Cisticola jundicis, Cisticola aridula, Ceryle maxima, Cercomela shkegelii, Catharacta longicaudus, and Calandrella sclateri). They may be renominated if desired. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination contains 720 687 redirects. For page-loading considerations, the list of redirects can be found at the talk page for January 27's log.

This is essentially a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 19#Byvreter and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 6#Meeu, two discussions that were recently closed as "delete." While doing a check of the author's contributions, I found 720 687 similar redirects that were created in September 2012. They fail WP:RFOREIGN as foreign language redirects to a common topic with little affinity for Afrikaans. The ones I spot-checked, a sample of 50 (I'm not wasting any more time on this), showed zero birds that are endemic to (meaning "unique to" not "native to") South Africa and I didn't see a single instance of the bird's Afrikaans name being mentioned in the article. I'd estimate a good half of the birds I checked don't even have a native range in South Africa, which is even more puzzling for me. -- Tavix (talk) 02:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plus any that I missed from those two groups. Not all are exact Latin matches and most of the English alternates are plausibly modified, but some may be worth discussing separately, however they are not Afrikaans and shouldn't be batch-deleted for the rationale provided because they don't match. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like none of the Latin names are exact, but you're right that they're a separate issue. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had only meant to nominate the Afrikaans-language redirects, but it looks like that hadn't happened. That wasn't something I was checking for when I went through the list. Give me a few hours and I'll make sure all those are removed from both lists. I'll ping you when it's completed. -- Tavix (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BDD, you're right I think, none of the Latin redirects are exact, but for example Colomba -> Columba is a pretty easy mistake. I think it would be worthwhile to renominate all of those separately and ask for input from WP:BIRD or the like. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to nominate those separately as I never meant to nominate them in the first place. I didn't see any particularly implausible, but if you think differently, go for it. -- Tavix (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...and two more with a triple check: Euplectes hordaceus and Anthroscopus caroli. -- Tavix (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There's a few other Latins in the list: Buteo tachardus, Euryptila suncinnamomea, Eupodotis cafra, Estrilda erythonotos, Cryptolybia woodwardi, Cisticola jundicis, Cercomela shkegelii, Catharacta pomarinus, Catharacta parasiticus, Catharacta longicaudus, Camaroptera stierlingi, Calandrella fringillaris, Calandrella conirostris, Calandranella cinerea, Apus bradfeldi. Just being thorough :) Most of the ones in this list are so far off as to appear implausible, but I wonder if they are archaic names for the species they link to. I'd like to see them nom'd as a separate group. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw your comment above about not renominating. I'll make a separate list and then inquire at WP:BIRD for input, and consider whether any need to be brought back here. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, I see what's going on now. I assumed those were Afrikaans since they didn't match up with the Latin name in the article. That's a terrible assumption to make because of junior synonyms and the like. They are being removed now, thanks for the follow-up. -- Tavix (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. -- Tavix (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate Latin names are taxonomic junior synonyms and new combinations and should not be deleted, and have never been deleted in the past. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of the ones that are left; birds (and in particular these birds) have no affinity for Afrikaans. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:02, 1 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.

Template talk:Further/sandbox[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 3#Template talk:Further/sandbox

Marcs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 3#Marcs

1.01[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, G1, by RHaworth (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found this while working on improving Casio-related articles. No indication why this should be a redirect. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 00:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as looks like nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the number 1.01 satisfies the notability requirements listed at WP:WINI, then we may want to create a redlink to encourage article creation. In any event, the current target is not appropriate. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No special relation to the subject to be found offhand (it isn't mentioned at the target), and many things have a version 1.01 etc.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -©2016 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 17:09, 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.

Reaches[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) 16:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on the DAB could or should be referred to as Reaches. While plurals are pretty common redirects to singular, in this case it seems inappropriate. Ideas for retargeting? Legacypac (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a valid encyclopedic "term" that has anything to do with anything on Wikipedia. Softlavender (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Reaches" is the plural of Reach (geography) (which is listed at the DAB page), and it is also a grammatical variant of other words listed at the DAB page. Therefore, pursuant to WP:RPURPOSE, this should be kept as a plural or closely related word. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Reach (geography) (but not most of the others) so it could be retargeted there. Legacypac (talk) 02:50, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_27&oldid=1037883218"