Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 2, 2016.

Misconstruers[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) 15:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misconstrue is not the same word as misunderstand, so its current target of a redirect page is not appropriate. Understand is a possibility. However, I have only seen this word in a legal context (a law warning people to correctly understand its intent), so is there so law related target for this? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all, tentatively. This sounds like one of those vague topics that might warrant difficult to write but curious to read articles of their own, but there doesn't seem to be anything at the moment. I can't think of anything specific enough to redirect to. The current target Misunderstand is a somewhat pointless dab page containing only a dictionary definition and two links to other dabs (Misunderstanding and Misunderstood). It is also probably one of those vague topics that could do with an article of their own, but if this is going to happen, I'm sure it will be a different one than the one for Misconstrue. Uanfala (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect useful ones to wiktionary, delete the rest Not the same thing. Soft redirects to Wiktionary would be what anyone searching this would be looking for.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Misconstrued" gets 84 hits over the last 90 days, "Misconstrue" gets 63, and "Misconstruing" gets 11. The others get 1 or 2. So "misconstrued", "misconstrue", and "misconstruing" could use soft redirects to Wiktionary, the rest can probably go. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:00, 3 June 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.

Best games[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note. By request of an editor who did not participate in this discussion, List of games considered the best was recreated and nominated for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 9#List of games considered the best. Steel1943 (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word "game" is ambiguous and, in this case, could refer to board games or sports. Steel1943 (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since "game" can be a bit vague. --Lenticel (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. shoy (reactions) 14:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with nom reasoning. There are lots of other types of games that could be considered "best" than video games. 14:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlendog (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Used in sports a lot. Best video game already covers the video game searches. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - stating they're the considered the best, is different from stating they're the best in a factual manner.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 02:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List Of Worldwide Million Selling Video Game Software (Shipments)[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure in the least how this is a likely search term for anything. Steel1943 (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an unlikely search term. Did this start out as a separate article that got converted to a redirect? shoy (reactions) 14:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Implausible search term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of best-selling video[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Video" is ambiguous. Delete. Steel1943 (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as ambiguous. shoy (reactions) 13:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Videos sound like VHS tapes, of which some countries and organizations have such lists. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 00:55, 4 June 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.

Biggest video games of all time[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how a "big video game" is defined, but it's probably not synonymous with "best-selling". Steel1943 (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest in this case sounds like bestselling to me. But I suppose it could mean largest file size also. 39 people have seen that page since its creation 8 years ago this month. So not many searching for it. Dream Focus 02:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This could mean by size or by number of users as with today's apps. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 05:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of most profitable video games ever[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 without prejudice against article creation. Deryck C. 21:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a product has a high amount in sales doesn't mean automatically that it has a high profit margin. Since no production budget figures are present in the target article, the information/subject of this redirect is technically nowhere in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Profitable in this instance means gross profit not net profit. There is no other list article to redirect it to. That list would help you find the information you seek. Just something I searched for once and found no results, so just made a redirect to that list. Page views from the time the article was created until now is 196. So others are searching for that also at times. Dream Focus 23:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a good reason to create an article at this title, rather than redirect readers to a page where they might not be finding the exact information they are looking for. The differences in the use of "profit" in this case may not be clear to readers. Steel1943 (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is the information out there about how profitable video games are? It seems like it would be more difficult to find than it would be for, say, Hollywood movies. shoy (reactions) 14:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder that myself. When I first noticed this redirect, I also made the comparison to how information regarding film budgets is rather easy to find. But, either way, I am not sure where this information would be. Steel1943 (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not measurable as with films. Highest grossing ones, maybe. Business Insider posted an article but it refers to Wikias for its data. [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this information isn't at the target. The closest thing presented is number of games sold, but since different games have different price points, there isn't a correlation between the two. -- Tavix (talk) 03:35, 10 June 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.

Biggest games ever[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous and erroneous. Delete. Steel1943 (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as ambiguous. shoy (reactions) 13:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - to ambiguous to be worth keeping. Could be best selling video game or that with the largest file size. But also could be the sporting event that had the biggest audience, or the best selling board game, or a board game that is physically large, etc. Rlendog (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Must be superlative day or a Comic Book Guy article maker. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Vague, as many different aspects of games could be described with "biggest".—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:17, 5 June 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.

Best selling games[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects seem ambiguous since in this context, "games" is ambiguous. For one, it could refer to board games. Steel1943 (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The articles could all link to a disambigous page that then links to the various list articles for bestselling games of each type, but there is currently no list of any type of games other than video games that list the sales figures. No bestselling list for card games, board games, or role playing games. Anyway, I say keep it, because those searching for this are probably thinking about video games, and this will help them find what they are looking for. Dream Focus 02:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a fairly good example of redirect spammimg, first of all. These don't assist the search function. Second of all, setting RECENTISM aside, it is ambiguous. None of the best-selling games prior to the 1980s were video games, but they'd certainly fit this redirect pattern. MSJapan (talk) 03:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. shoy (reactions) 13:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all vague, again. Could be board games, could be video games, could be sports games. And no searches that are styled in the Comic Book Guy expressions, as they would get confused with his article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:27, 8 June 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.

Best Place to Work[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these four redirects, List of buzzwords has no other incoming redirects, and for probably good reason. It seems misleading to readers to be redirected to a list section that doesn't identify the term which they searched. Otherwise, I cannot foresee a retargeting option for these redirects (unless they are an official name of a notable award or something related) since their titles are WP:NPOV violations. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it's not a buzzword, but a generic phrase, qualifiable in many different ways. MSJapan (talk) 03:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It might not be a buzzword, but it certainly qualifies as one of the outstandingly stultifying catchphrases of our time, devoid of any substantial meaning, but ideologically charged to the brim. I have a silent hope that at one time or other we'll actually be able to write an article about the sociopolitical aspects of selfmarketing bullshit. -- Kku 08:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete as a WP:SURPRISE not at the target. shoy (reactions) 13:56, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it used to be a particular list like the U.S. News & World Report is for best colleges, but now all sorts of media companies are making such lists so there is no clear redirect target for this anymore. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm in agreement. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:44, 6 June 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.

Best agers[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Best agers" is not mentioned anywhere in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 2 June 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.

Best kiss[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. 21:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be redirected to MTV Movie Award for Best Kiss, or should this be deleted since it could be seen as ambiguous and other similar redirects related to individual MTV Movie Awards do not exist such as Best Kiss, Best Fight and Best fight? (I support deletion over retargeting.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirecting to MTV Movie Award for Best Kiss is probably okay; there don't appear to be any other notable awards for best kiss. That said, I find it highly unlikely that anyone looking for that award would simply use "Best kiss" as a search term; "MTV best kiss" or "Best kiss award" maybe, but simply "Best kiss"? I'd delete. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unlikely search term. shoy (reactions) 14:06, 3 June 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.

Best management practice[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 both. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something seems off about these redirects. By looking at their target article, my original thought is that the redirects should be deleted per WP:REDLINK since they seem like an encyclopedic subject of some sort. Either way, the target article doesn't seem exclusive to management practices, so the redirects could be seen as misleading. Steel1943 (talk) 22:25, 2 June 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.

Fastest 4G[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear what this redirect is supposed to refer to, especially considering that the section referenced in the redirect does not exist in the target article (anymore). Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 2 June 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.

Fastest orbit[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 11#Fastest orbit

Fastest serve[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 withdrawn due to WP:SNOW. Steel1943 (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Serve (a disambiguation page), "serve" can refer to at least Serve (tennis) or Serve (volleyball) in sports. Delete since it is unclear what "serve" refers to in the nominated redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 22:04, 2 June 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.

Slowest organisms[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 12#Slowest organisms

Greatest hits of the 00's[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 03:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides "00s" being ambiguous, the target of the redirect isn't specifically for "hits", and there are no other existing redirects that use the "Greatest hits of the Y0's" format. Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 2 June 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.

Greatest movie villains[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 11#Greatest movie villains

Greatest earthquake[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 Lists of earthquakes. Deryck C. 21:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the redirect doesn't seem to be an official alternative name for the target, the redirect seems to fail WP:NPOV. Steel1943 (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Even if not the "official" name, as the most powerful earthquake recorded this is the most likely article someone would be looking for when typing :greates earthquake." Rlendog (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's subjective though. It could be the greatest death toll, greatest cost, greatest intensity, greatest area felt (which I believe would go to the New Madrid earthquake), etc. That can be rectified by retargeting to Lists of earthquakes, but I don't think it'd be worth it. -- Tavix (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Lists of earthquakes where there are lists for earthquakes that had the greatest magnitude, did the most monetary damage, and cost the most lives. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Lists of earthquakes per Patar knight. The term itself may be used in different contexts and the list can help our readers with that. Besides, the Valdivia quake is prominently linked there. --Lenticel (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to make my comment from above official. Yes, Lists of earthquakes is better than the current target, but I don't think it's good enough. -- Tavix (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Lists of earthquakes. Someone typing in that search term would then be able to choose what they mean by greatest. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Lists of earthquakes - while I completely agree with Tavix, I think that it's harmless if it takes users to a page where they have the option to choose their own "greatest" criteria. It is without a doubt highly subjective; if you ask me, the greatest earthquake is this one. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: For the record, I'm okay with "Retarget to Lists of earthquakes". Steel1943 (talk) 03:50, 9 June 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.

Greatest cricket match[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect doesn't seem to be an official alternative name for the target. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has a reception section where media folks called it the greatest cricket match. But is that enough to say it is? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would say that there is no general agreement this is in any way the "greatest" cricket match ever played - and there is no obviously accepted match that is known as that. Yes, some media, most of it geographically concentrated, called it that. Once. I doubt we'd find any consensus in cricketing circles as to which match is the greatest - and for that reason I'd probably get rid of the redirect. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:22, 9 June 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.

Greatest games of all time[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Game" doesn't always mean "video game", even is "game" is plural. Due to this, this redirect has a WP:XY issue since it could refer to sports. Steel1943 (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As discussed in the nom, "greatest games of all time" could refer to the greatest football games ever played or the greatest board games. No reason to direct it to a video game article, and too ambiguous to be a sensible dab page. Rlendog (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ambiguous. shoy (reactions) 14:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:16, 4 June 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 smallest positive integer that does not have an entry on Wikipedia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 11#The smallest positive integer that does not have an entry on Wikipedia

The largest cities of Thailand[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) 15:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other "The largest cities of ..." titles in existence (as proven at Special:PrefixIndex/The largest cities), so I'm not sure why this redirect should exist. Also, when referring to cities, referring to size without being more specific automatically has an WP:XY issue since it is unclear if "size" refers to population size or size of the cities' area. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 2 June 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 fastest street legal car in the world[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem like an official title for this subject. Apparently, this vehicle is currently the "fastest street-legal car" per the Guinness Book of World Records, but the redirect is not an official title. (This redirect seems akin to the World's Largest Apple-like redirects that were deleted a couple of years back.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, especially when fastest car would cover this case and show up in a search. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:13, 4 June 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.

Redirects to Enrico Caruso compact disc discography[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, with no prejudice against recreation when the albums are listed somewhere. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are several titles of albums that are not mentioned in the target article Enrico Caruso compact disc discography. Some of their omissions may be related to this edit. Steel1943 (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Markhh since I referenced their edit. Steel1943 (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix article and retarget. From the edit history, it looks like these are all legitimate album titles, including "The Greatest Tenor in the World". Many have been removed from the target article, which is not very helpful. I think part of the problem is that "compact disc" is in the article title, but it would be useful to have an article which includes both LPs and CDs. I note there is also Enrico Caruso original recordings discography, which I think Enrico Caruso compact disc discography should probably merge into. Normally I would expect the title to be Enrico Caruso discography; not sure why "original recordings" is in there, unless it's to distinguish from "best of" compilations. -- Beland (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, reorganize, and retitle Agree with Beland. Suggest all of the minimally useful redirects above be deleted. Also I hope someone will endeavor to completely overhaul the current page and make a proper discography, entitled Enrico Caruso discography. It's Something many WP readers would find very helpful. Big job though. Tthe current page was no doubt well-intentioned but is basically a mess. Full of duplications and based on random LP and CD compilations, most of which are no longer in print. Cheers, Markhh (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with the above comments. The page should be renamed Enrico Caruso discography and be reformatted to be a proper discography instead of a directory of his CD releases (what?). Ironically, it looked like I tried to do just that back in 2008(!) but it didn't stick. I haven't done enough research to comment on the individual redirects and whether some of these releases should or shouldn't be included. If they're not there now, I don't see any harm in deleting and any that gets re-added in the future can and should be recreated. -- Tavix (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TNT this discography. Add only redirect entries for albums that have charted. Hide detailed track listings. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there even a precedent to do a compact disc discography on any artists that were pre-compact disc, especially with classical music. How many variants of Beethoven's symphony CDs are there that we need a list? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:34, 8 June 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 greatest game of all[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Per the target article, this term is only mentioned as the title of a reference used in the article; the phrase itself is not used in the article. Unless this is an official widely-used alternative name for the target article's subject (proof of this does not currently exist in the article), the redirect is a WP:NPOV violation. Steel1943 (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a good target for this phrase. -- Beland (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This comment was made prior to The Greatest Game of All being merged into this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: Wow, I totally overlooked that. And the discussion happened less than a month ago. Well, might as well list it here to see if WP:CCC happens since I can't WP:WITHDRAW this since there's a "delete" vote present. (If I knew of the other discussion's existence and it happening less than a month ago, I may have never made this nomination.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging all participants in the previous discussion, considering that I did not see the previous discussion for the CAPS-version of the redirect I nominated: Safiel, Prinsgezinde, LunarLander, Gibson Flying V (the redirects' creator), Doctorhawkes, Notecardforfree and Rubbish computer. Steel1943 (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as before. What happened to that discussion? I saw the point made, but over half the sources given simply use "greatest game" or otherwise don't capitalize it. Fans of the sport may occasionally use it but not only is it then still not very widespread, it's also something that's nearly unverifiable since for example googling "greatest game of all" returns a Youtube video about rugby, a book, and apart from that only articles about video games. I'm no longer as strong about the delete, but unless it really catches on I remain skeptical. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As nominator of the first discussion, I still consider it purely a matter of opinion and thus a useless redirect. Safiel (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously. As per last time.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the references provided in the previous discussion show that this is a term used by reliable sources to refer to Rugby League. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I suspect people worry that this phrase isn't accurate, that there are other "greater" games. It's a widely used phrase that refers to rugby league (like other sports are "the game played in heaven" or "America's game"). References are plentiful. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:21, 4 June 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 greatest american superhero[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 10#The greatest american superhero

The greatest ambush in history[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect seems to not be an official name for the redirect's target, so it seems to be a WP:NPOV violation. Steel1943 (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a good target for this phrase. -- Beland (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lake Trasimene is allegedly the largest ambush in history, but that isn't the same thing. Our article does call it the greatest ambush in history in wikipedia's voice (in the section headed Aftermath), but that's hardly NPOV (and indeed, I have tagged that statement and started a discussion on the talk page questioning it). It's not even the only famous ambush from ancient Roman military history (Battle of the Teutoburg Forest), or even from the second Punic war (Battle of the Trebia). I don't see this redirect aiding navigation in any way. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:08, 3 June 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 most Baptist state in the world[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 10#The most Baptist state in the world

The most valuable stamp[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) 15:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the target article, this redirect seems to be a partial title of references/books (used in the target article) with titles that match this redirect, but may not be an official name for the target of the redirect. If it's not an official name for the target, the redirect has a WP:NPOV issue. Steel1943 (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or retarget with list upgrade. It seems like a legitimate thing to ask Wikipedia, "What is the most valuable stamp in the world?" If the Treskilling Yellow currently is that, this seems like a legitimate redirect. Though that ranking probably changes from year to year, so it might be better to redirect to List of postage stamps and add last-sold or estimated-value prices to that list (which is interesting to have whether or not there's a redirect). -- Beland (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 100% correct ... all Wikipedia entries need to be upgraded as new information arises and this is no exception. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the redirect is going to be kept, it might need to be retargetted to British Guiana 1c magenta, which was sold in 2014 for $9.48m, according to its article, more than the last known sale price for the Treskilling yellow. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm kind of surprised that list of most valuable postage stamps is red, to be honest. shoy (reactions) 14:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add redirect hatnote to direct the reader to other historically valuable stamps AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:59, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Caeciliusinhorto's research: this is ambiguous. The stamp that sold for the highest price is the British Guiana 1c magenta, but that still might not be the most valuable stamp because we don't know how much the Treskilling yellow sold for in 2013. -- Tavix (talk) 02:27, 10 June 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.

Teachingly[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. 21:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix) While it has been used as a word, that's not the standard that we use to judge these redirects, per WP:NOTDIC. We keep common word forms to aid searches and linking, and this is not one of them. -- Tavix (talk) 16:44, 2 June 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 most expensive real estate by city[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, G7. -- Tavix (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject referenced in this redirect doesn't seem to be in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I created this redirect, though I'm not sure why. You're right, Wikipedia doesn't seem to have this information at all. I added Cities by cost of real estate to Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Business_and_economics#Economics; I think we can do without this redirect for now. Thanks for helping tidy up! -- Beland (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Beland. I'll go ahead and {{Db-g7}} tag this redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Weirdly enough, it's not the first time this title has been deleted. -- Tavix (talk) 20:41, 2 June 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 most remarkable formula in the world[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact hat this doesn't seem to be an officially used name for the redirect's target's subject, this redirect seems to have ambiguity since "formula" refers to more than just mathematical subjects, and has a WP:NPOV issue especially since it declares its subject "The most remarkable formula in the world". Steel1943 (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator note: The most remarkable formula in mathematics also targets the nominated redirect's target, but I did not include that one since that term without "the" has been used to identify the redirect's target in the past per the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a good target for this title. -- Beland (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This expression was made famous by Richard Feynman and is still used extensively in popular accounts of mathematics. It is a notable, if not official, reference to Euler's formula. As it is a quote, I don't think the WP:NPOV issue is very relevant and I do not see the ambiguity issue as holding much water either. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that I was mistaken in assuming that it was a quote and therefore withdraw my comments. A delete would seem appropriate in these circumstances.Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the sources and as I sort of alluded above, Richard Feynman's phrase to describe the redirect's target is "most remarkable formula in mathematics", not "the world". These are two distinct phrases. Unless the term as stated in the nominated redirect is a known term word by word, it is inaccurate. Steel1943 (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete someone typing in that phrase will see Feynman's phrase in the search and would assume two different locations if the incorrect phrase stays. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:57, 4 June 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 most dangerous man in the world[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per the target article: "...That month, Intelligence Research Specialist Kevin Yorke of the New York Police Department's Counterterrorism Division called him "the most dangerous man in the world"..." Is this enough to keep this WP:NPOV redirect in place? (I don't think it is.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:34, 2 June 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 most expansive[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:40, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect seems misleading since "expansive" is a word that is not synonymous with "expensive" while also having an issue of being uncontrollably ambiguous since it leaves the reader to wonder "The most expansive what?" Steel1943 (talk) 16:28, 2 June 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 most annoying thing in the world[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The target article's subject seems to be alternatively known as "The Annoying Thing", but not as the redirect. For this reason, this redirect should probably be deleted as a WP:NPOV violation. Steel1943 (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator note: I just found this YouTube video where the video's title is this redirect, but the video seems to have been uploaded by an unnotable video uploader who created a title for this video based on their personal opinion rather than anything else. Steel1943 (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a good target for this title. -- Beland (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No consensus among reliable sources that this phrase refers to any one particular thing. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia Yearbook superlative. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely synonym --Lenticel (talk) 01:00, 4 June 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.

Klimax[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. There is some appetite to delete and there isn't consensus on how to retarget or disambiguate this. Deryck C. 21:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zcchhh this is a bit tricky. Of course from the Greek it would be with K but not in English (neelix redirect). I don't Think we can do it this way. There are others more absurd that I have taken straight to CSD: Si Trew (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; I think this is one of those misspellings where a valid case could be made for there being readers who have heard the term but not knowing the spelling. The only obvious ambiguity is that a Klimax is a particular type of ultra-high-end specialist network music player, but retargeting it to Linn Products would just be confusing. ‑ Iridescent 13:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Linn Products as {{R from product}}, it is discussed there. There are a number of possible section targets but I think going to the top is better, since discussion is spread out. I don't really like the idea of preferring a misspelling over a full-match brand name target, but if we really think that it's a plausible typo (I don't, FTR) then we could add a hatnote. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tricky one. I have never heard of them up in Glasgow but then my stuff is really cheap even so if you get a thirty year old stereo it sounds better than the modern tvs that sound like a bluebottle in a bean tin. Whack an old second hand thirty year old hifi on the back for about twenty five quid out of your favourite thrift store and you have Richer Sounds, (who I've noticed rather than doing small ads have started advertising on british telly so probably not worth using them any more). I have never been one much for acoustics cos all my classical music is from going to the BBC Proms and the acoustics in the Royal Albert Hall are dreadful. It has always been my dream though to earn enough to buy a ticket off of someone because it was built by subscription and every now and again they come up for sale for not too much money less than a large one and you can have a seat for life. You can sit in there when it's empty if you want and eat your sarnies. Right actually that is my target for this year is to earn enough to buy a permanent ticket in the three and nines for the Royal Albert Hall. At least I could say I had done something with my life then and I can give it to my niece when I die and she can go there. There is nothing better than going to the Proms and having kinda choose an unpopular concert I heard Mendelsohhn's violin concerto played by the Birmingham Symphony Orchestra and practically had the place to myself. For two quid that is about five Canadian dollars! It was beautiful conducted by Sir Simon Rattle I think. All that for two quid! I can't get a pack of fags for two quid! I only have to raise about a grand it is not much I can do that easy. Si Trew (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew, modern TVs sound like a bluebottle in a bean tin intentionally. The TV market is so competitive that except at the extreme high end, the cost of your TV barely covers manufacturing and shipping; they make their money by selling you a soundbar to make the sound listenable at an extortionate markup. You see the same issue with other technologies; Apple makes considerably more from phone accessories and applications than they do from selling phones, for instance, while you'll spend considerably more on printer ink than you will on an actual printer. ‑ Iridescent 17:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't think it is as cynical as that User:Iridescent. The thing is that because they want to make them flat they can't put the echo or whatever you call it behind the speaker. You are never going to get any half decent sound out of a tinny quarter inch speaker. Sod their soundbars go and find a second hand thirty year old stereo do the plumbing and it works a treat. The leads are usually about two quid three bucks (don't need to buy the gold plated ones). Si Trew (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was just a word to the wise. My desk here i have an old Phillips thirty year old stereo that gives me Richer Sounds than out of the telly and in the living room I have another, both cost me about twenty quid from a second hand shop. I don't even know if the CD thingy on it works I just use em essentially as an amplifier. Works a treat. On my desk here I have the speakers on each side about six ashtrays and a stackload of books because I am very disorganised in one way, very organised in another, I have the Art of Computer Programming (in first edition, thank you) behind me, the Mythical Man-Month and various other technical bits, I have a bookshelf as a ready reference I am surprised we don't have that with about a thousand books on it because I chucked quite a few. I have set up my little study to be, well, a little study, and sometimes I do know what I am talking about. I can probably fetch something from my bookshelf quicker than you can find it on the Interweb. I have the best French, German, Hungarian and English dictionaries and little pocket ones for Spanish and Latin. I have I see two copies of Fowler's Modern English Usage. I also have Usage and Abusage don't like that much, seven volumes of the Magyar Lexicon and of course Arthur Mee's Children's Encylopaedia which is the fountain of all knowledge. I also picked up another children's encylopaedia the other day but that is not so good. I do know what I am talking about sometimes I just pretend I don't. Not on this one particularly but going through these Neelix redirects I am being patronised day in day out. There's a book by S. J. Perelman Vinegar Puss oh here is Chamber's Biographical Dictionary oh and The French Lieutenant's Woman, usually picked up for a song and usually in first edition. Next to that is a Haynes Manual for a Ford Mondeo, my bookshelf is not kinda arranged in a Dewey Decimal order it is arranged in Simon order. I do know what I am talking about sometimes. Si Trew (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This would work. They can also be dabbed. There is also a Klimax band but no idea how notable they are. If there are multiples later on, then put them in Climax (disambiguation) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few spelling variants to Climax (disambiguation). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting to aid searches (per Godsy) sounds like a good idea but I'm a bit surprised I don't see a "Did you mean Climax" link when I search. Uanfala (talk) 14:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate or retarget to Climax (disambiguation). From the above discussion, it sounds like there's enough here to disambiguate. I'm fine with creating a stand-alone dab or adding the spelling variant to the Climax dab page. Uanfala highlights a common pitfall of deleting to aid searching, and I think this is a situation where we can avoid that. -- Tavix (talk) 19:45, 3 June 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.

12 planets[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 disambiguation page Twelfth planet (disambiguation). The rough consensus is that while "12" ≠ "12th", a reader searching for "12 planets" is likely to find what they want from a disambiguation page about the "12th planet". Deryck C. 21:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This really should have been deleted instead of redirected. The first draft proposal of IAU's definition of planet would have led to twelve planets plus a further twelve candidates, which is probably why this was retargeted there. I don't think it's worth keeping, but if you want an alternative to deletion, 12th planet redirects to Zecharia Sitchin (but that's too far off for my tastes...) -- Tavix (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to oppose your opposition since the past convention to regard asteroids as being planets is a far more obscure practice in the mid-1800s without a particular resonance, I think, for today. I'm sure that there have been multiple times in history when some given individual claimed to think that there were 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, etc planets without it being a consensus view, or even a majority view slash notable minority view. The IAU's activities seem far more well-known and significant scientifically. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Twelve (12) planets ≠ Twelfth planet. Therefore retargeting to Twelfth planet (disambiguation) does not make any sense. Davidbuddy9 Talk  00:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Twelve (12) planets ≠ Twelfth planet. Therefore retargeting to Twelfth planet (disambiguation) does not make any sense. Davidbuddy9 Talk  00:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. The fact that we're debating which is the dominant usage means that a disambiguation page is necessary for readers. Modest Genius talk 12:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But none of these topics would be referred to as "12 planets", would they? --BDD (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. Twelfth planet (disambiguation) should link to any system in which there are twelve or more planets, and even though it's a different inflection, it's clearly the information that's being sought so I think we should redirect there. No point in having multiple disambiguation pages for 12-planet systems. I just added a link to IAU definition of planet#First draft proposal so hopefully it's now comprehensive. -- Beland (talk) 21:31, 2 June 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.

Albert Haddock[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 Uncommon Law. Since a second relist attracted no further comments, I'm enacting the outcome which is supported by a, erm, 2:1 majority. Deryck C. 21:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to redirect this to Misleading Cases or some such I don't think it should go to APH. Si Trew (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I created this redirect. Albert Haddock was the protagonist in many of Sir Alan Herbert's Misleading Cases but this is not the right place to whack this to the author. If we retain we can do better by whacking to the section 9 "Misleading cases" (with the quotes). Haddock was a famous protagonist of litigation who among other things took a cow down Fleet Street (can a cow be a cheque?) with a fourpenny stamp attached to its dexter horn. That was a negotiable cow as it wasn't crossed. It has actually kinda escaped from humour and been used in legal cases as a legal precedent wrongly. Si Trew (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Uncommon Law. That's probably the best and links all round the others. Si Trew (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to A. P. Herbert#"Misleading cases", where the reader can find out that Haddock is Herber's pseudonym and can click through to Uncommon Law or the Board of Inland Revenue case. Retargeting to one of those two individual cases is suboptimal because it doesn't inform the readers about Haddock as a pseudonym, and in the case of the former, does not mention the latter case which the A.P. Herbert article says is the most famous Haddock story. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:36, 2 June 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.

Notepad software[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 Notepad (disambiguation). --BDD (talk) 15:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Codename Lisa: added Notepad program to the nomination.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page is created only to claim that text editors are called "notepad software". But this claim fails verification by a source. I tried Google. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have WP:PTM problem: Entries ("Notepad+", "Notepad++", "Notepad2" and "Notepad software") don't qualify for disambiguation of "Notepad". Also, per MOS:DAB, "text editor" can only appear if its lead section definite "Notepad" as an alternative title. That page is up for deletion. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I've expressed my opinion at the deletion discussion for that page.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 19:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Personal Computing Magazine, Volume 10, 1986, p. 134 [4]
"Notepad" can be a misleading term, since some notepads can write only short notes, while others function more like word processors ... Companies will shun the term "notepad" in favor of "text editor" if their product provides many word processing functions and commands.
Seems sorta like an {{r from slang}} or something, which may be why the target doesn't mention it. Google does find a few possibly-reliable sources (e.g. [5]) which use the terms "notepad software" and "text editor" rather interchangeably. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Godsy. The disambiguation page already has as list of such software as well as redirects to text editor. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. "Notepad software", "notepad programs" or just "Notepad" is a reasonably common term for this kind of program. The solution here is to update the text editor article with this information, not to delete reasonable redirects.[6][7][8][9][10][11]--Cúchullain t/c 03:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Cúchullain t/c 03:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Notepad (disambiguation), I've never heard of this kind of a generic term. I did a Google Books search for it, and it seemed to be immediately clear from the snippets that 10 out of the first 10 results were referring to the Microsoft Windows program, not a class of programs. I've had a look at all the links Cúchullain provided:
  • The first book refers to "Home Pc" and "Linux Machine", and while it does use the phrase once, it happens to also use the phrase "text editor" in the same paragraph, too. This is a really bad example of a source reliable enough to be used in an encyclopedia.
  • The second book is better, but it also uses the phrase "user-definable database" in the same paragraph - apparently there's a propensity for such word formations there, so the source should be taken with a grain of salt.
  • The third book is a false positive - it talks about MS Notepad, not a class of programs. It clearly calls the class text editors, as is customary.
  • The fourth book is a false positive - it talks of something called "Finale Notepad" software.
  • The fifth book is relevant, it actually uses the phrases "notepad utility" and "notepad programs", based on the talk of the programs called NPAD and PAD. So there's one proper source, but it's from 1987. Surely a computing term would have become more popular than this 30 years later.
  • The sixth book is borderline - it actually says "even simple applications such as calculator and notepad programs are now bundled in Windows". It's possible that the author simply failed to capitalize the names of the two Windows programs he's specifically referred to.
So if that's actually a representative sample of sources for this argument, then I'd say that these redirects don't describe reality and should be deleted. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:34, 2 June 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.

Universal Publishing and Distribution Corporation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a corporation. It was a company. This is simply wrong (declined at CSD) Si Trew (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The nomination sounds logical. Page view stats are lacking too. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The target article has "Universal Publishing and Distribution Corporation" as its one-time owner. As it seems like this is the only context in which the redirect seems notable, a redirect to the target makes sense. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:32, 2 June 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.

Mayu Tomita[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) 15:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect target - character's name is "Tobita", not "Tomita". Tomita is written with different characters in Japanese. MSJapan (talk) 04:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what would be the correct target? Just WP:BOLDly retarget it. (I vaguely know katakana and Hiragana so I can follow you if you do those but can't type them here). Hajimemashite Si Trew (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MSJapan, you can create the new article if you think she is notable for Wikipedia but check WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. You're probably referring to 1) a not-so-notable Japanese idol who was attacked recently (the event made international news) 2) an AKB48 member with the same name (who is not notable). 3) The Mayu in Kodocha is a minor/guest character and yes, her name is probably spelled with Tobita, however there may be English versions that go by that spelling off of Tomita instead of Tobita. This will need to be confirmed on Kodocha: Sana's Stage Engilsh manga and the Kodocha English Funimation dub. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, none of those individuals you mentioned is notable enough for an article per the policies you stated, so there's really no appropriate target. I looked for the spelling by searching for the surname in Japanese, and it is definitely Tobita. A cast list here for Kodocha also lists "Tobita" as the surname, so AFAICT, it's simply misspelled here. MSJapan (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:10, 2 June 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.

Laxatively[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, umm, what exactly does laxative mean when used as an adverb? I'll try to use it in a sentence:
"The firefighter laxatively rescued the child from the well."
"After receiving labor induction medications, the child was born quite laxatively."
" The landlord evicted her tenants laxatively after learning that they were drug dealers."
Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can only think of it being used as a euphemism, such as to describe the way in which some people drive. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletively - nonsense word. shoy (reactions) 17:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletively per abovely --Lenticel (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is used by academic works to refer to laxatives or laxative-like effects (see: [12], [13], First paragraph under introduction). Can't seem the harm of the redirect. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not used in news articles. Yes, the two science articles posted use "laxatively active" but the target article does not describe what that even means to explain it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - per our general consensus to remove irregular word forms. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:13, 7 June 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.

Lackers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy declined. While these are all forms of the word lack (even if Neelix made some of them up), the target for these redirects isn't the word at all, but a disambiguation page that entirely lists people and places. None of these make sense to refer to a person or place named Lack. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - if someone's actually going to try searching for these terms (doubtful) then search results are better. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteth - all of them as unhelpful. shoy (reactions) 17:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - they add nothing but confusion. Mannanan51 (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete common overlinked word. If I want to find my IKEA table I don't want to have to dig through these variants. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteth all per Mannanan41 --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect "lacking" and "lacked" to Wiktionary, as they respectively get get 829 views and 189 views over the last 11 months. Because so many articles are tagged as "lacking sources", deleting "lacking" to allow searching is literally useless. How common the word "lacked" is means searching for that is also useless. At the documentation for Template:Wiktionary redirect, which our WP:NOTDIC policy says is the general guideline for when soft redirects are appropriate to Wiktionary areappropriatee, there are four criteria:
    • There is no scope for a Wikipedia article at this title, and
    • There is no other Wikipedia page to which this would be an appropriate redirect, and
    • There is a relevant entry in Wiktionary, and
    • Readers search for it on Wikipedia.
"Lacking" and "Lacked" would meet all four of these. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:47, 7 June 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.

7/11[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 7-Eleven (disambiguation). Deryck C. 21:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think 7-Eleven (disambiguation) makes more sense as a target. SSTflyer 12:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to delete this redirect and move 7-Eleven (disambiguation) to 7/11? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redo per Stefan2's suggestion. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
7-Eleven (disambiguation)'s content fits under 7/11. After it is renamed to 7/11, the resultant 7-Eleven (disambiguation) link is not necessary as there is only one primary topic for that spelling which is the company. 7-Eleven Phones or whatever are partial title matches for the company products. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:40, 8 June 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.

Reich Ministry of Economics[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 10#Reich Ministry of Economics

Teacheth[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. 21:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no good reason to redirect archaic word forms. This form hasn't been used in over 300 years. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleteth thee. Not a likely search term and it directs to a common overlinked term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 12:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletionlynesserismsch - no need for this archaic form. No hits in last 90 days. Probably no hits in last 90 years. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletingertudely - unhelpful. shoy (reactions) 17:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteth thou redirecteth wrongfully --Lenticel (talk) 00:40, 3 June 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.

Purgatively[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 9#Purgatively

Intimating[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 9#Intimating

Sunderance[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. 21:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix speedy declined on the argument that it is a form of sunder. Maybe so. But it targets a disambiguation page, everything on the disambiguation page is a noun, with zero refering to the verb to sunder. So, nothing on the disambiguation page would ever be called sunderance. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as Neelix DICTDEF part-of-speech thing. THere's no place to point this that make sense. Mangoe (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. "Sunderance" appears to have been used as a technical term by Hegel, but there isn't a discussion of that anywhere on wikipedia [14] [15]. Uanfala (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletasion - an obscure term related to an archaic usage which we don't have anything close to an article about, and Wiktionary is not particularly helpful here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 15:55, 2 June 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.

Teachings[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 10#Teachings

Know'st[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. Deryck C. 21:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating after a previous discussion ended in keep (here) as it included a lot of sensible redirects. This nomination is limited only to obscure archaic words, which I doubt anyone will defend. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as implausible search terms. Jschnur (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I can't see any of these redirects actually being helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteth all as unhelpful. shoy (reactions) 17:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary No good target for this on Wikipedia, but "knoweth" gets 40 hits in the 3 months before the Neelix thing broke, "knowest" gets 24, and "know'st" gets 12. (see: [16]). Knoweth and knowest could probably get soft redirects to Wiktionary. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteth post-haste common word that would be overlinked.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:10, 4 June 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.

2005 Eureka Earthquake[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. 21:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no longer any related content on the target article. The list has really been refined over the last couple of years and we're no longer listing inconsequential events. Dawnseeker2000 02:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's not even listed in the Eureka, California article. Wouldn't want to get searchers' hopes up. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:13, 4 June 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.

Typers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh.. (neelix) someone who types is not a typer but a typist. In the early days, as I think Bill Bryson notes in Made in America, they were called typewriters (the people as well as the machines) leading to numerous puns of course. Is this all right? I think it is nonsense Si Trew (talk) 10:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And if you look there you will find it is to sites asking whether typer is a word and find out that Merriam-Webster says it is not. Need a better link than a Google search. We can all do that. What we need is WP:RS that this is actually used. Yes, a redirect does not have to be RS, but otherwise what happens is it becomes a word because Neelix says it is and we end up with greenisholives. I know, I am a bit of a prescriptive grammarian when it comes to these things but Neelix has created stacks of nonsense words. A google search as a justification is just not good enough; for one thing, my search results may differ and probably do differ from yours. Si Trew (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify for typing and the extremely obscure song on the album UnDeveloped, not because a dab page is actually a very good idea, but mainly so that we have an excuse to make a "See also" section with all the stuff that people are probably really looking for, e.g. {{wikt|typer}} to see whether typer is "really a word", {{in title|typer}} to see if their favourite old WP:PARTIALMATCH typing game has an article, Type R, and some page that discusses the H.P. Lovecraft character Alonzo Typer). I guess you could call that a "WP:COATRACK dab". 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 23:06, 1 June 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_June_2&oldid=1146664128"