Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 7, 2016.

Big bum[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) 19:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article. Also, "big" is subjective and "bum" is ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 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.

Big bug movie[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn, now that the term has been added and explained in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is misleading and ambiguous. The use of the word "big" is unclear, and the word "bug" is not exclusive to arthropods. Steel1943 (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The term is used in books: [1] [2] [3] [4] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I personally am not keen on the language in the phrase, there is no doubt the term is in widespread use with the quite specific meaning of "films with fantastically large arthropods", as demonstrated by AngusWOOF. While (as with all phrases) the component words could be misinterpreted, the three words together are unambiguous. I might also mention that compared to the vulgar crop of other "Big ..." redirects, this one makes some sense, as the fantasy arthropods in question in these films are indeed very large, compared both to humans and indeed to what is possible in biomechanics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:27, 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.

Big booty[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' Cash_Out#Singles. Deryck C. 15:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the target is a disambiguation page, the redirect is misleading since there are no subjects known specifically as "big booty" listed on the disambiguation page. (Note: the redirect has previous history as an article.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no notable media uses. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect over to Cash_Out#Singles which is, I think, where "Big Booty" goes to since we have a semi-popular (apparently well enough to track the R&B 100 chart) song by exactly this name. For the curious, listen to it here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Booty (song) as a working title for the song. SSTflyer 13:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nah, CWM's proposal makes more sense, plus I have already added a hatnote there. SSTflyer 13:11, 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.

Big boobs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 15#Big boobs

Big bonus culture[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) 19:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 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.

Big Bayram[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. Deryck C. 15:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article, so the connection is unclear. Steel1943 (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a more of a vernacular name for the holiday that is employed in some places that inherited the name from the Ottoman Empire. It occurred to me originally as a translation of Bosnian "Veliki Bajram", but I see now at https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=%22big+bayram%22 that a few books actually mention it in that vein from elsewhere in the Balkans. (There's also the form "Great Bayram") In the current Eid al-Adha article, the more proper Turkish term "Kurban Bayram" is mentioned, Bosnian isn't mentioned at all, and Albanian is mentioned with an unreferenced sentence, so something about this could be added as well. It is possible that I actually mixed them up, I'm not sure. The article Eid al-Fitr carries the converse term "Mali Bajram" (meaning Small Bayram, cf. [5]), and it has a big section with all the names nicely tallied, unlike this article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as convincingly demonstrated by Joy [shallot]. Uanfala (talk) 11:33, 11 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.

Big+Ten+Channel[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 02:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an unlikely search term due to the "+" symbols. Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 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.

Big foundation[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 02:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vague, similar to Large foundation. Peter James (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. There is a charity called BIG Foundation but not notable yet. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:17, 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.

Redirects to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry[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. This will also entail a move of Multiple accounts (disambiguation) (cf. WP:MALPLACED), though I don't find specific consensus to disambiguate the term. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace instead of to the article, also "account" has various meanings and this only applies to one in certain circumstances. These don't exist in the Wikipedia namespace so could be moved there as an alternative to deletion. Peter James (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - Outside of the context of Wikipedia, a fellow having multiple accounts with some online organization is a perfectly normal thing that doesn't necessarily denote "sock-puppetry" in any sense. Think about how someone, say, can have a mutual fund investment account, a renter's insurance account, a car insurance account, and a checking account all with the same banking conglomerate that are superficially separate while related (which is actually true for me, personally). As well, even in the case of true sock-puppetry, this is a practice that exists in various different contexts online (especially in other wiki-based platforms) rather than something only existing on Wikipedia. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • These don't exist in the Wikipedia namespace so could be moved there as an alternative to deletion - Wikipedia:Multiple accounts exists (created in 2008) and points to Wikipedia:Username policy#Using multiple accounts rather than straight to sockpuppetry (as even in Wikipedia not every use of multiple accounts is for sockpuppetry). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 06:08, 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.

Crappy 1980s Live Action Network[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 02:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article. The only reference I could find to connect the two subjects is this YouTube video about a random email/message sent to Adult Swim that they put up during commercial breaks. Delete per WP:NOTWIKIA. Steel1943 (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, not speedy. Supposedly this was a gag that the network did when they picked up rights to Saved By The Bell, but it's an incredibly obscure reference. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a notable promotion scheme. Not even listed in the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC) updated 23:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This seems to just be a bit of trivia, that's it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely synonym --Lenticel (talk) 00:58, 13 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.

듬뿍[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 02:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four redirects by the same creator. The first two are ordinary Korean dictionary words pointing to disambiguation pages which don't contain any topic which actually covers the meaning of those words; even if they did it would be WP:RFOREIGN, but they probably aren't recent enough to qualify for WP:CSD#R3. The last two are letter salads pronounced sorta like the targets when you read them aloud, but have never appeared anywhere else on the internet; they fall under WP:R#D5 "makes no sense" or WP:R#D8 "unlikely synonym" or whatever. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comment The latter two (and the creator's attempt to redirect Shuqaiq 2 IWPP to 슉퀘잌) reminds me of this bunch from January: odd attempts at transcription that no native speaker would produce, pointing to topics that have no connection whatsoever to Korea. Don't know if the editors are actually related or whether it's just two random people trying to learn Korean. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:RFOREIGN, none of these are topics particular to Korea. shoy (reactions) 18:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Wikipedia is not a foreign dictionary. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per above ---Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 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.

Autowikibrowser[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) 19:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful WP:XNR, like AutoWikiBrowser. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Although these have been deleted before, consensus has changed more than once since then so not eligible for speedy deletion. However, AutoWikiBrowser is used for editing and not particularly relevant for readers; people looking for it probably know about namespaces. Peter James (talk) 21:00, 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.

Grace Shepard[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:35, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily appropriate to redirect to that particular TV show's page, as it is not even a lead role and he had other roles. It is only linked from Winx Club where this redirect does not really help the reader. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like Grace Shepard is a character on the show (listed third on the list of cast), so a redirect seems appropriate. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirect from main character's name to TV series - redirects are cheap and this seems totally appropriate. Very confused by nomination, which seems to think Grace Shepard is a male actor? Was this the page you meant to discuss, Nyuszika7H? Boleyn (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing the link from Winx Club. There's no notable voice actress under that name and she is voicing a supporting minor character that such an article would not be created anyway. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:33, 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.

Hongyundaodao Station[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 14#Hongyundaodao Station

Lee Chae rim[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 02:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:R#D2 confusing. The target's surname is Park not Lee. It could also be a typo for Lee Chae-rin. And there are actual potentialyl-notable people by this name. Between the WP:XY "misnomer for two different things" issue and the bad punctuation/capitalisation, we're better off deleting this. 210.6.254.106 (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.

Largest market square[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 02:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are misleading, considering that Market square is not a redirect to City square or vice versa. Steel1943 (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague and misleading. shoy (reactions) 15:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • City square redirects to Town square, which says "market square" is an alternative name, but I think only some squares would be called market squares. Delete as the list doesn't specify whether they are market squares. Peter James (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No list of market squares. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:37, 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.

Large landing craft[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) 19:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect's target is unclear on what defines a "large" landing craft. Otherwise, the term "large" is a subjective and ambiguous adjective. Steel1943 (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague. shoy (reactions) 15:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is used in several articles and should be described somewhere. Unless this is likely to be made into a separate article it should be kept as a redirect. Peter James (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If all of the incoming links are replaced with a link to Landing craft, the issue will be resolved. The fact that the nominated redirect has incoming links seems like a case of someone thinking that the term was encyclopedic and linking it rather than linking "Landing craft". Steel1943 (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If sources differentiate between "Landing Craft" and "Large Landing Craft", amongst many other types of landing craft, then the redirect is a valid one. Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No sources of the such seem to currently be present in the target article, nor is there a definition present in the target article about how a "large" landing craft is determined. Yes, the term "large landing craft" is mentioned in the target article at least twice, but in their context, the word "large" is used just as an adjective for the term "landing craft" and not as a distinct defined term. Steel1943 (talk) 19:17, 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.

Large local reaction[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, now that the redirect has been defined at its target, including what qualifies for the "large" designation. Steel1943 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Redirect's target changed from Insect bites and stings to Allergy around the time of the following signature.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect seems too ambiguous to be useful. For one, apparently, a "large local reaction" on the skin can also occur as a result of an injection. In addition, the phrase "large local reaction" seems quite ambiguous: Could this refer to a reaction of a large size from a local community in response to something? Steel1943 (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomimator rationale update: Now that Local reaction has been created as a redirect towards Allergy, the nominated redirect has been retargeted to Allergy as well. Even with this, I still believe that the nominated redirect should be deleted since the criteria for what makes a "large" local reaction is not defined in the target article, and thus seems ambiguous and based on perspective. Steel1943 (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the first hit on Google. A journal article in the American Family Physician [6] which says "Patients with previous large local reactions have a 5 to 10 percent risk of experiencing systemic reactions to future stings." and "Large local reactions are usually late-phase IgE-mediated allergic reactions, with severe swelling (eight to 10 inches in diameter) developing over 24 to 48 hours and resolving in two to seven days." and "Large local reactions are more common than systemic reactions and are mediated by IgE in up to 85 percent of cases." etc
The second ref is from Uptodate which says "Approximately 10 percent of people develop severe redness and swelling after a sting; this is called a large local reaction. The area may become large (4 inches [10 cm] or more) over 1 to 2 days, then slowly resolve over 5 to 10 days." [7]
Third and 4th hit is from the the American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology. All of them refer to insect stings. In fact I see nothing in the first dozen hits that use the term differently. This is a thing in medicine User:Steel1943. Maybe some obscure source uses the term in another way. If so can you please provide a reference? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: Your research seems to enforce the possibility that "large local reaction" is both a topic in itself and not exclusive to stings. What you have found makes me think that this redirect probably needs to be deleted per WP:REDLINK so an article can be created. But no, in medicine, I have not found any references of it used in any other way than to represent the subject of a physical reaction to certain types of stings and shots of medicine. (See this reference in regards to this term applying to "shots of medicine/injections. This find is why I have the initial concern about the redirect being misleading since the term "large local reaction" is not exclusive to bee/wasp stings.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doc James: I don't mean to bombard you with pings, but after seeing your user page and that you are versed in the medical field, I found something that I wonder if you may be able to tell me in regards to this redirect term. From what I have found about the term "large local reaction" as well as the term local reaction (which doesn't exist), it seems that the term may be somewhat synonymous with the subject at the existing article Adverse drug reaction (per what I read in the aforementioned article.) Do the subjects seem related? Steel1943 (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, here are a couple of references I found that seem to refer to "local reactions" as a result of injected vaccines: [1] & [2]. Steel1943 (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes agree it can also occur following immunization and immunotherapy. It is a type of allergy. Might be reasonable to redirect both there to tell you the truth.
Anyway made the change and will add the terms to the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Makes sense to me. I'll go ahead and create Local reaction as a redirect to Allergy. However, I'm not sure how technically defined the word "large" in "large local reaction" would be at this point (What then would constitute terming something a "large" local reaction), so my opinion regarding the nominated redirect remains unchanged (deletion). Anyways, thanks for this information! Steel1943 (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I ended up not creating Local reaction since I was beat to it. Either way, my opinion about the nominated redirect remains unchanged as referenced in my edit conflict (deletion), but it's good to have a useful target for Local reaction. Also, I have updated the nomination to reflect the new target since I agree that it is a more useful target than its previous one (though I don't agree with the nominated redirect's existence.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Large is greater than 10 cm per here [8]. Not sure why you still wish to delete? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now. (Must have missed that addition.) Steel1943 (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I thought I'd heard the term and now that Doc James has confirmed it, I'm sure. This is a widely-used term and it's a sensible redirect, if it's not to be an article in its own right. Simply sweeping away anything with big/small/large/little in its title may sound a wise move but isn't correct in many cases. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:00, 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.

Large orchestra[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. No prejudice against recreation iff the phrase is explained somewhere. As noted in the discussion, the specific meaning of the phrase is not intuitive. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear what makes an orchestra a "large orchestra". The term "large orchestra" is not present in the target article. Steel1943 (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a WP:SURPRISE not at the target. shoy (reactions) 15:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't that a synonym for symphonic orchestra? Uanfala (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2016‎
  • Delete per nom. No defintion of what is large. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Large" in this context is just a vague qualifier without a solid meaning. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Large orchestra" can of course refer to an orchestra that is large (and that's the kind of vague meaning we don't make redirects for), but it can also refer to a "symphonic orchestra" (in opposition to a "chamber orchestra"), so it is something of a technical term and as such appears in the titles of compositions. Uanfala (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget per Schweiwikist below. Uanfala (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Edit to the redirect, namely: Orchestra#Late_Romantic_orchestra. Here’s how often the term crops up, not necessarily as jargon: (link to search result) Uanfala is correct in noting that the term does appear in titles of works — in German, fur Grosses Orchester, for instance. A google image search for the german spelling returns the title pages of Brahms’ symphonies, as well as several Richard Strauss compositions, that happen to require more than eight wind parts plus full horns and brass. So the articles that include the phrase “for large orchestra” referring to a published title page’s terminology could link to the corresponding section of the orchestra article. Otherwise as when the text is simply “a large orchestra” or some other, only the word ‘orchestra’ would simply link to the top of the article. ---Schweiwikist (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Schweiwikist. Makes sense to link there if it's a phrase commonly used in the time period that section covers. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:16, 13 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.

Large view[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 02:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect does not seem like a notable synonymous term for the target. For this reason, the redirect is ambiguous, especially considering View is a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 03:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A view camera is typically a large format camera and is likely the origin of this redirect. But large view could refer to many things, e.g., taking the large view of history. Best to delete it, although there is no prejudice against creating a disambiguation page in its stead. --Mark viking (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vague. Someone looking for large format camera would type in large view camera instead. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unhelpful vagueness. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:26, 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.

Large foundation[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 02:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since these redirects target a disambiguation page, they are misleading since the subjects on the disambiguation page are not known as "large foundation." Steel1943 (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague. shoy (reactions) 15:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these, not clear that they are useful as most would just be searched for with "foundation". and similar redirects exist with "big". Redirects also exist with "biggest" and "largest"; these should be redirected to List of wealthiest charitable foundations. I've nominated Big foundation separately and redirected the others to pages that would at least be useful to some people (it's likely people will want a list of the largest, but not just "large"). Although ambiguous, List of wealthiest charitable foundations isn't easily found and we have no information about the largest foundations of structures, and "largest" wouldn't be a likely description of other types. Peter James (talk) 21:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Largest/Biggest already covers what people want to know. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just plain not worth keeping. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:34, 13 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.

Large integer[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 14#Large integer

Malthusian Blues[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 15#Malthusian Blues

Al-Farsi[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 dabify, technically set index, moving Al-Farsi (surname) over the redirect. --BDD (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix) I am pretty sure take this to Al-Fasi where Al-Fasi (disambiguation) Salman the Persian was not the only Persian called Farsi for fairly obvious reasons (because he was Farsi). I think this is kinda "blocking" my search, there may be other variants but the search engine kinda "blocks" my finding them while this is in the way (by eliminating what it believes are redundant results). Si Trew (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as he looks like the only one likely to be named just al-Farsi. I'd create a surname article listing the other few people who have that as a surname, and link to that from a hatnote. SimonTrew, al-Fasi is a different name. Uanfala (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Uanfala is it a diffferent surname or just a different transliteration? That was my nagging doubt. I have seen Al-Farsi far more often than Al-Fasi but I wasn't sure hence RfD. Certainly we should hatnote the two articles if we make a surname DAB I think. Si Trew (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To a British ear, SiTrew, they might sound like diffferent transliterations, but to almost anyone else they aren't. Minding our r's as much as the p's and q's. But a See also entry on the page of one, pointing to the other, goes without saying. Uanfala (talk) 23:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Al Farsi" in arabic means "The persian" which is too generic to redirect to a single article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But this is the English-language wikipedia. Only a small portion of Arabic-language referents of "al-Fārsī" can be referred to like that in English. Uanfala (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Set-index-ify per Tavix. It seems that there's a lot of people with "Al-Farsi" as their surname within the wiki --Lenticel (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up: I've created the set index at Al-Farsi (surname). I still think Salman is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but if not, all the closer would need to do is move the index over the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Set-index-ify per Tavix. The index page he created looks good. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:31, 14 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.

Backcrest[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) 18:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been bugging me (Neelix) and we also have neckcrest and back-crest and neck-crest and as you can imagine lots of other variants. Are these valid terms? I would think it was more likely a typo for backrest, neckrest (headrest) and so on, User:Plantdrew or User:Peter coxhead may know I could see in ornithology/anatomy a grebe for example could be described as having a backcrest but do they actually describe them that way? Those kind of things are not at the target, a DAB. A horse's mane is not really a backcrest because it's on its neck not its back (which yes technically is part of the spine, I know). My Collins Concise doesn't have it, dictionary.com doesn't have it. I don't have the OED to hand and only a pocket Collins Gem for identifying birds so I am a bit stumped on this one. Si Trew (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

There are loads of hypenated variants but I kinda need a sanity check as a test case before I take them all to CSD. Si Trew (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen some of them used in ornithological articles. FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okie doke Speedily withdrawn by nominator as keep. Thanks to User:FunkMonk for the sanity check. Si Trew (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in case someone has an answer to Ivanvector's query.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Plantdrew and Peter coxhead for input, otherwise my concern shouldn't hold up closing this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since I was pinged, but animal anatomy is not my area of expertise. Seems to be an XY situation here, with sail (anatomy) as another possible target. I'm really not finding any relevant usage of the un-spaced "backcrest". With a space, and searching for "back crest"+hair, "back crest"+feather or "back crest"+scale I get the most relevant results with scale. "Back-crest" is a term in lizard anatomy. And I see 4 relevant pages from Google for "back crest"+Rhodesian (i.e. Rhodesian Ridgeback), but none for the unspaced term+Rhodesian. Plantdrew (talk) 16:35, 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.

Millerette[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix) is this all right as {{R from short name}}{{R from singular}}. I mean to take for example The Runettes can you kinda call one of them a millerette or does it apply only to the team as a whole? Si Trew (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must have misspelled the Runettes there don't know the spelling, you know the Motown singers? Si Trew (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong vowel. Also, wrong label. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't believe that the baseball team as a whole ever labeled its specific players this way, and I feel like keeping the redirect invites confusion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I meant "Motown" generically I admit rather than the specific label. I should have chosen an example I could actually spell I guess but all the other examples (say The Beatles or the Andrews Sisters) that spraing to mind at the time you can kinda do in singular. Si Trew (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They do refer to singular, however, there are other uses such as Garrett Millerette milling tool used in 1920s. [9] and some places in France called La Millerette, AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PLURALPT which uses Seattle Seahawk as the example. Other names aren't primary topic. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Thioridazine. Mellerette is apparently the generic name for the drug, and I think this is a plausible misspelling of that generic name. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. The baseball team is the only notable thing using the name, and a single player would be a "Millerette." -- Tavix (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, this would be an appropriate name for a single player of the team. --BDD (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Using a singular version of a sports team name to describe a single player of the team makes sense. Steel1943 (talk) 13:33, 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.

Large car[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 by nominator with no opposing votes. Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect does not seem to be an synonymous term for its target. Because of this, the word "large" is ambiguous since any size of car could seem large, depending on perspective. Steel1943 (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague. shoy (reactions) 15:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Withdrawn per below, close away! shoy (reactions) 20:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is mentioned in the article as a related term. If other definitions exist, disambiguation can be used. Otherwise this is no more vague than mid-size car or compact car. Peter James (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've bolded large car and clarified the EPA definition as it was slightly different between sedans and station wagons. The EPA uses "large" instead of "full-size", while retaining the other "compact", "mid-size", "subcompact" classifications. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment: At this point, I declare that I am withdraw-ing this since the redirect's term has now been defined at its target, but I am unable to close this discussion since there is at least one comment that goes against the result if this were withdrawn. Steel1943 (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the opposing vote has now been withdrawn, I have closed the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:34, 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.

Large bills[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 02:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Currency" is not exclusive to the United States, "bills" is not exclusive to "currency" (as shown at Bill), and the redirect is ambiguous since the term "large bills" could refer to bird's beaks. Steel1943 (talk) 03:27, 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.

귤즙[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 02:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFOREIGN. Orange juice does not have an affinity or is exclusive to Korean-speaking cultures. Steel1943 (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator before we get sucked into a never-ending debate about whether a gyul is actually an orange. Also delete all the other nonsense by the same creator (I tagged 슨섿 and 뤁틑 for speedy; the rest I'll nominate normally). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not Korean dictionary and it's for a common term, not something specific to Korea. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom since the beverage has no particular affinity with Korean cuisine --Lenticel (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it even orange juice or is it some orange-flavored drink? Is it a brand? Clicking on Wikipedia Korea maps orange juice to ko:오렌지 주스 while ko:귤즙 goes nowhere. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:31, 13 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.

Four-in-a-row[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 14#Four-in-a-row

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_7&oldid=1088109215"