Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 20, 2016.

Silver leaf trees[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The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the cusp. Just on the cusp. (Neelix) it is the silver leaf tree but it doesn't have silver leaves. It's not variegated or whatever. Technically it is correct but does it make much sense for what people would expect to find? Dunno Si Trew (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I am hard pushed from the piccies to work out why it is silver at all. Does this come via afrikaans? BUt the back end is latin for silver. Si Trew (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plural of common name. DuncanHill (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh: Delete Probably should disambiguate Terminalia sericea if kept (no, it's not mentioned there at the moment), and maybe some other stuff. I'd prefer it went away, so I don't have to worry about it further. Ping me on closing if the consensus is keep and I'll fix it up. Plantdrew (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. No need to delete this redirect. It's the plural of Silver leaf tree. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily withdrawn by nominator as keep. I can perfectly see this makes sense I just wondered whether it would help or inhibit search. That being said, User:Plantdrew is our expert so I think a ping (there) is in order so that user can fix it up, as that user has requested. Closing admin or nonadmin can perhaps just reping to be double sure, if we keep. Si Trew (talk) 22:52, 22 May 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.

Silver trees[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. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oooh toss up (neelix) This is seth efrican but to me I would think more of a silver birch. While it is in the lede and is no doubt technically correct does it help or hinder? (There are several others with other pluralisation and so on but no point listing those until we decide this one) Si Trew (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sigh: Delete Probably should disambiguate Terminalia sericea if kept (no, it's not mentioned there at the moment), and maybe some other stuff. I'd prefer it went away, so I don't have to worry about it further. Ping me on closing if the consensus is keep and I'll fix it up. Plantdrew (talk) 05:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep mentioned in the opening sentence of the article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - proper common name. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily withdrawn by nominator as keep. I can perfectly see this makes sense I just wondered whether it would help or inhibit search. That being said, User:Plantdrew is our expert so I think a ping (there) is in order so that user can fix it up. Closing admin or nonadmin can perhaps just reping to be double sure. Si Trew (talk) 22:53, 22 May 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.

Shall I compare thee[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. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect)

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate.
Sharp winds do shake the darling buds of may
and summer's lease hath all too short a date

While his is indeed the first four words of Sonnet 18 I wonder if this is a bit too short.

For long as men can read or eyes can see
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee

Absolutely beautiful sonnet (and true, still being said four hundred years later, he probably never expected that) Si Trew (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's reasonable that someone would think that this is the title of the sonnet. -- Tavix (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Common and useful. Softlavender (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: common search term, correct target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's helpful. This is, as stated above, likely to be perceived as the title. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as WP:SNOW and withdrawn by nominator. Good calls I was just not 100% sure on this one because for my as you like it, I didn't, it was just a tiny bit too short. I don't think we have Shall I compare thee to a summer's day, for example and we're not a um exam revision guide. But patently snowball keep. Si Trew (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm we do actually. Goes to same target Sonnet 18 so no prob there. Si Trew (talk) 00:35, 22 May 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.

Syndochical[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) 19:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix) is this OK? The usual word is synechdotal or is this somehthing else? Si Trew (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I might have been thinking of synechdotal which we haven't. WP:NOTDIC, and WP:RFD#D2 delete as confusing, well it screwed me. Si Trew (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Synecdochical and Synecdochic appear to be used alongside Synecdotal. This redirect appears to be a misspelling (at least judging by the really tiny number of google scholar/books hits). It isn't a very plausible misspelling, is it? Uanfala (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It is a real (but very uncommon) word (112 hits, mostly in academic context), but similarly to all of the terms Uanfala notes above, they all come down to being defined relative to the base word synecdoche. I don't think it's worth keeping. MSJapan (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete irregular word form per above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:36, 30 May 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.

Heroi comedy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete, G6 by User:Sphilbrick Lenticel (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) This is just on the edge. Heroic comedy I presume we have deliberately have not checked but there are a lot worse than this believe me. Si Trew (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah we don't have heroic comedy. CSD it then. Si Trew (talk) 22:01, 20 May 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.

Wikipedia:SANDWICH[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 retargeted per discussion ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if this should now point to the same place as WP:SANDWICHING (image MOS about text being squeezed between floating images) rather than a user essay about fetishes and ham sandwiches. The WP:SANDWICH redirect was created in 2007, at least a couple of years before the image MOS adopted the term, and the "fetish" shortcut hasn't ever been that widely invoked (with at least a few editors using it in reference to image placement, without checking where it landed; I nearly trod on it myself earlier today). McGeddon (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:20, 25 May 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.

Ladies and gentelman I should like to annouce[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy deleted by RHaworth per criterion G7. What just happened here? Steel1943 (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I should like to announce

Neelix list #5 is now 98.5% complete. The remaning few are here at RfD. That is because of the combined effort of everyone here at RfD. I should like to thank me mum, me dad, me cat, etc. WE DID IT TOGETHER! WE ALL DID IT TOGETHER. I THINK THAT IS GREAT. They said we couldn't do it, we can do it. Can do anything if you put your mind into it and want to work.

Now only the other four lists to go.

Delete this redirect I created it on purpose just for this. Couldn't even spell "gentlemen" or "announce" when I made it apparently shows how competent I am (I was just so overcome with emotion, hand me a hankie). Si Trew (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that. I don't believe it. I deliberately created a joke redirect (well not a joke one a sincere but harmless one) because I think the whole RfD Community should be aware of how much progress we have made on the infamous "Anomie list". It is not even an article creation' because a redirect is not an article as established by consensus. I was just basically saying thank you to all the hard working folks at Rfd, User:Lenticel, User:Plantdrew, User:Peter coxhead, User:Mjroots, User:Steel1943, User:Ivanvector, User:Tavix, User:BDD, and I am sure many others that I will know by name when I see them but can't recall right now, but do tireless, usually unthanked work to make the encylopaedia better. If you can't see that it is a thank you I think you should be blocked. Si Trew (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What just happened here is that I created a redirect deliberately to thank people for all their work with the Neelix redirects. I created one.. Neelix created, in good faith, about eighty thousand. If User:DuncanHill wants to think that is an intentionally disruptive creation when I myself, the creator of the redirect, not article, that I then immediately proposed myself for deletion thinks that is a case to delete and block creator then I think that can be added to WP:ANI#SimonTrew because I am sick of hearing about it and I am not checking up on that discussion because of the clean hands doctrine, you go to a court with clean hands. I don't think someone is looking in context. As it happens I don't think User:RHaworth has deleted any of mine sent from the speedy list to CSD today but that is coincidence, that user often deletes them and I thank them for it. We just got through almost the whole of the list and I think that is something to celebrate, we cannot just cross off bits of the list we can cross off the whole of User:Anomie#Neelix List number five. That is worth I think saying thanks to everyone who has worked so hard with me to get there. I could have just taken it WP:G7 author requests deletion. I deliberately put it here because I wanted to say thanks to everyone. I missed User:PamD and no doubt many others but whoever I missed, sorry about that, but I do appreciate it and it does not go unnoticed. (sings) Thankless tasks are here again, I get a glass of beer again, then we'll sing a song of cheer again, thankless tasks are here again. It is something of a Stokanovichian effort to get through these and if I miss, I miss. Sorry about that. I don't see User:DuncanHill trawling through the infamous Neelix list though. In fact the only editor who is trawling through that list is me. Now may I get on with it? Or do I have to have more argy bargy? Si Trew (talk) 21:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In future please use Usertalk pages to express your thanks, instead of creating nonsensical redirects and needless RfDs to deal with them. Please also stop your relentless efforts to blacken Neelix's name every time you post anything'. Do you want to become the infamous SimonTrew? DuncanHill (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps join WP:WPREDIRECT? They have talk pages and I'm assuming an RFD drive can be organized there? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely laughed at DuncanHill's first comment above, thinking it was simply carrying along with the good humour that had now come to characterise RfDs. Oh well... Uanfala (talk) 00:59, 21 May 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.
Comments after discussion closed
  • Postscript. I do not go around "blackening Neelix' name". For a start I have no idea what Neelix' name is. I believe, if I checked, at the original discussion when this started it was pointed out Neelix had been in newspapers for adding thousands of "articles" to Wikipedia, so I could probably find out easily enough but I don't because I have no truck with Neelix only with the redirects. Neelix I think (just from going through the redirects) is a committed Christian and I am not, but with respect to that religion the Lord asks us to forgive and I for one do forgive, there is no point crying over spilt milk and no point blaming people, that gets you nowhere, Neelix has taken it on his shoulders to stay away from Wikipedia which his ban did not make him do, only not to create redirects. I am in no way blackening his name. I would say about I dunno 25% of Neelix redirects are actually useful and I keep and rcat them. Hard for me to give a percentage because I don't keep count and it depends what subject area it is in.
The WP:G6 "Neelix concession" specifically encourages admins (I am not one) to add (Neelix) to redirects when closing them. "Admins are asked to add the word "Neelix" to their deletion rationale in order to clarify that it was done under this temporary extension". Now, how is an admin to know that under the many G6 criteria I am bringing it there under that "temporary extension" (I tend to call it a "concession" but I don't mind what words you use) if I don't say "Neelix". That is just causing admins work for me to go round the houses finding other words to mean the samn thing. Presumably, every admin who closes a redirect (be it by keep, delete, redirect or whatever) and writes "Neelix" is "blackening Neelix' name"? Presumably the wording on the WP:G6 which links to Neelix' user page is "Blackening Neelix' name"? No, just because as a shorthand I say Neelix I do not blacken that user's name. I have tried to point this out many times before I believe that Neelix created these redirects in good faith and the search engine was not as good as it is now. At times they can drive me nuts as I trog through them but just by saying "Neelix" or whatever doesn't blacken anyone's name it just gives other editors useful information that is specifically asked for by the WP:G6 concession. It certainly does not allow any of us not to take due diligence and just wipe them, otherwise I would not have kept about I think thirty today and rcatted them without taking them either to CSD or RfD. What I don't think I have ever done is retargeted one but that is just my own hobby-horse because if they exist they will be "in the wild" not just on Wikipedia and we might break external links. When I am trogging through about a hundred a day I don't have time to check every single redirect in WP:RS – and anyway redirects don't have to be' WP:RS – what I think is due diligence on my part is that if I have any doubt I bring it to RfD so that we get WP:CONSENSUS. I do check individual ones that I think are borderline but in particular when there are forms of words that really just don't exist that is what the WP:CSD is for. I could send the whole lot to CSD instead of asking anyone else's opinion, the G6 concession allows me (or any other editor) to do that, all that does is shift the burden to the admin to make the toss instead of me. In fact most admins do occasionally reject things I list there, they have brains in their heads as well, even though I only list there when I am kinda pretty certain in my own head that it is just absolutely no doubt. As another editor pointed out, a lot of these redirects tend to go feral and end up on other online sites then quoting Wikipedia as essentially a "reliable source" even though we've never said that. Rant over. Si Trew (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Elizabeth Hastings[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 03:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky with the "Lady" in the front. (Neelix) While all four at the DAB target would have been "Lady" for a while they were not "Lady" for long, they went on marriage etc to be "Countess" and so forth. I am not sure this is a useful retarget but on the other hand it is not harmful. Si Trew (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move Lady Betty back to Lady Elizabeth Hastings, the title at which it was created (OK, by me) in 2007, and from which Neelix moved it to Lady Betty in Nov 2014. See school names etc to show it is the common form of name. Alternatively, either Keep as redirect to the dab page, or redirect it to Lady Betty and add a hatnote there pointing back to the dab page. No strong views as to which of the 3 we should do, but certainly not delete the redirect. PamD 18:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect. Perfectly proper use of redirect (plausible alternate form of name to appropriate dab page), not in any way, shape, or form, disruptive. DuncanHill (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep everything as it is. Although Lady Betty's proper name may be "Lady Elizabeth Hastings" (I think that it's not, Lady is an honorific), she is equally known as "Lady Betty" and that title is preferred for natural disambiguation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't mind all of that but there are a lot of Hastings and Elisabeths and so on that are a a lot more silly than this. It was a toin coss. Si Trew (talk) 19:35, 20 May 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.

Ductographer[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 06:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oooh tricky. I missed onm this. Because a galactograph and a ductograph are sorta synonyms (in WP:FIRSTSENTENCE) does that mean someone would describe themselves as a ductographer? I missed I admit assuming it is nonsense but my name is not dropped in medical circles, no swoons I get from the Royal College of Physicians, is it real or is it made up? Because of ahem Neelix tendency to have lots of redirects about a certain part of the female anatomy I just missed on this one. Ductography is fine and I have marked it as {{R from other name}} but can you be a ductographer ? Admittedly it is kinda OK syntactically as a back formation but does anyone actually call themselves that? Si Trew (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I don't see any reliable evidence that anybody calls themselves this, or even gets called this by a friend/enemy/boss/neighbor/etc... for all of the talk, I know, that 'redirects-are-cheap' (which is a reasonable observation if used properly), when a redirect is based on nothing more than thin air then lets trash it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ridiculous - not a term used widely, if at all. Many thanks to Si Trew for continuing to propose these for discussion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:53, 22 May 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.

Commonisers[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) 18:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well as it stands this is simply wrong. But would it be a likely retarget for commissioners? Si Trew (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Malcolmxl5 and I between us have basically swathed through a haystack loads of these this afternoon of commonisaritary or whatnot but sometimes I am just not sure, thence to RfD. I should like to thank that user here for his good work and collaboration, only time I have ever seen another editor take things off the Neelix list. Si Trew (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete not a real word. As per a retarget - i think we are better off deleting it rather than speculatively and confusingly redirecting --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks like a misspelling for commissioner. The term is not used in news articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:36, 30 May 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.

Common owner[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) 19:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix) This one's a bit tricky.

The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose off the common
But lets the greater felon loose
Who steals the common off the goose

I don't know who wrote it but it was during the Enclosures Act saga. It's a bit well commons by definition are not owned by anyone but everyone. Now all we are left with is the Queen's foreshore below the high tide mark and a few bits and pieces hither and thither like Midsummer Common and Wimbledon Common. Amazed come to think of it we still have the expression "it's common ground" when there is hardly any common ground. Si Trew (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I must admit, I find the nominator's rationale a little tortuous to follow, but the concept of a common owner is oxymoronic at best and so this redirect should be deleted. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:06, 29 May 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.

Commonized[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) 18:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) oww just about on the cusp. There are lots that go to communism, this one don't. Owww this is tricky. To take something into common ownership is to nationalise it in British English, I dunno with this one. Tricky Si Trew (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete implausible verb form not related to link target --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A Google news search brings up a bunch of articles where auto companies commonize components. I don't think that's what Common ownership is. It's closer to Fleet commonality but there isn't a good auto company article that discusses the term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:45, 30 May 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.

Servicer[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 31#Servicer

Single serving[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) 19:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now this kinda does and doesn't make sense. A single serving is whatever the manufacturer says it is and is somewhat different from an RDA (as a rather anal person I look at the backs of packets not because I am worried about what I eat, I eat hamburgers from very dodgy people, I just have one of those kinda half of a brain that when I see something I read it). This just about makes sense doesn't it. Portion size I don't think we have got. The one single-serving with the hyphen I am taking straight to CSD as that is a bit nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 13:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK single-serving with the hyphen is red. (Blue when I started this) Do we put this at Portion size? Would that make more sense? We are not kinda a guide to daily dietary requirements otherwise there would be an article on "Four bottles of Guinness, Six packs of fags, and a full english breakfast". Sorry that's just me isn't it. Never done me any harm (cough, splutter), I'm as fit as a fiddle. Well at least I wheeze a lot and can never get the right note, like a knock-off stradivarius. Si Trew (talk) 15:32, 20 May 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.

Neutral direct-current telegraph systems[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 ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix redirect) I would delete it but need a second check. Si Trew (talk) 12:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes it is I suppose. I was thinking more that the target is a concept noun, abstract noun, but I suppose there are concrete neutral DC telegraph systems, I was thinking of "system" more as an abstract noun and that therefore you could not really have competing neutral DC etc (well you could but it would be hard to imagine one except without reverse polarity or something). Withdrawn by nominator as keep and I will mark as R from plural. I sent a lot of others that made far less sense than this straight to CSD. Si Trew (talk) 07:28, 23 May 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.

File:Velázquez - Bufón don Sebastián de Morra (Museo del Prado, c. 1645).jpg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedily deleted. And I fixed the bot to not create file redirects that shadow pages on Commons. Anomie⚔ 12:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a redirect with the same name and target on Commons, and because of bugzilla:28299, I believe that the Commons redirect overrules this redirect in most situations, so the local redirect doesn't actually work but only creates confusion if someone later decides to retarget the redirect on one of the projects but not on the other project. To avoid confusion, I suggest that we delete this redirect. Stefan2 (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I fixed the bot to not create redirects at pages that are reported as existing on Commons. If you see any other cases where AnomieBOT created such a redirect, feel free to WP:CSD#G6 them. Anomie⚔ 12:10, 20 May 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.

Single-hander (sailor)[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) 18:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) while I am familiar with single-handed sailing being a good British chap surrounded by the briny, I am not sure that a single-handed sailor is called a single-hander is she or he? The thing is this is actually a WP:TWODABS because single hander only has this listed and for the UK soap EastEnders and I am familiar with that phrase because although I don't watch the show now the then producer Julia someone who started it used to use that phrase when the whole half hour was carried by one actor/character to kinda give you a back story a bit and EastEnders became quite famous for doing these maybe once a year as they were often quite poignant, generally the older characters. So if we delete this we need to sort out that DAB or rather delete it because there will be no need for it. So this is a bit of a mess. Si Trew (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Softlavender a word to the wise. Don't call them "neelix bollox" because you will get into trouble as being in bad faith (or is that just me). Just say "bollox". Si Trew (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you take for example Ellen MacCarthy she is a superb single-handed yachtswoman. Yet would you call her a single-hander. (I must admit what came to my mind with these with doing something single handed was more of a masturbatory kind, keeps the other hand free to have a cigarette but then I think Neelix is a non-smoker and there is a kinda thread on these Neelix redirects that lean towards the sexual). Si Trew (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You see now that is blocking my search. The British yachtswoman. Now all i get is some two-bit company director in Washington DC. We must have an article about her whatever way I try to put in alternate spellings. Si Trew (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ellen MacArthur I think if that and Ellen McCarthy don't deserve a hatnote I go and put my Queen of Sheba costume on. That kind of thing blocks search. Just because I can't get her name bang on doesn't mean I don't know who she is. That kind of thing is ridiculous. Who the hell heard of Ellen MacCarthy. Si Trew (talk) 13:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment. I've prodded the Ellen McCarthy one as WP:N she is not notable. Plenty of peopple in plenty of places work in government administration (Sir Humphrey Appleby, for example). The refs are essentally all roads lead back to Rome. PRODDed. Si Trew (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And to nobody's surprise the PROD was reverted. You can't do that. I have put it back and asked for discussion on the talk page of the article which is where you discuss the PROD unless I was very much mistaken. I really do worry sometimes. ou can't just take a PROD off because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Si Trew (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Si Trew: Read WP:PROD: "Any editor (including the article's creator) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD." Softlavender (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I by the same token can object to the objection and put it back again. That is WP:BRD and we land up here. Si Trew (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible and extremely improbable title. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:09, 29 May 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.

Leading (management)[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 06:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix) tricky one. Leading and management are almost synonymous, to lead people is to manage them, or at least leadership skills and management skills are kinda but not quite synonymous. I could {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} but it might be better just to delete it? P'raps it's just WP:XY. Si Trew (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete overlinking common words "leader" like "manager" and "business". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there was one extant link on a disambiguation page that pointed at the redirect. I changed it to a see-also to the target. Stats likely zero otherwise as disambiguated titles are usually not valid search terms. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yes, I know, 'redirects are cheap' and all, but I question whether this has even the slightest amount of helpfulness. I don't think it's a valid search term, even by those who really aren't familiar with Wikipedia. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:50, 26 May 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.

Double-space[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 already retargeted ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix) this one is a bit of a WP:SURPRISE to me. We don't tend to do it so much now with computer typesetting but to double space something is to put in an extra line of blank, I believe it is still a setting on Microsoft Word but called something else, my baby typewriters can do it (it notches twice on the physical carriage return). It is quite often used in the legal profession so that one can then put annotations below the typescript. I don't know if we have a better target. While DriveSpace is known as DoubleSpace it is not known as this with the hyphen. Si Trew (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep that makes sense. When asked do I look up things, no I don't not out of laziness but on purpose. I want to come as an intelligent but ignorant reader and think "what would I expect to find". If I tried to look things up then I would lose on the kinda naivety I want in what a reader coming for the first time to Wikipedia would hope to find. So I am being deliberately ignorant. Suddenly I would be taking this to I don't know some article on physics or whatnot that would make it worse. With the Neelix ones it's for me to list, others to judge, that's how we work in a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia. If I started becoming some kind of tinpot dictator without asking RfD or CSD or whatever I would be in more trouble than I already am. This is the right call, we do that.

'Speedily withdrawn as retarget by nominator (I'll do that but probably best for someone else to close this). Si Trew (talk) 10:05, 20 May 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.

Willow-leafed[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 06:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Neelix redirect) An adjective in search of a noun. Could be any number of plants with a species name of "salicifolia" (Latin for "willow-leafed)". Ambiguous, but no point to a dab page; people will include an additional noun term when searching Plantdrew (talk) 05:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily Delete per our taxonomic expert User:Plantdrew. I think this can go straight to CSD. I was struggling to think if in any way it would refer to a drop-leaf table with a willow pattern or something like that but patently it doesn't. Otherwise we need to have oak-leafed, ash-leafed, sycamore-leafed and so on (please tell me we don't). Si Trew (talk) 10:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - However you look at it, I think this mangling of words isn't helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:47, 26 May 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.

Xenophobe (discrimination)[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--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of a paradox. A xenophobe is someone who hates foreigners of course but they don't discriminate which foreigners they hate, they hate all foreigners so this is a bit of a contradiction in tems. (Neelix) Si Trew (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Neelix bollox. Softlavender (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Bit of nonsense that some admin could probably just come in and delete right now, making a speedy close decision. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:32, 20 May 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.

Draft:Untitled Wolverine sequel[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedily deleted by admin User:Anthony Appleyard (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CNR Kailash29792 (talk) 02:34, 20 May 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.

Fly baby (insect)[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 G6/Neelix ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix) this does not seem to be at the target, is it called that as WP:COMMONNAME. I have never heard of it called that. Si Trew (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. I'll have the chicken chow mein with flied lice. It would not at all surprise me if Neelix got this from that old joke. (and the R/L distinction is genuine that Chinese and Japanese struggle with it so that was not being at all racist just a joke; many can't "hear" it just as I cannot "hear" many subtle Hungarian distinctions in vowels óőúáű I can see them written and I can say them but I don't "hear" them so very hard for me to repeat; Só i think is salt but sőr is beer. Because I am "branded on the tongue" as I think Johnson put it I just can't hear these subtle distinctions. I have good hearing but I just don't "hear" them. Probably not the best idea to live in Szólösnyáralő then. Oh well. Moved to Budapest much bloody easier). Si Trew (talk) 02:46, 20 May 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.

Isolating[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 Isolation, noting that isolating language is one of the entries there. -- Tavix (talk) 18:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) there is nothing wrong with this as a word of course although WP:NOTDIC but the target itself is a verb which is usually discouraged per WP:NOUN. It's probably harmlessm, but Isolating can also mean well it can be a depending on your grammar a gerundive or agent noun and we maybe should R it to Isolation? Don't know. Si Trew (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Isolating language and add {{redirect}}. That seems to be the only use that isn't common use language. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Isolation, a disambiguation page with many different links. This is one of those situations where going to "Isolating language" or any other one specific retarget would likely be a surprise, or at least too much of a stretch. If anything, my first thought is that the primary usage of the term "isolating" refers to social ostracism, like with someone lamenting: "Her isolating behavior, spending so much time invested in video games, cost her several friends". One could also be talking about scientific analysis in terms of variables and hypothesis testing, like with someone observing: "Isolating the effects of the experimental drug from the other treatments the patients went through is difficult". And don't forget how geography and borders is also a major thing, with people making remarks like: "The new Prime Minister will be an isolating force pushing his nation away from the nearby international community."
In short, "isolating" means too many different things to too many different people, so either put it to a disambig page or just delete it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:51, 21 May 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.

Isolate (computation)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is near the mark. It does say it at the target but I don't think we need it (neelix redirect) because it is a very specific Application Programming Interface. I think as a more general term we can take it to separation of concerns or something like that but I think on the whole we don't need it Si Trew (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - mentioned at target, too specific a disambiguator to redirect to a general term. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily withdrawn as keep by nominator. I was not sure on this one. I did say in the nom it was mentioned at the target but I could see that it would mean all kinds of other more-general terms in computation (virtual address space or whatever). But until they come along, there is no harm in keeping it. WP:RFD#K5. Si Trew (talk) 00:15, 22 May 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.

Allegoric[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 31#Allegoric

The Preacher (book)[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 The Preacher (novel). However, I want to take a page out of Bush v. Gore and state that this decision should not be taken as precedent. Typically, articles disambiguated with (book) indicate non-fiction books, and this retarget only makes sense in absence of an article on a novel by this name. A change to the overall conventions of disambiguating with (book) and (novel) should take place elsewhere. --BDD (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I'm essentially reopening this because we had this discussion the other day but with all the other hullaballoo I don't think we genuinely achieved consensus. I think it should go to The Preacher (novel). I hadn't thought or found that. I will try to link the previous RfD. Si Trew (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

8 May 2016. Sorry although my hand is getting better I am still not dextrous enough to whack in the oldrfdlist, sorry. Normal typing is OK but fiddling with the templates I can't do it quite yet. I pretty much switched to being a cack hander so I don't have quite the coordination to do it. Sorry. Easy for typing because the vast majority is on your left hand anyway. Si Trew (talk) 01:29, 20 May 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.

Billy Bentinck[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) 18:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Declined at CSD. Now tell me in any reliable source that any of the Bentincks were commonly known as Willy or Billy. They were notk at least, not in any reliable source I know of. This is simply WP:MADEUP (Neelix forgot to say). Si Trew (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet their mate Charlie Bentinck got deleted. I fail to see the logic in this. Just different admins on different shifts, I guess. Si Trew (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Charlie is an entirely different name, but these are plausible nicknames and redirects are cheap. Jonathunder (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about Bill Bentinck then. That one is still under consideration at CSD. They are not plausible nicknames for historical figures. We don't go calling people by those names. I am well aware that Billy and Willy are parlance for people called William but we don't say King Billy the First and stuff. It frankly makes the encylopaedia a laughing stock. Redirects are as cheap to delete as they are to create, that is no argument please read the instructions. Si Trew (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the redirect Bill Bentinck his first name is actually Victor and as far as I know Bill is not some kind of familiar name for victor. Fortunately we don't have Vic Bentinck which I was half expecting. (User:Tavix took out my CSD tag quite rightly because I had mentioned it here.) Si Trew (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had only a glancing mention at the previous discussion and had totally forgotten about it, thanks for adding it (I guess User:Tavix but whoever did). I think these deserve revisiting because to redirect Bill to Victor is a bit stupid. Si Trew (talk) 10:34, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm concerned about this since there seems like there's not just no evidence that this Lord Bentinck ever went by these names, but there's also no evidence that anybody else ever applied them to him either. However, it appears that some present day real people with the last name Bentinck may, in fact, actually be known as "Bill", "Billy", "Willy", etc. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ach, I hadn't thought of that. I had only been thinking of the earls, barons, and so on. That doesn't change my argument for delete but I agree if there are living people called Billy Bentinck (Bill, Willam whatever) not related or rather not directly to the line of earls and so on then we are in danger of kinda not quite WP:BLP but certainly misleading. I must admit I had assumed, being a rather unusual surname, it was only the members of this noble family that were so called. But I guess they must have had offspring etc. Si Trew (talk) 00:27, 22 May 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.

Nancy Kovach[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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This bounced at CSD. I think this one is too far off. Si Trew (talk) 00:40, 20 May 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.
Comments after discussion close
  • Comment a WP:SNOW is one !vote now? I don't mind the keep that is why I list if I am in doubt but it is hardly a WP:SNOW. Si Trew (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOW is not really about number of votes but about the idea that there no possible way there will be any other result. Since this is her birth name, there is no possible way this would end in anyway but keep. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I hadn't noticed (and I did briefly check the target) that this was her birth name, my mistake entirely. Neelix redirects get me like that after a bit, your eyes kinda glaze over and because of the way human beings' eyesight optical system whatever the scientific name for that is does pattern matching one literally can't see it. I had checked the target and just completely didn't see it (I see it now it is bleeding obvious). (Most typographical errors are like that because people read words or phrases not letters, they miss the vast majority of typos in newspapers etc). Completely my mistake on this one. Si Trew (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_20&oldid=1088109079"