Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 23, 2016.

Alacris[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 (even though nobody wrote "delete" in bold text below) Deryck C. 23:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear why redirecting Alacris to Active Directory - the only link between the two terms is that in 2005, Microsoft acquired a company called Alacris which worked on directories and used Microsoft's Active Directory solution. Redirecting from a company name to a different company's product name may actually be misleading. — kashmiri TALK 23:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Alacris Theranostics, which is known as Alacris. N.b., it's at AfD, so that could mean this ends up deleted after all. So be it. --BDD (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Alacris which was acquired by Microsoft gets a one-line mention at List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft listing their line of business and date of acquisition. Maybe worth a hatnote at Alacris Theranostics at most. Not sure if it's worth a redirect on its own if Alacris Theranostics gets deleted; my unscientific guess is that people are more likely to be searching for partial matches like the species than any of the companies. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 15:29, 24 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.

Wild honeys[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 ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm can we pluralise this? I mean well er just can we? Need I explain (neelix) Si Trew (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Why? The plural of the substance honey is honey, unless you're talking about a nickname for women, then it's a question whether there are notable media such as songs, albums, or films with such a title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary says this is "usually uncountable", but it does have a plural, and the plural form is indeed "honeys". For an example of a non-colloquial usage of that, consider a cheese platter with a selection of wild honeys—i.e., different varietals of honey. The plural is also common at Honey. --BDD (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wild honey per Lenticel. --BDD (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wild honey per Lenticel. I agree. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to wild honey since I see reliable sources such as this book and this book using the wording "wild honeys", even if it looks like improper English to me. I'm also well aware that the primary usage of the term is a slang term for amorous women (Maybe amorous submissive guys in the LGBT context as well? Not sure.), but I'm swayed to ignore that by the sources I just mentioned. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not a real word. Honey is an uncountable noun. Strong delete. We can go around creating these speculative plurals or just let the search engines do the job. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, besides Wiktionary saying this is only "usually" uncountable, the OED gives a 2012 citation of the San Francisco Chronicle using "honeys". Merriam-Webster Unabridged says "plural honeys or honies". You seem to have an extremely narrow definition of "real word". --BDD (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per LT910001, at least until someone can present usage of "wild honeys" in reliable sources. SSTflyer 07:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SSTflyer, did you see CoffeeWithMarkets's sources above? Do you consider them unreliable? --BDD (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, didn't notice that. I would be fine with a retarget. SSTflyer 15:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes as the slang for (potential) girlfriends etc. I can see "honeys" making sense and so on, but that is not the sense here. Sure, if it goes anywhere it should be {{R from plural}} to "Wild honey" but that is kinda uncountable. You don't get seventeen different wild honeys in the market, you get seventeen different varieties of honey. What about if it was wild sugars as kinda an example, or wild asparaguses? Si Trew (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wild honey per Lenticel. Jschnur (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this is being used by reliable source publications, from the United Nations no less, then does the fact that it's improper English really override everything else? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:17, 31 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.

The Masonic[edit]

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

Black Stone (shrine)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 1#Black Stone (shrine)

Seamer (bowler)[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 21:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix) Not sure on this. I do know a bit about cricket but usually I am the bloke at the back doing the scoring cos I am bloody useless on the field. I think the terms "in-seamer" and "out-seamer" are ok essentially for spin bowling whether you are doing it clockwise or anticlockwise from the point of view of the bowler (obviously opposite point of view for the batsman) but we don't have those. Pinging WP:CRICKET if that exists. Is this a valid term or not? The target is fine I am just not sure about whether a bowler would ever be called a "seamer". Si Trew (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for help at WP:CRICKET. I note it is listed on the DAB at Seamer. It is probably OK I just probably didn't hear it ever omn Test Match Special and so forth and what with Neelix' tendency to make things up I doubt myself sometimes. It's not over yet. Since Neelix I believe is North American and that is not a game widely played there it adds to my doubt that this was created from any knowledge but from just sticking words together in arbitrary ways. We can take it out the DAB easily enough if it makes no sense. I mean, what is a seamer if not a male seamstress? It just seemed a bit kinda odd to me but is probably OK in the end. Si Trew (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to do Seamer (cricket) instead of bowler since bowler is ambiguous. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken this out at the DAB after discussion with User:Blue Square Thing at WT:CRICKET all in good faith. as AngusWOOF suggests, there is no need for this disambiguation now. Of course it can go {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} but this is just clutter now. I've asked for WP:CSD on it. Cross your fingers. (Especially if you're a cricket umpire trying to signal to a scorer namely me in a game of village cricket 50 yards (46 m) over at the boundary how many bowling balls are left in an oeuvre that is a really helpful bit of semaphore to a man who could be mistaken for Mr Magoo and is trying to do double entry bookkeeping to keep track of both sides on one book while having a pint and trying to light a cigarette). Si Trew (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, if you've never done it, have a go at running a cricket book. You have to keep track of the overs, the insman, the outsman , the stupid umpire who signals to you from fifty yards away that it was four or six or two wides while you are writing it down and they love in village cricket to make their signals oh so subtle it is not as if they are a traffic policeman or anything waving their hands around no they love it to signal you four wides with a little waggle of their finger from fifty yards away and if you score two runs when they signalled one run oh you're the problem. Try it you'll love it. Really bloody difficult job. The rest of them just bash a ball about and run about a bit. If you call "Over (cricket)" when they have had six goes the umpire will tell you they have had five or they have had seven even though your book clearly shows that they have had six and has markings on it to mark off each time a bowl is made exactly for that purpose. As usual you become as I am here with the Neelix redirects the stool pigeon for everything that went wrong in the game and so on. I am used to it, I can take it. Si Trew (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One thing and there is probably someone who has a lot more money than me probably said this better than I that the less power you have the more you will exercise it and village cricket umpires are like that. It's their one chance of power each weekend and you are always wrong. Barak Obama or David Cameron do not go around issuing parking tickets even though I imagine technically it is in their power to do so. The people with the least power execute it mercilessly. That is why security guards stop me in shops when I have paid for goods (I don't steal) because it is the one tiny little bit of power they have. Trew's inverse law of power to control ratio. I could probably write a PhD about that but the people who award the PhD theses have a lots of power but no control. Si Trew (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects are cheap. Seamer is a commonly used term for fast-medium bowlers who don't use pace, swing (and definitely not spin), but movement from the seam hitting the pitch (also called cutters). Just google "Glenn McGrath" seamer and see a heap of uses in Australian newspapers. I've fixed the incorrect definition on the Seamer page too. Shouldn't use Seamer (cricket), as a pitch that encourages seam movement is also called a seamer - ie this NZ article. The-Pope (talk) 10:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The relevant article is seam bowling and any term that relates to bowling with movement off the seam of the ball should redirect to that. The term is very common in Australia and NZ; it has become increasingly common in GB too in recent times. I think The-Pope has got this sorted so go with him. Jack | talk page 09:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - mentioned at seam bowling.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:07, 31 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.

Chanced[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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch (neelix). The target is a DAB but "to chance" as a verb means usually to gamble (chanced one's arm and so forth) so now I am doubting when I boldly made chancing just R to verb rather than list it whether I should have done. I know in English there is no noun that cannot be verbed but is it the right place to put it? We can soon fix chancing if I were too hasty there. Si Trew (talk) 20:16, 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.

Estlin Cummings[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. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure on this one. e. e. cummings always wrote his name that way in lowercase but I appreciate that we cannot do that here on Wikipedia. (We can) but this listing as a middle name is probably a bit out of order. (Neelix redirect) Si Trew (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Stacks of nonsense poetry redirects coming up don't want to flood RfD or CSD. Sheesh sometimes I know what i am talking about. Si Trew (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
e. e. cummings
was mostly hummings
about things scatalogical
not anatomical
So this Clerihew
I give it to you
So that you can decide
Whether we can divide

Si Trew (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not true that E. E. Cummings “always wrote his name that way in lowercase”. According to the target article, claiming so is “stupid & childish”. Now about the redirect: Cummings went by the name Estlin, so it is reasonable for people to look him up by this name, so keep it. Gorobay (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily withdrawn by nominator. Yep thanks for the second check. Yes of course he didn't "always write it that way" but he certainly always (I think) published in that way as e. e. cummings. It's fine. Si Trew (talk) 19:42, 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.

Quatrameter[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope nope you cannot have this (Neelix redirect). Tetra is Greek for four and Quatra is Latin. Nobody in his right mind says Quatrameter this is rather nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could go to Quartermaster as {{R from mispelling}}. Not sure. Si Trew (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There were legs, legs, going around like pegs in the Stores, in the Stores
There were legs, legs, going around like pegs in the Quartermaster's stores
My eyes are dim I cannot see I have not got my specs with me
I have not got my specs with me
There were legs, legs, going around like pegs in the Storehouse in the stores
Therw were legs, legs going around like pegs in the Quartermaster's Stores

Si Trew (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nah I was a cub scout for about six weeks but that's all. I learned it from me Dad, he liked doing silly songs like that. I was in the Boy's Brigade. Si Trew (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thanks for the musical interlude, Simon - I remember that song from Scouts as well :) Quatrameter doesn't seem like a plausible misspelling of Quartermaster to me though... delete this, it is meaningless. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep- If any one of you had done a simple Google Search like I just did, you'd realize that plenty of reliable sources use this term to refer to a tetrameter. Feedback 20:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - oh, bad mistake on my part. For some reason I read "tetra" as 3. But of course it's not, it's 4. Same as "quatra". So, these are synonyms. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • hmmmmm There are perhaps enough hits to justify this, but OTOH I find that in German at least "quadrameter" means "square meter'. Mangoe (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I almost voted delete but then found from Google Books [1] that "quatrameter" is used as a synonym of "tetrameter" in books about poetry. Since that is a "correct" synonym, it takes priority over both "quartermeter" and "quadratmeter" which are misspellings. Deryck C. 16:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The German don't come into it, this is English Wikipedia. Professional literary critics of poetry should know better, this is a hybrid word of Greek and Latin, some kind of made-up nonsense like television (smiles). I'm not convinced this is encylopaeidic. Take it to Wiktionary if you want but the word quite patently is tetrameter. Just because a few illiterary critics use it this way (I note the top four hits at the link given to Google Books are for children's books, but I should hate to suggest that is just hack writing) does not convince me this is in widespread use. I learned my Latin and Greek from the backs of matchboxes and even I know that quadrameter is just, well, it's just wrong. Si Trew (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then again I am something rather of a prescriptive grammarian so I maybe am being a bit too narrow minded. Si Trew (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But if a user were to make the (apparently common) mistake of blending Greek and Latin in this way, this is pretty likely to be the subject they're looking for, no? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:12, 24 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.

Shahistan[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 21:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) not sure on this one. It is in the article in its history but might these days seem a bit pejorative as meaning "king town" or "king city". Probably perfectly OK but not 100% sure. Closing admin R to section please. Si Trew (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • retarget to Persia. Google Books seems to connect the term to ancient Persia. I'm also confirm SiTrew's findings. Shahistan means the territory/country of the Shah --Lenticel (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget as suggested. Uanfala (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deryck C. below. Uanfala (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We've actually established that Shahistan has been used to refer to two slightly different geographical areas in antiquity: ancient Tabriz, and ancient Persia. It's best to delete and reveal search results. Deryck C. 16:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yup, let the search engine do its job. Thanks to User:Lenticel because I tried to translate well in a hurry and of course it is Country not Town/City I was doing just as best I could to be brief when I pack the maximum number of words into the minimum amount of thought. I should have linked Shah for example. Better off deleted, let the search engine do its job. Si Trew (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Technically I imagine this would be done as withdrawn by nominator or I can take WP:CSD with WP:A7 referring to this discussion and I imagine it would be deleted because admins at CSD tend to be more averse to the "neelix redirects" than I am but I think we need WP:CONSENSUS first hence my !vote. I didn't !vote the first time round I merely offered it for comment. Since I am daily being accused of taking Neelix redirects too hastily to CSD I should like this to stand that in fact I do not take every Neelix redirect to CSD wandering around with a blunderbuss taking potshots at every redirect. If I am in doubt I ask. What do you do? Si Trew (talk) 21:09, 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.

2b1ask1[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 is a marginal one. The main arguments are that this redirect comes from a Freemasonry meme, but it's a single publicity campaign and there's just about a majority who think it shouldn't refer to the overall article about freemasonry. Deryck C. 22:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meme Lodge No. Over 9000. The Traditionalist (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even if this were a Freemason's lodge it would not be notable on Wikipedia, and to redirect it simply to Freemasonry would be absurd. I go get my compass and sextant. but I think redirecting it in this way is a bit weird. I have no problems with anyone's beliefs but on wikipedia this makes no sense. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Funny story, when I came to this discussion I had no clue I was the one who made the page. That being said, Google it. It's on all sorts of shirts and bumper stickers and I suppose I figured in case someone wanted to look it up I'd at least point the person the the right direction. I guess my question though, is what made you decide to look it up and then go to the trouble of trying to get it deleted? PeRshGo (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PeRshGo: This is not regular Masonic terminology and it does not strictly refer only to Freemasonry. I simply browsed the list of redirects to Freemsonry and nominated the ones I thought that deserved discussion.--The Traditionalist (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Traditionalist: Are you using the term regular in the Masonic sense, to claim that the phrase is irregular? PeRshGo (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PeRshGo: Yes.--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Traditionalist: Ah, well that certainly isn't the case in the US. Some grand lodges even have entire sections dedicated to the acronym. 2B1Ask1 - Grand Lodge of Ancient Free Masons of South Carolina PeRshGo (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "to be one ask one". Not sure if it originates from a meme or not.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the meme isn't significant enough to be discussed at the target. If someone were to search for this, they would want specific information about this, of which we do not have. -- Tavix (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or refine target to Freemasonry#Joining a Lodge. That section contains "The onus is on candidates to ask to join; while candidates may be encouraged to ask, they are never invited." That's what this meme is referring to. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The Wiki isn't an indiscriminate depository of dank memes --Lenticel (talk) 03:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Ivanvector. Would be more solid if this were mentioned there. --BDD (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have a great friend, not seen him in many years, who is a Freemason in England. He insisted, every thursday as he went out dressed suited and booted with his star and compasses and so on that it is "not a secret society, it is a society of secrets". The distinction is valid. The Freemasons at least in England do an immense amount of good work for charities and so on but don't go round with a loudhailer bragging about it, as neither do I or neither should anyone, that is turning a good deed into a bad deed by trying to get some personal kinda recognition for something that should be done quietly. You might as well say that a confession is some kind of society of you and the Church in a society of secrets. At least in England, they are very open in what they do. The Monty Python stereotype of the left handed handshake and having to lift your left trouser leg, and so on, is exactly that, a stereotype, a funny one but it just is not like that. I am not a Freemason. I'm an apathist. What we at Wikipedia have to do here is to be absolutely neutral and welcome everybody. It says it right there, welcome to wikipedia, the free encylopedia that anyone can edit.

Delete because it makes no sense here with this combination of characters but that's all even if that is the name of the lodge that is a private matter for them and not encylopaeidic. But if you are going to start bashing Freemasons, try start bashing Jews, Gypsies, refugees, and anyone else you don't like first. Everyone's entitled to my own opinion. That line of argument really gets my goat. Si Trew (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It's not a meme, because it predates memes. It's not a Lodge, either. This is a slogan from an ad campaign back in the late 1990s/early 2000s (at the latest) in the US jurisdictions of Freemasonry only. I don't know how it was originated, but it was widespread somehow, and was probably trying to be "hip" with the idea. That being said, it does not appear to be either especially notable or successful despite its spread, so no one is going to really look for it at this point in time (20 years later), and it really just comes across as neologism at this point. Also, to speak to Ivanvector's comment, the idea behind was to ask someone whom you knew was a Mason if one was interested as a starting point. IMO, retargeting to joining requirements is really not in the spirit of what it was supposed to accomplish - it was an icebreaker. Additionally, the hilariousness of the speculation in this discussion does point out the need for an WP:EXPERT sometimes. MSJapan (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MSJapan: are you a Freemason? are you the expert? Any Freemasons here? as it happens
I can call spirits from the briny deep
And so can I, and so can any man
But will they come when you do call them?
That would be fine to have a WP:EXPERT but it is not obligatory for a Freemason to turn up at RfD to sort it out. As it happens, I have spent most of my evening over at a discussion on something else where patently there is an "expert" in your words who put me right and sorted it out and I am cleaning up the mess left by a stack of Neelix redirects. You call it laughable, I call it frankly abominable. To create redirects that you know nothing about is just well backwards run sentences until reels the mind. You try doing it, @MSJapan:, you try taking stacks and stacks off of User:Anomie list/Neelix list/2 and trying to make head or tail of them. Try doing it for just about two hours and see if your head spins. Not because they were created in bad faith but just technically to list them, to sort them, to put them in good order for a CSD or an RfD or a keep, you try doing it then come back here and tell me it is laughable. Only the second personal insult I have had today so I am doing pretty well today. Si Trew (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens I probably have a new "expert" that will help out at RfD because of the intelligent and kind conversation we had this evening over one of the Neelix redirects which was only one and I have asked that expert whether I can call on his advice if I need it. (I think he his a he, but if not, I shall call on her advice, I didn't look at the user's page). What did you do? Si Trew (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you have an issue somewhere else on WP doesn't entitle you to hurl abuse at an editor in an unrelated discussion. What you took as a personal insult wasn't even a reply to you, so I'd suggest you dial your attitude back. MSJapan (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're thinking of Internet memes. This certainly looks like it would qualify as a meme. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained above that this is not a meme. MSJapan (talk) 01:04, 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.

Oreille de souris[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. The general consensus is that the French name of this plant isn't used in English much. Deryck C. 23:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? "Oreille De Souris" and "Oreille de Souris" were briefly the title of the article now at Faujasiopsis reticulata. This is a French common name that applies to several plants. The first Google hit I get for "oreille de souris" is a disambiguation page on the French Wikipedia (fr:Oreille de souris). Do we need to make a disambiguation page for a French language term on en.wikipedia, or can we just delete these? Plantdrew (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh bugger that's a tricky one. Mouse's eye literally. I don't speak botanic but I speak French. I think we can delete em, User:Plantdrew unless there is an equivalent WP:COMMONNAME in English. I give you a bonus: in Hungarian the common name for the daffodil and that lot of stuff is narcis (Narcissus). They have just about finished now around here we had a load of really nice ones this year and put them down to bed down ready for next year, in an old cast-iron bathtub that all the bulbs are in, tulips and whatnot. I know they have the botanic name in English but in Hungarian that is the common name. I think it derives or some books say from asphodel but I am not sure the etymology seems uncertain on that (in English/Welsh). Delete all. It makes no sense in English unless there is a WP:COMMONNAME in English for "Mouse Eye" and if there is it might refer to a completely different flower but I don't think there is. Si Trew (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SimonTrew: minor correction, "oreille" is "ear", not "eye". I can't find any evidence that there even is a common name of F. reticulata in English (the IUCN redlist only lists "oreille de souris" as the French common name...) And fr:wp don't have an article for F. reticulata at all, though their disambig page for oreille de souris does link to their page for mouse-ear hawkweed, which is apparently so called in both French and English.
To complicate the story further, some more searching reveals that there is Myosotis (the forget-me-not, the genus name is "mouse ear" in Greek); Cerastium (mouse-ear and mouse ear redirect there); the genus of mouse-eared bats (mouse-eared redirects there); the greater mouse-eared bat (a specific family within that genus, sometimes just called the "mouse eared bat"); mouse-ear cress; the redirect mouse-ear fungus to the dab page wood ear (based off of a translation of the Chinese common name, it appears); mouse-eared combretum; a dab page for mouse-ear tickseed.
We have, then, at minimum nine or ten other articles which might justly be redirects for "oreille de souris"; I suspect the best bets are mouse-ear hawkweed and Myosotis (the former having the common name "mouse ear" in both French and English; the latter meaning "mouse ear" and having that common name in French). There are so many plausible options, though, that I would just delete and have done with it... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hehehehe I dunno who just dropped a word in my shell-like but of course oreille is ear not eye. I cocked up sorry. mes yeux ne sont tres bien. Si Trew (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right so we have lots of mouse eared things. I think best to delete them all as WP:RFOREIGN. Onh the backs of seed packets it will have the botanical name in latin/greek (that is kinda the point) then in your local language and stuff, it will not, unless you live in France or buy very cheap seeds that are out of date and shipped all over europe, have them in French. This is no help to an English-speaking audiences. Sorrry for cocking up saying eye not ear. mes oreillles et barbes my ears and whiskers as the dormouse said in Alice in Wonderland at the tea party. Of course a dormouse is not a mouse but well never mind. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think. Not apparently a common name in English so this runs afoul of WP:RFOREIGN. There are some plants with common French names that are also common in English (c.f. fleur-de-lis) as we English like to borrow words, but I don't think this is one. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh in British English it is usually fleur-de-lys – I don't really know why the I/Y variation, I guess just imported at an earlier date (the word I mean not the flower). Isn't the Prince of Wales' um three feathers technically a fleur-de-lys? Orwell grumbles somewhere in his Diaries that nice english names like snapdragon were being replaced by Latin names like Antirrhinum (I can never spell that one – that was my third attempt) and forget-me-not with myositos (I think he actually spells it myosotis but I would need to really rack my memory to check) and that kind of thing. I can't think of too many more in French, oh hang on girasol um sunflower comes via French in an odd way because it "revolves around the sun" but I am not sure if we have that in English. Si Trew (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We do but it goes to a kind of crystal not to the flower. Narcis (that is Narcissus means daffodil, asphodel in Hungarian). again, I don't really why they are so narcissistic but that is what it is. Again we do have Narcissus (plant) but they are not the little small ones but the well just normal ones. So these WP:COMMONNAMEs are rather um culture-specific which is exactly why not just on Wikipedia but in real life we have the Latin/Greek so we can be sure we aren't picking up a load of paradise fruit when we wanted paradicom (tomatoes). Si Trew (talk) 00:50, 31 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.

All Night, Alone.[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 21:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a highly unlikely {{R from erroneous name}}. Steel1943 (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - In addition to what's stated above, from some searching there appears to be other instances of songs by the name of "All Night Alone" or otherwise (not sure if any of them are notable), so there's an issue unhelpful vagueness as well. The redirect should just be scrubbed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not likely typo AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - stats at 2/day, so something is hitting it. Can't say if those 2/day are finding what they're looking for, of course. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 24 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.

The Wrestlers (painting)[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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Wrestlers (painting) went red but this one remains. It was declined at WP:CSD in good faith by User:Iridescent. It was Neelix who did the page move on 1 August 2015 which must have been like just one of his very last before the "discovery" of the Neelix redirects. Iridescent says essentially keep because it is linked from a lot of pages. I can see the logic in that but as it's {{R from move}} (the page move being done by Neelix after creating the other one) I guess a bot will have moved a lot of links over to avoid double redirects, however, is it right? If it's wrong, regardless of the number of redlinks it might leave in its wake, it should go. I am not sure. I can see the sweeping up afterwards, were we to delete it, being a struggle but we should not have incorrect information either. We can probably somehow fix the links to the target I am aware of WP:NOTBROKEN but if this is broken that is what we have to do. I can do it. Si Trew (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Yes, of course it's correct. Practice is to disambiguate paintings by artist surname, but not all readers are familiar with that. The only question here is whether the Etty painting deserves to be consider primary for the term—some users are opposed to the idea sub-primary topics (i.e., primary for terms that include disambiguators), though official guidelines neither condone nor condemn it. If we wanted to change the status quo, retargeting to the dab at The Wrestler is the only appropriate action. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reason I declined your speedy request. This was the redirect created by Neelix unilaterally deciding to retitle a Featured Article (disclaimer: written by me); as such, deleting this will create a sea of redlinks across dozens of pages. The Etty painting is very clearly the primary target (a well-known painting by a well-known artist, reproductions of which are the best-selling poster and postcard from the gallery in which it's housed); the only reason the Luks article even exists is that Neelix had a tantrum regarding my showing insufficient respect to one of his pointless templates and deliberately set out to find another painting by that title so he could find a pretext to move the Etty article. As with so much of Neelix's oeuvre, the Luks article is a dubiously-sourced article on a painting of dubious notability (note that the references are all to general books and articles which mention it in passing, rather than books or articles which are actually about the painting in question), is not on public display, and is of no interest to readers whatsoever (as best I can tell, it has never generated pageviews in double figures, and most of the pageviews it does get can probably be accounted for by search engine crawlers). ‑ Iridescent 16:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Target article's subject is a painting. No claim for ambiguity has yet to be established. Steel1943 (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Iridescent. (I'd asked him to respond to Steel1943's comment, but on rereading I see he already anticipated it.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Looking in to the primary topic issue further, I'm starting to lean more towards retarget. (I really only oppose deletion at this point.) None of my top three hits for "the wrestlers" painting -wikipedia were the Etty painting. Wrestlers (Eakins) is the first hit, and seems to be very common among the results. Luks comes in at #2, with another Wrestlers, this one by Alexandre Falguière, at #3. (Falguière's painting is mentioned and pictured on his works article, but doesn't have a standalone.)
I see Iridescent's page view stats, but I'd like to see evidence that they aren't merely a function of the one article being an FA and the other being relatively new. And to be clear, the Etty article is excellent, but article quality isn't really a primary topic criterion. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting "relatively new" from? They were created less than two months apart (Etty, Luks), when Neelix was in his "following me about being generally annoying" phase. To be clear, I don't have any strong objection to this being re-retargeted back to the dab page provided it isn't redlinked, but I find it vanishingly unlikely many readers are looking for the Luks—an average of four pageviews per day is little more than one would expect from search engine bots alone, and given the dubious nature of the sourcing on it I'm not even sure it would survive AFD. ‑ Iridescent 21:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, honestly, I just assumed the Etty article was much older since it's in such good shape. All the more impressive as an FA, then. Still somewhat on the fence in terms of keep vs. retarget. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am deliberately standing off on this one. User:Iridescent despite and having declared an interest is obviously the expert here and should go what that user says. I can add nothing of use to this one except to say follow Iridescent. WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Yes, that template was rather stupid. Si Trew (talk) 09:47, 24 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.

Canna orientalis f. flava[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 Rmhermen. --BDD (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our botanical experts User:Plantdrew and User:Peter coxhead will call this one. I have already rcatted many it is the f. in the middle here that is bothersome. I realise the f. is used often in botanical as an abbreviation of the genus name but is this OK kinda in the middle I don't think it is. Si Trew (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. "f." is an abbreviation for forma (botany); there's nothing necessarily wrong with having an "f." in the middle of a scientific name. However, I can't find any evidence that flava has ever been published at the rank of forma. There are sources for Canna orientalis var. flava; I've edited the target article to have the sourceable synonym. Plantdrew (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've taken it speedy. I didn't know in the middle that it meant that. I know what it means but didn't know the abbreviation meant that. (sings) Show me the way to Amaryllis. Thanks for helping, as always. Si Trew (talk) 09:57, 24 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.

Bigend[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) 16:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what a big end or bigend means a big end is the major cylinder on a four-stroke engine as far as I know. WP:NOTDIC. This is a bit nonsense. (Neelix redirect) Big end is a redirect to Crankpin. Si Trew (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. There's also Bigend Saddle but these two do come up at the top of the search results, so I don't see much point in a dab page either. Uanfala (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's also related to Endianness Siuenti (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per precedence set at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 30#Heartilly. Even though the target of the redirect is a fictional character, it's seemingly still a valid {{R from surname}}. (I'm "weak" since I'm stating this opinion against deletion, not against retargeting or creating a disambiguation page.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig We've established above that it can refer to at least three different things, so best to use a disambiguation page, since I don't think any of these is primary. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Quite happy as nom for it to be dabbed. I hadn't thought of endianness and so yes there are the big endians and little endians in Swift's Gulliver's Travels so that can go on there too although as you see we don't have those R's specifically. Si Trew (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and perhaps hatnote to Crankpin. "Bigend" as one word seems to primarily refer to Hubertus. "Big end" with two words would be the crankpin. As far as "big-endian," I haven't seen it used without the -ian suffix, so it wouldn't refer to that. "Bigend" is also the first six letters of bigender. My point is that it doesn't seem to be as ambiguous as it's being made out to be. -- Tavix (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Star Wars: Bloodlines[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 21:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deletion of this unused redirect, which may create confusion with Star Wars: Bloodline. The destination of this redirect is Bloodlines (Star Wars novel), and the two novel articles have hatnotes to navigate between them. — TAnthonyTalk 15:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete. The title seems obviously useful pointing to either its current target or the other target which it could be confused. However, since one of the possible targets is an erroneous title match, I would not suggest creating a disambiguation page. Given that the current situation is a title match, I'm currently leaning more towards "Keep" than "Retarget to Star Wars: Bloodline". In fact, this redirect's target currently already has a hatnote redirecting readers to the latter option. Steel1943 (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My issue us just that typing Star Wars: Blood... brings up both Star Wars: Bloodline and Star Wars: Bloodlines, with nothing to differentiate and guide a reader to the novel they are looking for. As the plural (Star Wars: Bloodlines) is not the proper name of the 2006 novel anyway and so is the less likely search destination, it seemed best to me to point the searcher to the 2016 novel, where there is a hatnote in the less likely case they are actually looking for the 2006 novel.— TAnthonyTalk 17:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since hatnote can help resolve any confusion from our readers --Lenticel (talk) 00:59, 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.

~*~ StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs ~*~[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. Well, consensus can change. Deryck C. 23:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Just because Randall Munroe made a joke doesn't mean this is a plausible search term.  ONR  (talk)  23:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's still generating about 5 hits/day, and it goes where I would expect to end up if I were to search for it. -- Tavix (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to xkcd per my comment in the previous discussion. Users typing this exact jumble of characters are here because of the webcomic, so this should point to it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Though somewhat of an easter egg, I suspect most readers using this are just wondering if this actually works.--BDD (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smack nominator on the side of the head for not checking for previous nominations and seeing how much drama this caused last time. But I will not contribute to the drama. Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard Delete- This is absurd. WP:XKCD is clear on this. Hard Delete StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs as well. Feedback 19:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Your joke is bad and you should feel bad! CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Implausible search term. Page should be protected from re-creation. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 09:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It doesn't hurt to spend more time to gauge the sentiments of the community, especially for a discussion with an inflamed precedent...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you're serious about keeping this, the article should at least discuss that particular stylization and back it up with reliable sources. If it's Wikipedia editor-initiated drama then forget it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:XKCD. Enough with the xkcd related vandalism. Keeping this stuff only encourages more the next time xkcd mentions Wikipedia in some fashion. Plantdrew (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think this falls into the category of search terms that would only be entered if the user knew, in advance, what they were searching for. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nobody who even knows about it will ever search for it like that because they will not remember it. And if they do, then they will be disappointed if they are redirected to this page.--The Traditionalist (talk) 08:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I did search for this a few days before the nom, and it went exactly where I expected, so I wasn't disappointed. Are you saying you think a reader would be disappointed because they'd be looking for content on XKCD, or the naming dispute? --BDD (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: If they wanted to go to Star Trek Into Darkness they would type “Star Trek Into Darkness”. If they bothered to type “~*~ StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs ~*~” they would be expecting to go somewhere different from Star Trek Into Darkness (XKCD, for example).--The Traditionalist (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying. That wasn't my expectation when I searched it. I'm not a typical reader, but editors are readers too. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix, and because the comic (apart from its title) does not mention the actual title of the Wikipedia article. SSTflyer 05:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per many above entries. To quote PlantDrew: "Enough with the xkcd related vandalism. Keeping this stuff only encourages more the next time xkcd mentions Wikipedia in some fashion" --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - just because redirects are cheap doesn't mean we need to have them for every bit of Internet-generated nonsense that's out there. To take WP:10YT to a bit of an extreme, nobody's going to care about this in ten minutes, much less ten years' time. MSJapan (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XKCD. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:09, 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.

Complete works of Plato[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 1#Complete works of Plato

Regular Grand Lodge of England[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 31#Regular Grand Lodge of England

The second us president[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The capitalisation is rather bad. Especially when there is no redirect called The second U.S. President. The Traditionalist (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: If you type in "The Second US President", it will still send you to Adams. Also, there's no reason why the redlink the OP mentions shouldn't be created. pbp 01:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, it goes to this redirect in question. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as kinda well who was the second US president especially with the caps this. It could be Washington or Adams or pretty much anything, the second US president depends really on how you define a president of the United States.
Now Lydia, say Lydia now have you heard Lydia
Lydia the tattooed lady
She's got eyes that folks adore so
And a torso even moreso
Lydia say lydia well have you met lydia
Lydia the queen of tattoo
On the back is the Battle of Waterloo
Beside it a Wreck of the Hesperus too
And proudly above waves the Red White and Blue
You can learn a lot from Lydia
SHuffle up and see her her with her big diamond
Over on the left side we have Treasure Island
There's Nijinski a-doing a rumba
There's her social security number
When her robe is unfurled she will show you the world
If you step up and tell her where
For a dime you can see Kankakee or Pareeee
or Washington crossing the Delaware
Here is Grover Walin unveilin' the Trilon
Over on the right we may have the new Skylon
Here is Captain Spalding exploring the Amazon
Here's Godiva but with her pajamas on
Now Lydia say Lydia now have you met Lydia Lydia the champ of them all
For two bits she will do a Muzerka in Jazz
With a view of Niagra that nobody has
And right on the back you can see Alcatraz
You can learn a lot from Lydia
She once swept an Admiral clear off his feet
The ships on her hips made his heart miss a beat
For now the old boy's in command of the fleet
As he went and married Lydia.

You can learn a lot from Lydia, la la, la la. Si Trew (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Use format "2nd President of the United States" instead of creating new ways of searching. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC) updated 20:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as someone who doesn't seem to hang around here any more once convincingly argued (and convinced me, at least) our function here is not to inhibit users finding their information but to facilitate it. The function of redirects is to help users find the information that they're looking for, in whatever way they might happen to look for it. This redirect is not an error and points to the topic that users typing it are likely searching for. There is no reason to delete it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:19, 24 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.

Grows glaciers[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 21:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of these (Neelix redirect). I've taken many to CSD and obvious I can {{R from verb}} this but not sure it makes sense to do so.

Admittedly I'm feeling cold to
Neelix R's lo and behold
you look at User:Anomie/Neelix_list/4#Ice
and then gainsay me. This suffice
to set what we should do with all.
I'm done now
I have set my stall. Si Trew (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially I think our WP:CONSENSUS on this one will cover many of the others and we can mass delete them then. THere are many that are sensible but there are loads of verb forms and all kinds of things which are not at the target at all and essentially the usual combinatorial explosion. Si Trew (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:NOUN allows for verb forms but you can try to filter out the non-notable uses. Do the news articles ever refer to this verb form? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, sure, I could {{R from verb}} them as I said in the nom but I am not sure with a lot of them it makes sense to do so. Some it does and I have thus kept and rcatted quite a few but some are a bit kinda too wacky I think like accumulates glacial ice is technically, syntatically correct but nobody is ever going to search that way unless they have a very old refrigerator. (edit conflict) with AngusWOOF I don't know which is going to take so apols if I have accidentally taken someone else's out. Si Trew (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Besides this just not appearing helpful, practically-speaking, I'm not seeing actual scientists phrase things this way. I can find claims that doing a given X or Y "grows glaciers" directly from random chatter at places such as Google Plus, unclear quotes supposedly attributed to Prince Charles, idle banter over at Reddit, but nothing solid. It can be argued that this is an "R from ___" of some form, but this is not particularly helpful anyways, so what's the point of hashing that out even more? Best to just flush the redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well also just ice crystals or indeed any crystal "grows" so a glacier technically grows by one ice crystal at a time, often in a bit of a hurry, but still one at a time. I just think it is a bit nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 19:55, 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.

Be As You Are[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 Be as You Are (Songs from an Old Blue Chair) and hatnote. Deryck C. 23:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be as You Are (Songs from an Old Blue Chair) peaked at #1 on the Billboard 200, and is clearly more significant than a non-single song only mentioned in the Track listing section of an album article. SSTflyer 10:28, 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.

White blue[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 all speedy deleted criterion WP:G6 by Sphilbrick. SimonTrew mentioned another redirect but the one he posted is also redlinked, so I take it as having also been deleted. If not, it would be prudent to list any further additions as a new discussion. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anomie/Neelix_list/3 entris 63-72. Although usually yes colours are kinda associative so if you say something is "red and white" or "white and red" it doesn't really matter beyond a bit of emphasis on which is more prominent, I am not sure with technical terms like this target it makes sense does it? (Neelix) Si Trew (talk) 09:58, 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.

Blue-coat[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 Bluecoat (disambiguation). -- Tavix (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix) Tricky with the hyphen. Do we leave this where it is or do we take it to Bluecoat (disambiguation) which is hatnoted at the target? Not sure. Si Trew (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Term is not used in notable news articles. Search on the Internet points mainly to Blue Coat corporation, and they don't use the hyphen. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:41, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just a pointer, I am also trogging through the "blue" colour redirects and don't wnt to clash. I'm surprised at the DAB that we don't have an entry for Pontin's where the staff were known as "bluecoats" (I am talking like forty years ago, all changed now of course) like the staff at Butlin's were known as "redcoats" (and affectionately parodied in Hi-de-Hi as "Yellowcoats") but we can easily add that, agree the DAB is best. Si Trew (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Bluecoat (disambiguation). Reasonably plausible and does no harm.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Triameter[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 1#Triameter

Omini[edit]

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

La Primaudaye[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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 10:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix) User:Oiyarbepsy reverted my CSD on this one (which is fine) but I don't think this makes sense. The surname of this person is not La Primaudaye but de La Primaudaye. That would be a bit like calling say Des O'Connor "Des Connor". I don't think we can do that, the "de" is not some kinda disposable fragment. Si Trew (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article refers to "La Primaudaye" a number of times. Jschnur (talk) 07:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jschnur's reasoning. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily keep as withdrawn by nominator. WP:IDONTLIKEIT but yep I can see the reasoning. Thanks to User:JSchnur for the second set of eyes there. In French it would kinda make no sense without the de but this is the English Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am a liar there because the French has it just as La Primaudaye so with this particular one it looks like you can separate it. Many surnames, you see my reasoning, you can't just knock off a Mac off of MacDonald and call them Donald so on, so I think I made the right call in bringing it here, Oiyarbepysy made the right call in declining the CSD, on this one I am wrong and you are right. Si Trew (talk) 10:13, 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.

Whippet (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 keep ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this is a separate brand built by Willys and it should have its own article, like Buick does. I'll ask Wikiproject Cars to weigh in. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's redirected to an article that uses Whippet as a model name. But yes, if there's enough independent notability and sourcing to create an article, go for it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The targeted article does indeed discuss Whippet cars in several sentences, including with helpful images. I don't see the problem. If the redirect is clearly helpful, then by all means it should be retained. I don't object to a new page being created, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:59, 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.

Alec Wulff[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. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY: Creator's (and sole editor's) support can also be seen as a CSD G7.—Bagumba (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #1: "The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine." These redirects are for a player on the team, with no other mention in the article of them besides a sparse entry in a roster listing. Moreover, these college players are likely to appear on four different articles, one for each sports season they will be in college. The players do not meet WP:GNG. With limited information of them in each article, it makes more sense to have the term go through Wikipedia's search engine, showing all the mentions of the player to the reader, instead of redirecting to one arbitrary article.—Bagumba (talk) 05:52, 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.

Chicanery O'Hare International Airport[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 (User:The Anome). (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 13:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be a likely and useful redirect (but not so bad as to be R3?). Feinoha Talk 04:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - seems like it's meant to be an inflammatory redirect. RA0808 talkcontribs 05:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inflammatory has little to do with whether we delete redirects (WP:RNEUTRAL: "Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion"), but as a nickname for the airport, this is entirely unattested in reliable sources or even unreliable ones, meaning that it will never properly be mentioned at the target and it's not possible for any Wikipedia article to discuss it. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh absolutely WP:RNEUTRAL but this backs into WP:NONSENSE WP:RFD#D5. Delete. I would have combined with the one below but User:The Anome was so quick to delete that, I didn't really have a chance neither did User:RA0808 nor User:Feinoha to kinda agree to that combining. I ain't complaining I'm just saying I probably would have done if it weren't that the one below were speedied, but if that one goes this one must surely go. I think I actually nominated this for CSD on those grounds has that been declined or is it "stacking"? Si Trew (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope as I write it's still "stacking" at CSD. I referred it back to the conversation below in my CSD nomination. Oddly the DAB there don't we have stacking (aviation) or something not listed there, used in aviation slang when air traffic controllers "stack" aircraft to be clear for landing? No big deal but do we have anything we can add at that DAB for that? (Totally separate from this of course I was just punning it). Si Trew (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should've done it in this case but I decided to use Twinkle and as far as I know it doesn't let users combine RfDs. Anyway thanks for the note for the future. Feinoha Talk 12:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, gone. The first one went so quickly really nobody had a chance to combine them in any way I just didn't want the second one as an orphan so I nominated it at CSD as WP:SNOW.
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.

Chicanery, Illinois[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 salted as WP:R3 by admin User:The Anome. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be a likely and useful redirect (but not so bad as to be R3?). Feinoha Talk 04:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am never good for searching for these things but consensus was some time ago, I would say about eighteen months ago, that we don't keep kinda pejorative expressions for places unless they are very WP:RS. I listed one I think it was New York Shitty (and gave others examples on a similar vein like Filthadelphia and so on) that did have at least kinda marginal RS, used in a newspaper and so on, and those went even though I had RS for it. I'll try to find the previous discussion. I agree Delete that is I believe the consensus established at that conversastion. Si Trew (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm it can't be those two exactly because they've never been created (so I can't try to pin the R conversation from the deletion history) but it was similar things in that line. Si Trew (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have managed to block my own search now because all the WP search results (of which I get five results) all lead me back to this discussion today because I've mentioned them! I am sure some other editor will be able to find it. Maybe it was Philthadelphia (and I'll just compound the felony if I mentioned anyway you get the idea I am pretty sure we have consensus, the conversastion included List of disparaging place names and whether we should have those at all, you can imagine WP:NOTCENSORED and so forth but that if I remember we need a Pretty strong RS to keep them).
Incidentally I think we can safely combine this with the one above but since another editor has !voted on that @RA0808: would you mind if we do that? Si Trew (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted, and salted, per CSD:R3. -- The Anome (talk) 10:25, 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.
Comments after discussion closed
  • @Si Trew: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 17#Filthydelphia, which closed as retarget to List of city nicknames in Pennsylvania#Philadelphia where it is discussed with sources. (A new editor later removed it; I just restored the mention there.) Anyway, like that one, if this name Chicanery can be sourced, it should be retargeted somewhere which discusses the name; pointing it to the city isn't useful, since it provides the reader with no information about the name itself. Being inflammatory isn't a reason for deletion in and of itself, unless it's a WP:BLP violation or just a totally WP:MADEUP nickname that's never used in the real world; see WP:RNEUTRAL. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That redirect clearly wasn't a typo nor intended as one. This should have been left to a full discussion to determine whether it could be sourced and whether there was an appropriate target where the nickname could be discussed. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks 210.6 that was the one I was thinking of (and I weren't far off saying "About eighteen months ago!). I am going to remove my redlinks in the closed discussion above so I don't compound the felony was using them to try to search for things (I'll leave the text but just unlink them). I think that's a useful cross-ref to have here anyway. Si Trew (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B.C. Cossonay[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per CSD R3 -- The Anome (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nutcracker100 (talk · contribs) has been creating a large number of redirects, some of which are of non-notable figures like Kerins and Pierce to very general articles. If articles exist for the leagues of the teams, it would make more sense to retarget those, but others like Kerins and Pierce might not be notable enough as standalone articles or reasonable redirects. Zappa24Mati 04:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. This sort of redirect to extremely general targets that could not ever reasonably contain information about the source link's subject adds no value at all, and these are best left as redlinks for possible article creation as/when their subjects become notable. -- The Anome (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - It sets a horrible precedent if we have non-notable people leading to extremely board pages that don't mention them at all, let alone even hint to some connection. If we want to look at possible future retargeting, we can. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:42, 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.

Idolises[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 publishing the draft, or recreating any of these as redirects to the finished article, when the time comes. --BDD (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Target is a disambiguation, with none of the items on that disambiguation page being idolize or any similar form. The disambiguation page is clearly an improper target, but I'm not sure what the target should be, or if there should be one at all. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Was about to say "retarget to idolization" ... except that turns out to be another redirect to idol. I'm adding that, and idolize too. (Different creators, but same rationale applies.) Though I kinda think that whatever people are trying to find by searching for these terms (e.g. worship, cult image, teen idol) is more likely to be at this dab page than in search results for these words (and we could always add wikt:idolize to the {{wiktionary}} link that's already there). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We do have an article on Idolatry. That might be a better target, but, yes, with the use in mass media as pop idol, teen idol and so on I am not sure. I suppose people would learn something but we're not kinda didactic here, we should reflect popular usage. Si Trew (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all common word that would be overlinked. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all with User:AngusWOOF, really these are not much more than a WP:DICDEF unless we take them to idolatry and if that's not a good target then we are really left with nothing except WP:XY per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. I was also wondering whether the last, idolization, is a word yet (it probably is although idolisation doesn't seem to be). Si Trew (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To me, it looks like the beginning, original sin behind this big mess is that the topic of social "Idolization" (unlike "Idolatry" as a religious concept) seriously should have its own page. There's multiple reliable sources that look in a scientific-historical way into how X, Y, Z people go from being well-known to having philosophical/psychological significance; this repeating trend is completely notable. I would even maybe thinking of writing it myself at some future point. As for how to sort out the whole mess right now, well, I'm not sure. Maybe delete all of the redirects, allowing for starting from scratch, basically, and a page for "Idolization" being created? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that makes sense. I don't know where you would start with Idolization because it would now I guess be kinda a back formation what with pop idol, teen idol and so on. I believe it is a real word and I deliberately do not check these things because I like to come with a certain naivety as if I were an intelligent but ignorant reader trying to find information, what should I expect to find? Not Idolatry probably. Yes Delete the whole lot and start again. Either that or I start going and coveting my neighbour's wife (she's a cutie). Si Trew (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create an article on Idolization and retarget the rest to it. bd2412 T 01:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
That's easy to say User:BD2412. When you create the article I shall support you. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged, says it right on the RFD instructions, absolutely nothing stopping you turning idolization into an article and it would disappear from RfD in two shakes of a lamb's tail. Or you want someone else to create the article? That must be WP:RS of course and so on. Si Trew (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a start: Draft:Idolization. bd2412 T 03:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Cracking, sorry User:BD2412 with going through the you-know-who redirects I sometimes have a short temper, I apologise. Thanks for making the draft, I think we should 'Move that over into main (I'm not worried about -ise or -ize) and then redirect whatever is sensible to that. Thanks for making the draft. Si Trew (talk) 23:36, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_23&oldid=1088109056"