Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 24, 2016.

Equilibrium (balance)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix) does this make sense I mean it is a bit redundant but does it make sense? I mean, that something in balance, a set of scales or something obviously has equilibrium a see-saw or a teeter totter I think in America naturally has balance but is this just redundant or is it worse? Si Trew (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm because it goes to well sense of balance which I believe and I am no doctor is generally done between the ears and is kinda some kind of coordination, I dunno if this makes sense. I think it is nonsense considering you have the scales of justice and so on and all other kinds of senses of equilibrium both literally and metaphorically. I'll take it to CSD it is vague beyond belief but then I'm a gemini so wish me luck. Si Trew (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "balance" isn't a useful disambiguator for "equilibrium", they're synonyms. Putting "balance" after it doesn't make it any less vague. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep we don't delete harmless 10-year old redirects. FYI such actions introduces redlinks in article histories. The fact that someone didn't figure out good dab-ator is irrelevant in this context. If you think it is confusing if somebody may iuse it improperly, just retarget it to the dab page; I hope it has a better titled redirect which points to "sense of balance". - üser:Altenmann >t 03:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense disambiguation, since it just repeats the main term. Anything called equilibrium can also be called balance, apart from proper titles. If it is kept, the monstrosity that is "List of types of equilibrium" is the better target. --BDD (talk) 14:14, 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.

Coolest place[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 per G6 as an implausible Neelix redirect. Hut 8.5 21:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. (neelix). The coolest place obviously is my house. Does this make any sense to do this like this? What would people be looking for? Si Trew (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been there, it is pretty cool but not as cool as my place. Taken to CSD. Thanks for the second-check. Si Trew (talk) 23:51, 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.

Heartilly[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 an interesting case of WP:CCC (consensus can change) - the same people who participated in the previous RfD now argue for deletion, simply because the original target article got upmerged to a parent-topic. Deryck C. 14:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

This redirect previously targeted Rinoa Heartilly, but since that article has now been redirected to the character list for Final Fantasy VIII, though this was a {{R from surname}} when the character article was a redirect, it could now be seen as misleading since the target article is no longer the character's. Steel1943 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't like this either, for a different specific reason. This strikes me more as a misspelling of "heartily", so I think it's confusing. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 17:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Si Trew, I don't think I'm alone in my opinion regarding what I am about to say: How does what you just said enforce a "delete" vote? If anything, your statement is just a "comment". Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: oh dear me I am not sure what I said that made you offended but I sincerely apologise. The last think I want to do is offend anyone in this world. I am not sure what I said would sound like that but if it offended you I sincerely apologise. I can't see "enforce" up there".
By the way as I think APH has it the way to change a law is not to ignore it but to enforce it. That is how we make life better. If I have a vote I use it. I dn't always have these days but when I do i go and vote takes about two minutes of my time and I make a difference. Si Trew (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If anything, the lack of Heartily makes it less likely for this to be construed as a misspelling. Would we really have a word red and its misspelling blue? If the only legitimate usage is a fictional character's surname, I don't see anything wrong with the status quo. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions, and I think Xezbeth might know the answer as the editor who does a lot of the surname maintenance: 1) Does {{R from surname}} also apply to fictional characters? 2) Do we keep surname redirects even after they've been merged into a broader list? I've never seen either of these situations before. I'm willing to keep it if the answer to both is yes, but until then I'm not sure. -- Tavix (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects from fictional surnames definitely exist. Sagdiyev, for example, has been with us over 10 years. --BDD (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't surprise me, but should that be something we maintain? It's not tagged with {{R from surname}}, but that WP:RCAT uses language like person, which seems to preclude fictional characters. We don't have anything along the lines of {{R from fictional surname}} for this sort of thing. I'm just thinking aloud here. -- Tavix (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I try to explain. Because Heartily is in fact a good English word and Heartilly is not that is a bit WP:RFD#D5 confusing. We are WP:NOTDIC but even if we were it would not make sense we should not encourage English misspellings. I try to think of an analogy with the two lls there are plenty in English but say Chantilly which is French would you take that to Chantily (that of course is the other way around but trying to give an example to demonstrate what I am on about)? You just can't do it that way. If anywhere it should go to cardiac or something but I think it is nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's been discussed in the past, but I would not use the template on a clearly fictional surname. Double redirects resulting from merges are nearly always ignored and fixed by one of the bots. —Xezbeth (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have Machynthleth although we have Machynlleth. (Now I challenge you to pronounce Machynlleth). I just don't think you can do it this way with the two L's. Lantrisant is not spelt that way Llantrisant is (the hole with the mint in it). It is simply a kinda cock up and can be safely deleted. Si Trew (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel943's 2014 rationale. I too question the utility of this redirect if the character is never known by the surname. If fictional surnames aren't tagged, I don't see the need to keep it for maintenance sake. -- Tavix (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I probably just missed on this one (by the way I can pronounce Machynlleth but I am not Welsh but it needs to be a bit tongue in cheek). Your language tour guide calling at all stations to Borth, Tremadoc, and Penrhydedreaeuth, let's not make it into a Welsh Incident. Si Trew (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh I am amazed we don't have an article on the poem Welsh Incident. Brilliant poem. What o'clock what is it? I cannot say. And I was going to say Robert Frost but of course it is not because now I am confusing meself. Marvellous creation. All shapes and sizes and no sizes,. All new and none of them like the other. They marched out of the sand keeping time to the bands of Pwhelli Porthmadoc and Penryndeadraeth. Oh the chap who died his last film was when he played Winston smith's um mentor in Nineteen Eighty Four I just can't think of his name married Liz Taylor twice. Beatufil voice now echoing round my head. Si Trew (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Burton. I did not need to look that up I just couldn't think of it for a second. www.poetrybyheart.org.uk/poems/welsh-incident Si Trew (talk) 08:51, 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. 22:28, 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.

Suntops[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 Suntop per WP:SNOW, and since the nominator agrees with this option. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix) not sure. I have taken others to CSD that are more absurd than this but would this at all mean a sunroof or parasol or sunshade? I don't think so but I am not sure on this one Si Trew (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good find on the other products. I've added those to the dab page. Recommend Sun top and the other variants also redirect there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Suntop disambiguation. Searches show sun tops as clothing tops that you can wear in the sun, juice drinks, vehicle covers, and other misc stuff. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Suntop is better. Good call. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Suntop as plural form --Lenticel (talk) 08:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep obvious Retarget as {{R from plural}}. The thing with these redirects, when people say 'why doesn't he do a basic search' is that the Neelix redirects kinda get in the way of that search so sometimes I can't find things, because I think the search engine sorta tracks your behaviour and guesses what you might be looking for so I end up going round in circles. I do do a basic search but this just didn't come up for me. Thanks all for the call, obvious retarget. I don't know if that is technically withdrawn by nominator but anyway as nominator I wholeheartedly support the retarget. Si Trew (talk) 10:05, 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.

Zebra patterns[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 18:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix) Not sure there are loads of others which are more bizarre. But zebra patterning like most ungulates is actually very subtle. Do we have a kinda more biological article on this or just R it to Zebra? Do we have an article on animal striping, something like that? They're used as kinda "signals" if I may put it that way but I am no expert. Si Trew (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zebra stripe might be just as good. I'm going to add animal print to that list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh geez, we have zebra stripe and zebra striping? Surely those can be merged? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I merged them. The only entries on the former Zebra striping were already listed on zebra stripe, there was no need to have separate dabs for these terms. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for doing the merge. Where does it leave us with this one as a redirect? Delete, stay, retarget? Si Trew (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to zebra stripe (restating for the record) and add an entry for the target at the dab. It's not Moiré, it's referring to a method for determining exposure with a digital viewfinder, described here. I don't think the article does a very good job of describing the feature. At any rate, I don't think it's a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC at all. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I threw in your reference and some other references and made a redirect from Zebra stripe (videography). Commons had a picture with the concept but I'm not sure if it was a helpful picture like the other ones described in the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Withdrawn by nominator and retarget to zebra stripe. I haven't looked up that article, don't need to, for some reason weathermen on the UK like Michael Fish wore very odd suits perhaps it was the style and it would totally bounce your telly on 625 lines because of the colour synch with the low bandwidth colour signal. Somebody should probably have told them but perhaps the BBC were trying to make you buy a colour TV licence instead of a black-and-white one (which was a lot cheaper). I am not sure this is true but the BBC programme Pot Black was made almost deliberately to make people buy colour TV. "And for those watching in black and white, the pink ball is next to the blue ball". I forget who said that but it was said. You would expect it to be a Colemanball but it wasn't. Si Trew (talk) 12:16, 27 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.

Typedly[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 An individual RfD section is not the correct forum to argue over the specifics of the Neelix G6 exception. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This has been declined at CSD as "Invalid speedy reason" (this is the WP:G6 neelix concession) by User:Rmhermen so I am forced to bring it here. Created 23 Feb 2010 by Neelix, I don't believe this is a word. I don't know why it's an invalid speedy reason, it's an absolutely perfectly valid speedy reason, it is WP:G6 Neelix concession as I said in the nomination. It may be that someone disagrees with whether this should be deleted, but the reason to bring it there is perfectly valid. Si Trew (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me Ivanvector I know. This is why it makes it hard for me sometimes with the Neelix redirects to get search results that make sense when I am asked "you should check" and so on because all roads then lead back to Wikipedia for me so I cannot check. I totally agree it then screws up the search results. It also becomes somewhat feral in that people then will say "it is a word, it is on Wikipedia". Si Trew (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not at all better than the "nosedly" we had not long ago. Uanfala (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and strongly suggest speedy. I ask Rmhermen to comment here as to whether there would really be any objection to this. (It looks like the wording of the request for speedy-deletion somehow got garbled, which perhaps may explain why it was declined.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I probably just typed badly, my right thumb is quite poorly and that is okay so it only has to do the space bar but I probably just typed it poorly. I am on a Hungarian keyboard typing in English and I do miss sometimes, so that is probably my fault. Si Trew (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: frankly, the fact this was rejected at CSD is as much your fault as the declining admin's, because as many editors have been trying to tell you for weeks, just saying "Neelix" is not a magic word to make a redirect disappear. If simply being created by Neelix was a deletion criterion, we could have dealt with all of these in one shot months ago, but we didn't decide that, so you still have to come up with an argument for these. Of several other of your CSDs that Rmhermen declined, your rationale was just the word "Neelix". What do you expect a passing administrator to do with that? You need to justify your requests, otherwise you're just getting in your own way. Personally, with this one, I might have tried WP:G1 (patent nonsense) although it's not quite there, or try WP:G6 with "not a word" or "nonsense to the point of vandalism" or something. You're shooting yourself in the foot with these. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector:. I am not required to say "Neelix" but the WP:G6 "Neelix" concession requires the closing admin requires is too strong, strongly advises the closing admin to put "neelix" on the closing remarks. I thus put "Neelix" to give a hint to the admin because there are plenty of other WP:G6 criteria that are not the neelix concession so I put that so it kinda narrows it. Ideally we would have a I dunno WP:G703 criterion just for Neelix ones. And I am and I will say again that I believe Neelix created these in good faith when the search engine was not as good as it is now. I am one of the few editors who believe Neelix created them in good faith. I just don't think nowadays with the search engine being better that they are useful now. Si Trew (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't usually ever just say "Neelix". I usually try to give a brief or less-than-brief reason. I just say "Neelix" somewhere in the nomination so that the admin doing the check is aware that it is the WP:G6 Neelix concession rather than being brought for any other reason. In case to make it clear, a "Neelix redirect" has to stand or fall by exactly the same merits as any other redirect; other editors wanted to mass list and delete the whole lot of them and start again, that has not happened, but I think it is just as not exactly a code word (poor old Neelix must have his name trashed now everywhere but not by me) but as a kinda shorthand we have to say it because G6 says you have to say it if you take it CSD that is essentially the concession than rather than bring it to RfD you can take it straight to CSD. That is the only concession, it does not mean any particular redirect can be just wiped because Neelix made it, but the reason it's at CSD rather than here is because Neelix made it. I don't know how I can make that clearer. By no means do I think all Neelix redirects are terrible, I keep a lot and bring a few here when I am not sure, like this one. Si Trew (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even if this has been used sometimes, by a scattering of people, it's still not a real world. Nor is it something someone might likely search by accident. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible usage. not used in news articles with any notable frequency. Redirects to a common overlinked word. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:18, 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.

Markdown.com[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 04:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also not mentioned at the target article, and pointing to a nonexistent section. This was apparently a deals website launched by Glenn Beck, but it's dead now. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 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.

Fourth Hour with Stu and Pat[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete both ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This program isn't mentioned on the target article, and neither of these sections exist. --BDD (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the first is likely to be WP:G10, but anyway there is no mention of the show at the target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:36, 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.

John Anstruther-Thomson of Charleton and Carntyne[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) 15:49, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then recreate to prevent undiscussed restoration of the article. The Traditionalist (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:44, 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.

Austin Petersen[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) 15:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then recreate, so that nobody will be able to restore the article on their own. The Traditionalist (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why would we do that? The AfD closed as redirect. If the person becomes notable, the page history could be useful. It's already semi-protected, so if there are troubles with fans trying to subvert the AfD decision, full protection solves the problem without throwing out the baby. --BDD (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: I thought that the administrators could restore deleted content at any given moment, if there is a sufficient reason to do it.--The Traditionalist (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but unless that content actually needs to be wiped or hidden for some reason, why delete it? If we delete and recreate, someone could still rewrite the article, unless we update the protection as well. So which problem do we need to solve here? --BDD (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: If an article is already there, a casual vandal who is not a supporter might restore it for fun. If there is not, we only need to beware of supporters who are fewer than casual vandals.--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was considering that sort of situation, though. Full protection solves that problem without getting rid of the page history. (And honestly, semi-protection probably does too. Some "casual" vandals may make autoconfirmed, but they're unlikely to operate for very long without being stopped.) And again, unless there's something libelous or otherwise objectionable about the content itself, I don't see a compelling reason to do that. --BDD (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then, withdraw--The Traditionalist (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You can use WP:RPP to request an upgrade of the protection. I would personally prefer to wait and see if the semi-protection is sufficient, but wouldn't contradict an admin who agreed with upping it now. --BDD (talk) 15:48, 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.

Blue Jays–Rangers brawl[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. The place for this is likely in the respective teams' season articles, not in the target. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest deletion. The article on this subject was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Jays–Rangers brawl. While some commenters in the discussion proposed delete or redirect with conditions, the consensus was clear to delete. And the current target does not (and should not) specifically address this brawl. There are a number of potential alternative targets (each of the combatants, each of the teams' current season articles) but the fact that there are multiple valid targets for this rather vague title (is this the only Blue Jays/Rangers fight in baseball history) makes this redirect at best misleading. Rlendog (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK - this incident was just one in a series of incidents which we might write about some time at Major League Baseball rivalries#American League, but at the moment there's nothing there. I agree the entry at the current target is likely to be removed, intentional beans lead to bench-clearing brawls quite frequently, and this case wasn't really anything special. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This redirect should either be kept, or redirected to some other article. I plan to expand on "Blue Jays–Rangers brawl" at Violence_in_sports#Baseball as soon as the old article is placed in my user space. Failing at this, this title can be moved to "May 2016 Blue Jays–Rangers brawl". "Blue Jays–Rangers brawl" is formatted similar to "Pacers–Pistons brawl", and is likely a valuable search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax 0677: would you consider including background from last year's ALDS and building out a section at Major League Baseball rivalries? If you have some background then it may pass notability thresholds as a mention in that article, and you should be able to find sourcing for that. There was an overwhelming consensus at AfD that this was not notable as a single incident, if you just recreate it it'll get deleted again. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jax 0677: Expanding Violence in sports to discuss this fight would not be appropriate, e.g., WP:UNDUE. Baseball fights occur several times a year. There is nothing that special about this particular fight that warrants discussing on it (really even mentioning it) within the Violence in sports article. Rlendog (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - There is already one incident listed under Violence_in_sports#Baseball, so it would not be inappropriate to list more in this section. If the section becomes too large, then a new article entitled "Violence in baseball" can be created similar to Violence in hockey. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That incident should probably also be removed. If we need examples of specific incidents there are more relevant incidents to use, such as the Ty Cobb fight with a fan and the Marichal-Roseboro fight. There may be some others on this level, but as of now the recent Blue Jays-Rangers fight isn't in the same league. Rlendog (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suggested you do it because I assumed that you had the deleted article. Sometimes it's faster to request directly on the talk page of the admin who deleted it, if you haven't tried that already. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Tokyogirl79 knows about it, and Nakon knows about it. The next steps may be you and I tag teaming him, or WP:AN. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - since the article in question was deleted at AfD, it's not really a REFUND candidate and he has to go through the respective admin that closed the AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seems hopelessly bureaucratic. Just saying. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not belong in Violence in sports. It's appearance there was UNDUE, it was just another brawl. It also does not belong in Major League Baseball rivalries, A single brawl is not a rivalry. Nore that it has also be removed from there already. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:47, 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.

Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Erina[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) 14:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a cross-namespace redirect. It was the result of a subsequently undone good-faith move of the hoax article Erina (dialect) to a subpage in Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Subpages there are normally used for hoaxes that had been around undetected for at least a month, while the Erina hoax hasn't managed to stay for more than a couple of days, so it doesn't qualify. Uanfala (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm not sure about the rest, I think they're just alternative spellings for Arniya language or something else within Dardic, but to be sure about that I'll have to spend some time in the dusty corners of a library. For now, maybe only Erina (dialect)? I'm not sure there's any point in this parenthetical disambiguation, but also I'm not sure whether there's any harm in keeping it to warrant the hassle of listing here. Any thoughts? Uanfala (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • TLDR: redirect is an artefact of a page move; nothing at target. Uanfala (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. AfD has established that this is a hoax an unverified language name and classification. I can think of a good-faith situation in which someone might accidentally create an article under this name: cross-border religious work in sensitive places often use pseudonyms for ethnic groups and languages, to reduce searchability and avoid detection by hostile authorities. (Yes I have some knowledge about this kind of stuff. Call me a secret agent.) The article may be created by a group of layman who has heard about religious work in a language only known to them as "Erina" as an act of tribute or sabotage. But whether it's a "hoax", an act of religious tribute, or an act of religious sabotage, in all three cases we shouldn't point Erina to whatever language we think it is, because there are no reliable sources linking "Erina" to the target language. Deryck C. 23:05, 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.

Typers[edit]

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

Christmas present[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 regarget---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Talk:Christmas Present#Requested move 16 May 2016, there is no consensus where "Christmas present" should target to. SSTflyer 08:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the dab page (caps notwithstanding) and add a note such as: "A Christmas present is a gift given on Christmas. It may also refer to:" etc. This captures the case where a person typing "christmas present" in all lower case intends for one of the capitalized articles. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to dab page as plausible variant --Lenticel (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Ivanvector. Also make Christmas present the title of the dab page as with Christmas gift. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:50, 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.

Time Squared (comic)[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 soft delete. Deryck C. 23:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something? No doubt this comic artist is well just brilliant really but I can't see "Time Squared" at the target. (Neelix but that is incidental really on this one). I imagine there was/is a comic he drew and so on called Time Squared but I tried to find it but don't see it at the target. Has it just been taken out or something. It is not in the list of publications which are very many. Or I have just missed Si Trew (talk) 08:01, 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.

Pratfall[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) 14:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, pratfall is a kind of physical comedy, but it's more specific than that. Is there a page that better targets what this means? I will note the existence of Pratfall effect. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh that is a good call. I love doing a pratfall actually just in real life because everyone assumes you are going to smack your nose or whatever when you know exactly what you are doing. I could make a page on it at some point because really what you need to do is kinda catch one foot behind the other and then throw your body's centre of gravity so that you lurch forward seemingly about to stumble but actually perfectly under control. Good call I wonder if there would be anything, I am throwing this out in case it helps others to find, like with acrobatics or something. It is hardly the most sophisticated you don't get an Olympic medal for it but I wonder if hmmm what other suggestions best foot forward would be no good even if it existed. This is rather a stumbling block, good call. Si Trew (talk) 08:06, 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.

Mayu Tomita[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 2#Mayu Tomita

Academic Renewal[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, CSD G8: page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page. The target page has been deleted at AfD and the redirect has been deleted also. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So this would mean trying to get a book back from the Univeristy library? As suggested before the target is actually rather unsourced and nonsense but this makes no sense. I think Philip Larkin, Alan Bennett quotes somewhere as being the librarian of the University of Hull shouted at someone "I've been waiting for that book back for three weeks" and I think Bennett says it had not been taken out since 1956. Good if true. Si Trew (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix creation forgot to say. Si Trew (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - partial match for an imprint of this publisher, but in a form that makes it extremely vague. I would think it much more likely that a reader is looking for information on sandblasting a university building, than an obscure publisher that happens to have this as part of its name. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep since Academic Renewal Publishers is a subsidiary of the target, listed in its article. This is standard practice, and there's no reason to vary from it here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Going "Academic Renewal" -> "Academic Renewal Publishers" makes sense to me as well, although I guess we should specifically change the target to CSS_Publishing_Company#History. If someone i interested in the concept of "academic renewal" in the age of the internet generally, thinking about structural reforms, then we do have "academic journal publishing reform" (a clunky title that should probably be tweaked, yet a useful article). I can see maybe having that as a hat-note. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I changed my mind. The specific topic of "academic journal reform" and the more general topic of "academic level renewal for students", or however you word them, are both more notable and more important than this minor publishing group. Strike me down now as being neutral, I suppose. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK (changing my rationale). Academic renewal is a process by which a secondary school student applying to college (I think only either within the United States or within particular states) can petition to have poor grades older than a certain time period overlooked in calculating their GPA. Probably a notable topic if someone wants to write about it. It's a bit difficult to find sources but here are a few of varying reliability: [1], [2], [3], [4]. I don't have time for it now or I would draft something. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get this. The target itself is dubious as a reliable source as had been said and their imprint is even less reliable. I think this this is simply nonsense. What would it meen in plain common English? Si Trew (talk) 11:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It means if you get a D in grade 11 social studies and it's dragging down your otherwise excellent GPA when you apply to college, you can apply to have the D ignored in the calculation. Varies by implementation. Doesn't have anything to do with the publisher. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But then that would be WP:NOTSCHOOL wouldn't it or doth my left hand not know what my right hand doeth? Si Trew (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: what did you mean by WP:NOTSCHOOL? It's a redlink, and I haven't been able to guess at what you intended to say this time. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WORLDWIDE. As Ivanvector explains, this a jargon expression used in a particular part of the world that makes no sense anywhere else to our worldwide English-speaking audience. Patent delete as a bit of jargon. Si Trew (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: I got the wrong kinda policy is it WP:SCHOOL. That we don't list every academic institution in the world, that they have to be notable, that is why we don't have articles for strange out-of-the-way places like Cambridge University and so on, that the schools have to be notable. I have made rather a fist of my argument with this one I admit. What I meant by WORLDWIDE is that this side of the pond there is no such thing as a "GPA" although I know what it is so that makes no sense outside of North America except wheen you hear it on American television programmes you kinda just take it to mean "I did well" or "I did badly" but it kinda nobody knows what it actually technically is. (No doubt they change it just as they change it here all the time in a kinda race for better results and to what in Britain used to be called "cramming" or "crammer schools" like Nigel Molesworth went to that were just there to make sure you passed the Eleven plus i.e. exam that you took age eleven to decide if you went to a grammar school or a secondary modern. That's why I say it is not worldwide because that would probably make no sense to you at all. Hardly makes sense to me. The school I went to they bulldozed a few years ago fortunately. It was a good school with very many committed teachers but was essentially a comprehensive school. It was quite good we were kinda factory fodder for the industries around us but learned technical drawing and a bit of engineering and lots of good science and stuff, the arts were not exactly the top of the agenda. I did The Merchant of Venice twice because I guess they didn't have Henry IV Part I or whatever so we went through it all again the following school term. C. P. Snow was trying really to balance the arts with the sciences and say you have to have both but at that school definitely the emphasis was on the sciences. I'm just digressing now I realise that. Si Trew (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × probably) WP:SCHOOL is a dab page, I think you probably mean WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I see what you mean, but no, this is a thing that some schools do but not itself a school, so that guideline doesn't really apply. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I give you a joke, just to lighten the mood. I forget who said it but it was aimed at Derek Jameson "He is a man who thinks erudite is a type of glue. Jameson absolutely loved it and laughed it off. I am not sure if that is at the target, should be, I forget who fired that one at him. Si Trew (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete target is not notable enough to deserve such a generic redirect as has been previously discussed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:25, 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.

Albert Haddock[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 2#Albert Haddock

Lâm Viên[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, default to keep. Some say this should be deleted because the topic match isn't good enough; others say this should be kept because this is the best available target we've got. Editors with fluency with Vietnamese topics are invited to expand the article or write a new article about this historical province. Deryck C. 10:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rjected at CSD by User:Hullabaloo Wolfowity: Let me explain. I can see where it comes from but is not at the target and I think it is stretching it (Neelix redirect). User :Lenticel is very good at East Asian languages and can perhaps make a call on this one whether the redirect makes sense or not. I have no problem with the article, I learned something. Si Trew (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. Lâm Viên is a former Vietnamese province. It might be geographically located in the same place as the Lâm Viên Plateau but they are different topics, and the former province is probably noteworthy if someone wants to write about it. Or to translate vi:Lâm Viên but Vietnamese is outside my skill to translate. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. The article says, plain as day, "The Đà Lạt Plateau (also called Lâm Viên Plateau)". If there are other plausible targets, then the redirect should be converted into a DAB page; if there aren't, this is, on its, perfectly appropriate. No case whatever for outright deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, no it don't. You can't start mixing Viet and French In English Wikepdia although of course Vietnam was once half colonised by the French. I am really not sure on this one. Si Trew (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: French? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. The Canadian French only ever got as far as Quebec. Typical Frenchman gives up by lunchtime. Si Trew (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ce n'est pas vrai, mon ami. Il y a beaucoup des francophones dans tout le pays, bien sur. What I mean is, what does French have to do with this redirect? Usually I can roughly figure out what you're trying to say but I'm lost on this one. As far as I can tell, Lâm Viên is the former province's official name, with proper diacritics and everything. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I assume he's talking about the word 'plateau'. A joke? Izkala (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Ivanvector and hopefully someone with a better understanding of the Vietnamese language will help translate vi:Lâm Viên. Current target seems to be a partial title match --Lenticel (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. Izkala (talk) 11:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query User:Ivanvector, do you have a source for the "former province" claim? I have yet find anything in English that does not refer to the plateau. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough: thanks for asking, my source was a machine translated page at Vietnamese Wikipedia: [5]. I can interpret machine translation errors for some languages but Vietnamese isn't one of them, so I admit it's entirely possible this translation is entirely wrong, but contextually it works out. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that page is unsourced itself, which is not to say that it is wrong. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Legitimate name for the current topic, regardless of whether it might also apply to subjects yet to be covered. (At that point, overwriting with an article on the province is probably appropriate, or disambiguation otherwise.) --BDD (talk) 18:12, 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) 03:25, 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.

Swag sacks[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete both ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once was a swagman playing with a billabong
Under the shade of a gullagong tree
And he sat and he sang as he played until his Billy boiled
You'll come a Waltzing Matilda with me
Travelling Nancy, Foxtrotting Mildred, you'll come a rumbaing Martha with me
And he sat and he sat as he played until his Billy boiled
You'll come A-Waltzing matilda with me

But does this make any sense? Forgot to say Neelix Si Trew (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if anything I'd expect this to mean goody bag like at a kid's party or some event. Legacypac (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm hang on in the cartoons didn't the chaps in the Hanna-Barbera cartoons always have a great big bag marked "SWAG" on em? Or is my memory failing? I dunno what would we could do with this. Si Trew (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our disambiguation at swag says that one of its many meanings is promotional merchandise given out at events. So retarget to promotional merchandise. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Swag as the concept of carrying a bag, sack, briefcase, etc full of odds-n-ends is a bit of a vague one. The items could be promotional merchandise, but it could just as well be any number of things. I'm vaguely recalling a young adult piece of literature of some kind where an eccentric fellow went about forests in a briefcase and suit accumulating his swag by looking at various discarded socks, shiny rocks, and the like that suited his fancy (British origin story, maybe? Maybe someone else remembers.). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Jolly Swagman was indeed English when we (the British) owned Australia. We have a DAB at booty which is somewhat similar and we could combine the two just can't think how to put them together. Si Trew (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought maybe you were talking about Tom Bombadil. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to swag as a page which will locate the meaning which a reader is intending to find. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose retarget to Swag, which is a disambiguation page. The great majority of results there would be irrelevant to a search for "Swag sacks". A reader searching for such a term is probably looking for something more specific, and may well search plain "Swag" next if he or she thinks that could be helpful. I'd rather let them make that decision. --BDD (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it has been demonstrated above that this is fairly ambiguous, and it doesn't seem helpful in any way. (I've added the singular variant to the discussion) -- Tavix (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a bin bag. Also not related to "swag". Perhaps just redirect to sack (bag)?--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You know how in Looney Toons cartoons like Yosemite Sam they stereotypically carry a huge sack of loot over their shoulder wrtitten "SWAG" and big dollar signs on it is there anything we can do with that? I have always thought the best way to rob a bank is to do exactly that, get a great big jute bag marked SWAG and go in the bank on April Fool's Day and demand all the money preferably carry a couple of toy pistols or something and they would hand over all the money and you would have a clean getaway because anyone saying he just robbed the bank would think "it's just an april fool's prank". Can we do it that way at all? Si Trew (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have never thought of this and am just throwing it out. Is SWAG an acronym for something (on the bags of loot) like Sealed With A Gun or whatever)? I don't think it is, I am just throwing it out kinda to throw it out if you see what I mean, to dismiss it. Si Trew (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a bin bag, pure and simple. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:27, 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.

12 planets[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 2#12 planets

End rhyming[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; no apparent objection. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix)

In English rhymes, you'll find will tend
To be mostly at the end
It cannot be the other way
I think it's nonsense (what to say)
But cadence, lit and all that stuff
It could make sense. That's quite enough
From me. This is just short of C
S D but don't make sense to me. Si Trew (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Like you have in poetry internal rhyming I think it is called when you magically do it in the middle of a line rather than just split the bloody line into two like my doggerel but really "end rhyming" as such makes no sense does it? You can't have "beginning rhyming" because speech is, um, kinda what do I mean it flows in one direction, in the direction of time, and you would never hear the rhyme if it were at the beginning. So "end rhyming" becomes nonsense of course it is going to be at the end. I know that Neelix has created many also for things like eye rhyme and so on as I have been trogging through them but obviously hasn't a copy of E. O. Parrott's How to be Well-Versed in Poetry which would take him through this in seventeen easy steps (or six hard steps). Si Trew (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. In the time it took you to write the ramblings above, you could have popped the phrase through Google to see that this is standard terminology for a well-documented concept (it even has it's own article in Britannica). ‑ Iridescent 07:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Speedily withdrawn by nominator thanks for the check by User:Iridescent. I do not have all the resources some of y'all may have, I have a bookshelf. If I am turfing through hundreds of the Neelix redirects each day you cannot possibly expect me to check up every single one for WP:RS I have to make the call. I made the call, I was not sure, I brought it here. Others who are not doing hundreds a day I do kinda expect to do the back-check. I could have sent it straight to CSD and it would probably have gone. I didn't I made the call. But I get criticised about it this time from User:MSJapan on my talk page. You can't expect me to check every single one or indeed any single one what I am doing is going nope that's rubbish, yep that's fine, hmmm not sure. I am trying to do it with wit and humour and in good faith. All I can do when I am not sure is list at RfD otherwise we shall never get through them. Si Trew (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
this is best collapsed, I think
I am the only one, the only one, in about a year since the infamous Neelix list was made, to make a diligent, thorough and concerted effort to go through them and go keep, delete, not sure. If User:MSJapan wants to take on that job I can go back to translating articles from French and that kind of thing. I am ploughing my way through them and constantly getting told off for what is now "problematic editor behavior". There's an ANI open on me and take it there. If I am banned, just ban me, not a slight ban on creating redirects like Neelix has just give me a complete ban never to edit Wikipedia. And also I can legally revoke the license I gave to Wikipedia to grant them my contributions in perpetuum, that stands, but that doesn't give someone the right to libel me and so it would be in the Wikimedia Foundation's interest just to remove every contribution I ever made to Wikipedia. That is not the way too achieve consensus. That is the way to start WP:HOUNDING. Only the first today I imagine there will be three or four more. Si Trew (talk) 08:32, 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.

Today's fastest cars[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:Sphilbrick at my nomination at CSD as WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 20:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful redirect because the entires on the target page are not really "fastest" in the sense of speed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. What would be yesterday's fastest cars? WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the current page title is sufficient. There is no benefit gained NealeFamily (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This redirect is the leftover result of an undiscussed hijacking and move of the target article that was undone (more than once) after talk page consensus. The original article is a list article with well-defined inclusion criteria while the attempted changes created a poorly defined piece of OR under a very odd title. Meters (talk) 03:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Buzzfeed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I mentioned in the talk section, when did the today era began? Since the invention of the motor car which is hardly considered as today. Donnie Park (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Today Show doesn't make or sponsor race cars. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Donnie Park and general absence of similar redirects (only other one I can find is today's music). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 16:42, 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.

Cleared[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 18:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Neelix redirect may be worth saving, but to some other target, but I don't know what it should be. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky. I was thinking maybe like clearing a cheque or check the Banker's Clearing House "my cheque cleared" and things like that, is that possible and even if so would it make any sense. Also someone cleared a forest i.e. cut it down or when the sea is not so full of muck ("you don't swim at Brighton you just go through the motions" as the old joke goes). Probably best delete as WP:XY as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Si Trew (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Retarget to Clear (disambiguation). Most usages are so common that it would not require linking to this, but this would at least point people to a list of dab options like cleared the soccer ball, or being in the Clear in Scientology. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:45, 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.

Elliot Sexton[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, default to keep. See closing rationale of the entry immediately below. Deryck C. 22:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted because there is barely a mention of Elliot Sexton in the article aside from a name check. 101.182.75.183 (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If this is all we have, it is all we have. It is in the infobox at the right with a reference. It is WP:NOTPERFECT but better than nothing. You are hoist with your own petard by saying that there is barely a mention. There is a mention. At the target, in the box, with a reference. Maybe not ideal but it is there. Nobody's stopping anyone turning a redirect into an article turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Does anyone ever read the instructions these days? Si Trew (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is all about two people. Sexton is neither of them. The redirect is pointless. 101.182.75.183 (talk) 03:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's also WP:CHEAP and harmless, mentioned in the infobox with references so WP:RFD#K5. Now where does that leave you? See the more detailed conversation below. Winston Churchill said of something "I will not go wandering naked into the conference chamber" (I know what the something was) and that is essentially what you are doing here. Prepare your argument before you come to RfD so you have some ammunition. As it is you are not even firing blanks, you have an empty barrel. I mean that in good faith 101.182 but it won't hold muster if you just say essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Si Trew (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have the ammunition - and you have chosen to ignore it. 101.182.75.183 (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to Sexton Blake then. I have the ammunition. What you have is an anonymous IP address that I can't discuss this on your talk page. Take it to Sextant. I have the ammunition. Si Trew (talk) 05:34, 27 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.

Marcius Pitt[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, default to keep. I think this and the discussion immediately above are instances of the law of triviality - the redirect isn't very useful but isn't at all harmful either. Even if we let this discussion continue, it'll probably get stuck with a "no consensus, do nothing" outcome. Deryck C. 22:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted because there is barely a mention of Marcius Pitt in the article aside from a name check. 101.182.75.183 (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If this is all we have, it is all we have. It is in the infobox at the right with a reference. It is WP:NOTPERFECT but better than nothing. You are hoist with your own petard by saying that there is barely a mention. There is a mention. At the target, in the box, with a reference. Maybe not ideal but it is there. Nobody's stopping anyone turning a redirect into an article turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Does anyone ever read the instructions these days? Si Trew (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is all about two people. Pitt is neither of them. The redirect is pointless. 101.182.75.183 (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the infobox. Or at least it was when I checked. So if someone is looking for info on this, then it gets them where they are likely to go. The remedy, if you want to, is to edit the article and take it out of the infobox. Nobody's stopping you from doing that. While it is there it is a perfectly reasonable redirect to the article. If you take it out the infobox then it will be WP:RFD#D2 confusing because not at target. I shan't repeat myself on the other one. Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the info on him in the article? Nowhere. I repeat - it's pointless. The target has to be substantive without warranting a separate article, and it's not. 101.182.75.183 (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well the decision really comes down to the stats which are well below bot noise level. But it is at the target. You're really not making your case very well. It is at the target there is no other target it can go to so it is WP:RFD#K5 keep as harmless.
I'll make your case for you as a devil's advocate. That because it has no hits – none before this discussion opened – because it is mentioned only in the infobox and there is nothing material in the article, it should go per WP:REDLINK to encourage the creation of the article. You have not argued either of those points so in my back pocket as it stands I have WP:RFD#K5 and you are standing penniless. That is not to say you are wrong and I am right. It is to say you have not set out any justifiable reason by the WP:RFD criteria of why this should be deleted. If all else fails, read the instructions. Si Trew (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, why aren't you seeing what I'm seeing? The redirects (all of them) are pointless. WP:REDLINK doesn't apply because the redirects are about non notable people. It's like you want it there for a name check only, which is a reason that goes against any inclusion - not for it. As I said - it's pointless. Now I want to point out as well that the redirects were created by a user who has a habit of doing this, and then socking with his IP to create the article. That has to be stopped and deleting these redirects will go a long way to achieving that. I wasn't going to mention that because I felt it wasn't needed, but now I guess I have to in order to get you to understand that this isn't about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is a genuine request for deletion of a redirect that should not be there. This applies to all three of my nominations by the way.
One more thing. It's highly likely that the name of the target article will change by the end of 2016 to TM-61. TMDK will head into history as a name and because the article - as I said before - is about two people and two people only. The mention will be removed. That might seem like crystal balling but I think the point is valid. I'm tempted to remove these name from the target article for this reason but I'm reluctant to remove anything that is sourced without a good reason. 101.182.75.183 (talk) 22:24, 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.

Slex[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 18:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted because there is barely a mention of Slex in the article aside from a name check. 101.182.75.183 (talk) 02:24, 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.

Joondalup City FC[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 18:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page redirects to the ECU Joondalup SC, a soccer club who were previously known as Joondalup City Soccer Club (commonly known as Joondalup City SC). There is now a separate club in the same area known as Joondalup City Football Club/Joondalup City FC. Having the newer club's name redirecting to the older club is confusing and inaccurate. Hack (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this link is inaccurate. The current Joondalup City FC is playing in the Football West State League Division 2 in 2016, and is not directly affiliated with ECU Joondalup SC. This lower division club would need its own article, but may be considered difficult to meet WP:GNG at the moment. Matilda Maniac (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget - Just went off of the subnote to the ladder listed here. Tildawg's confirmation is more than enough for me to suggest redirecting it merely to the Football West State League Division 2 page. I created this redirect as they were involved in the 1998 WA season, and you guys probably know that I'm (rather slowly) trying to create an NPL style article for the seasons prior to 2013. So yeah, if you guys are happy with redirecting Joondalup City to the Div 2 page, I'm all for that. - J man708 (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 14:31, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_24&oldid=1087609491"