Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 25, 2016.

Saúl Álvarez.[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 17:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term due to the period/full stop at the end of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, delete as an artifact of multiple page moves. I'd intended to speedy this as R3 once I'd finished figuring out where the actual article ended up back in August - it had just gone through a confusing series of moves (both of the article itself and of several of the redirects left behind by other moves) that took longer than I'd expected to unravel, and I managed to forget about this one. It's a bit late to speedy now, and a week at RFD to be sure won't make a difference either way. —Cryptic 00:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unlikely redirect, not needed, and the version without the full stop already exists as a redirect. -- The Anome (talk) 07:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:19, 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.

Pink & White Productions[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 21:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and gentlemen I give you this. It is a porno firm. Now, tell me sincerely, Neelix did not have his own pleasure with watching a bit of filth. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't need to be on Wikipedia. We are not an advert for a porn company Si Trew (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as harmless. The company's referred to using the ampersand plenty of times just in the references linked from its article here. —Cryptic 23:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible alternative modification. SimonTrew, it sounds like you have an issue with the article itself and not the redirect. If you have a problem with the article, you can always take it to WP:AFD, but remember that Wikipedia is not censored. -- Tavix (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, I have no issue with the article. There are about a hundred Neelix redirects going to it, not all of it this plausible, with "pink and white productions" listed in about every combination as usual. No problem with the target, as you say WP:NOTCENSORED. Si Trew (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought pink and white productions made marshmallows but it seems they don't. What an odd name. Si Trew (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an entirely appropriate redirect, unless someone comes forward with another Wikipedia article that could plausibly use the phrase "Pink & White Productions". Guy1890 (talk) 07:02, 28 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.

Stool pigeon[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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using this and linking to this when I get the hue and cry from people wondering about my Neelix listings. A stool pigeon is not an informant rather a stooge or punching bag isn't it? Si Trew (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You take the high notes and I'll take the low notes and I'll be in scotland afore ye. Si Trew (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Righty ho Speedily keep withdrawn by nominator. Kid Creole and the Coconuts were brilliant. Didn't they sing well I have it on 78 rpm somewhere "why do you whisper green grass? Why tell the trees what ain't so? Whisperin' grass the trees don't need to know (no no) why tell them all your secrets, if it aint true, what ain't so, now whispering grass, the trees don't have to know" they did a brillaint version of that Si Trew (talk) 01:02, 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.

Redded[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 another admin as G6/Neelix redirect. -- -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix) Not at target but there must be some logic to this or Neelix would not have redirected it here rather than to red which a lot of other greenisholives ones go to? What is it, I can't see it Si Trew (talk) 22:12, 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.

Black-spotted[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted by Tokyogirl79 per criterion G6, specifically per the "Neelix clause". Steel1943 (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calling our taxonomy experts User:Plantdrew and User:Peter coxhead. I imagine there are many species of birds, fish, plants and so forth that are black-spotted (variegated). Can we put this anywhere more sensible than an a DAB that does not have "black spotted" on it? Si Trew (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It also occurred to me that it would mean to sink the eight ball in pool (game) "he black spotted that" but I don't think that makes any more sense. perhaps just WP:XY? Si Trew (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and black spotted as well. There are at least 10 animal species with "black-spotted" in the article title and at least 11 species with "blackspotted" in the title, to say nothing of various redirects from alternative common names, redirects from common names to scientific names, or species that don't have a page on Wikipedia yet. They're all partial title matches, so should never be listed on the dab page. Keeping "black-spotted" does nothing but interfere with search results. Plantdrew (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Plantdrew. Can we pass a resolution to mass-delete the rest of the Neelix redirects that terminate with -spotted? I'm sure by now we've seen green-spotted, white-spotted, red-spotted, tree-spotted, frog-spotted, spot-spotted; they all suffer from the same problem (they are vague-spotted) and will/should be/have been delete-spotted. Let's not waste any more time on these. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cracking thanks for the call. I take CSD: Si Trew (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm Ivanvector (talk · contribs) I think we just did. That doesn't help me in actually sending them to CSD but if I can refer back to this discussion then it may help the closing admin to decide. It is not my fault that these Neelix redirects were kept rather than deleted en masse. I am just trogging through them and getting the blame as a stool pigeon (black spotted pigeon). Si Trew (talk) 22:21, 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.

Black-on-black[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 speedied. G6/Neelix + seconded by user here. -- -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix) tricky. This is the name of an album so it is technically incorrect to have the hyphens in it, on the other hand I can see that it does no harm. What to do? Si Trew (talk) 20:54, 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.

Salou railway station[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 undid move, to put article back into mainspace, following the discussion below. -- The Anome (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to another namespace. MorbidEntree (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is how people make drafts. What they should do is move the draft over into mainspace, move it over the redirect, but I am very averse to kinda hoisting things out of someone who is making a draft before they feel they are ready for it to go to mainspace. Otherwise Draft: namespace becomes a bit nonsense, it is hardly private but the whole point of it is people can fiddle with it without this kind of nonsense when it is hoist to main. This actually although a stub makes the encylopaedia better, now we can find out something about Salou railway station including tables of services and stuff which are very fiddly to do so, no, just leave it alone for now WP:TOOSOON to bring it to RfD when an editor has made a lot of effort to make English Wikipedia better by adding this and has done it in exactly the right way. Si Trew (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the article back to main space. There was no reason to move it to draft space in the first place. If the editor wanted to create it in article space, well then fine. Moving it to draft space just makes them have to jump through a series of hoops to get it back, especially now that since the redirect has been flagged for RfD it has non-trivial edit history and can't just be moved over. Don't bite the newcomers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Someone has then discouraged another new editor by fiddling around with "their" stuff, that's the way to encourage people to come to Wikipedia, the encylopaedia that anyone can edit. Si Trew (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my understanding was that unfinished articles were supposed to go in the Draft namespace or in the user's sandbox. --MorbidEntree - (Talk to me! (っ◕‿◕)っ♥) 05:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MorbidEntree: it can be preferable, but it's not required. Based on the user's other article contributions and the amount of info we usually have about individual railway stations, this article looks to be pretty much complete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But also keep in mind that articles are never finished. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirect goes to another namespace, namely a draft. Either draft comes here or delete. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:42, 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.

War-like[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 21:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In matters martial
I'm rather partial
To deleting these
If you please, (Neelix) Si Trew (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just barely keep. Warlike also points there. Warlike races points to martial race which is a different and more specific topic, but I think too specific. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I can't see it being a topic of itself, it's related to war but a bit too far into the space of "related words". So it's there only to aid searches, but these are better serviced by the search engine (given, as pointed out right above, that there are similar topics that become off limits if the redirect is kept). Uanfala (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll go along with that. Delete, and let the search engine sort 'em out. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In practical terms, "war-like" and "warlike" refer to situations that clearly aren't actual armed conflict, hence why you have conversations like "The McKevitts and the O'Breys have had a warlike relationship ever since they became next door neighbors" and so on. As stated above, it makes more sense for people to just use the search engine. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Term is used in news articles. I just don't know if there's any value in linking it to war, as "war" is a generally overlinked term. Unless someone's reviewing the U2 album or the band. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as both words are not necessarily synonyms --Lenticel (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not the same as target, vague and generic. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:43, 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.

Tandem Publishing[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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Anome (talk • contribs) 07:08, 26 May 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

(neelix) This is probably all right, it is at the target at its main imprint and indeed I think I have a few books myself with this imprint. I am pretty sure this is all right as {{R from short name}} bnut need a second check (there were lots of very stupid ones). Si Trew (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Second. This one's fine. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily keep' as withdrawn bz nominator. Thanks for trhe second check. Si Trew (talk) 05:30, 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.

Autodidactics[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 21:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. Neelix. People who are self taught are usually autodidacts so the kinda spinning out at the end is redundant but harmless probably? There are lots worse than this. Si Trew (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably ok. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Autodidactics can't be a word (judging from what I see in the OED), but I see it used in a few dozen texts (incl. in titles) on google books and scholar (some of them reputable looking), as a synonym mostly for autodidacticism but also occasionally for autodidacts. Uanfala (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Autodidact also redirects to this target. I agree "autodidactics" is an error, but a plausible one. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Plausible error. Looks like this has been used to refer to autodidact as well as some sense of principles of autodidactism. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. A plausible error per Ivanvector--Tom (LT) (talk) 03:44, 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.

Refuse 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix) This one is pretty much in no man's land. It is ok as {{R from plural}} and {{R from other name}} but is it helpful? Si Trew (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the right question is is it harmful? And no, it isn't. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay ((edit conflict) I keep and mark it then. This just seemed right on the edge to me. The right question actually is is it helpful, if it's in the middle I bring it here. Speedily withdrawn by nominator I'll mark it. Si Trew (talk) 18:43, 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.

Whitewashes[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) 14:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have stacks of these and I think I may have brought them here before we have whitewashing and so on. Some make sense but none is rcatted. No point me bringing the lot here Anomie list #3 but some are borderline. I guess you can whitewash something and so a person who does that whitewashes things but these neelix verbs get a bit out of order. Si Trew (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Si, don't take this the wrong way but I think you're starting to head into "everything looks like a nail" territory with some of your recent RFD noms. This isn't a "neelix verb", it's an utterly generic {{R from plural}}. ‑ Iridescent 19:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that is the problem with these Neelix redirects that everything does look like a nail and I am not very good with a hammer. That is why I bring them here if I am in any doubt, so I can see that it looks like that here User:Iridescent but actually I only bring here what are kinda I am not sure on, the others I keep or take to CSD. I know I am in danger of looking like that because I am told every day from editors without as much grace as you have, but it ain't the case it is the opposite, that if I am not sure I bring them here. Keep as {{R from plural}} speedily withdrawn by nominator. If you go through the Anomie list you will find that Neelix has a tendency not only to verb things but then to make gerunds and verb-noun infinitives and all kinds of nonsense out of them. So this was just on the edge.
There is so much nonsense. Soixante huitaires would of course be the German student movement because Soixante-huite is as anyone knows German language for 68. There is so much nonsense like that, Iridescent, that sometimes my eyes water and sometimes I get it wrong so if in doubt I bring it here. Si Trew (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm taking a different hammer to this. I worry that the phenomenon of whitewashing is becoming more prominent for verb forms of this word. There's whitewash (disambiguation) but rather than retarget there, I think we should declare this one too vague to be useful. 8 hits in the last 90 days. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I t hink there was whitewashering or something. That is why I get my doubts. What you need to do is take a different tack hammer! Si Trew (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or redirect to whitewash (disambiguation) There definitely comes a point at which we should let Google/etc. deal with verbs/plurals but in any case this is either 3rd person singular present tense, or a plural noun. If we feel we have to deal with that, the disambig page is the only reasonable target. Mangoe (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to whitewash (disambiguation) per Ivanvector. Whitewash explicitly used as a verb has many meanings. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to whitewash (disambiguation) since that page lists the different meanings, and while wording things in this way ("whitewashes" rather than "whitewash", "whitewashed", etc) looks rather weird it's still being used in the sports context and other contexts by many news sources CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:48, 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.

Grand Dad[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 21:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much an attempt at spreading Vinesauce memes, since Fred Flintstone was continuously vandalized to have him named "GilvaSunner." And considering that the page was created on April, this is most likely the case; there have been no cases in which Fred Flintstone was referred to as Grand Dad. 73.31.250.141 (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)73.31.250.141[reply]

  • Speedy retarget to grandparent. Probably could have just done it as a WP:BOLD change. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily retarget to grandparent per User:Ivanvector. I don't think Fred Flinstone was actually even a grand-dad was he? They had a son Bam-Bam in the later series but he was not exactly of age to have offspring himself. Si Trew (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone ahead and retargeted per the least harm principle (I don't know if we have an essay on that). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean First do no harm what the medic said in the Hippocratic Oath. First do no harm. So yep fine and speedily wihdrawn by nominator namely me. Apparently that is a popular misconception but I have plenty of books that quote it that way, sec 1,2 of that article, and it will do for us we don't have to go round the houses. First, do no harm. And in real life too, if you can. Si Trew (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am not the nlom on this one just thought I was because there are loads of a similar bent at the Neelix list. Si Trew (talk) 22:38, 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.

Insider Extreme[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:INVOLVED close given WP:SILENCE after a full listing period and deletion of similar redirects. --BDD (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly WP:REDLINK. This was a Beck radio program not mentioned at his article (it currently links to a nonexistent section). It does have a few mentions across the project, including at TheBlaze, a successor to Insider Extreme. But that mention has no context. I'd want to see more discussion of it there if retargeting is suggested. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 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.

Silver Gopher[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 22:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This took some digging. Apparently Stephen Colbert said that Glenn Beck looked like a silver gopher once. Lacking any sort of information about this on Wikipedia, though, this redirect is likely to confuse or disappoint readers, some of whom would probably be looking for an animal instead. BDD (talk) 15:16, 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.

Ramahanakwanzmas[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 22:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parody holiday created by Beck. Not mentioned at his article, or anywhere on Wikipedia. BDD (talk) 15:08, 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.

Gymnogonia pentaphylla[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need the taxonomists on this one. It is not at the target but I can see it is plausible. Here we have gymno- to mean woman not naked, so gymnogonistia pentaphylla would be a female flower with five petals. Does it make sense? (Neelix redirect) Si Trew (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's a taxonomic synonym that is mentioned at the target. It doesn't have to make sense to somebody speaking Greek 2000 years ago. There's nothing wrong with it taxonomically speaking. But it's very obscure and nobody is going to be searching for this term. The mention in the taxobox will get people to the article in the extremely unlikely event somebody does search for the term. Filling Wikipedia with obscure taxonomic synonym redirects isn't necessarily harmful, but ultimately imposes a need for maintenance that is unlikely to be kept up to date. No harm in keeping this one, but since it's been brought to RfD, delete it. I really don't want to encourage indiscrimate creation/retention of taxonomic synonym redirects. Plantdrew (talk) 05:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it is a valid synonym. There is no maintenance burden. A bot will fix it if it becomes a double redirect; nothing else need ever be done. Gorobay (talk) 16:28, 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) 14:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake in saying it is not at the target. The taxobox collapses so I couldn't find it even though trying a basic search. I'm with User:Plantdrew on this one per WP:RFD#D2 confusing or unlikely search term, thanks for the double check Si Trew (talk) 15:41, 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.

Tunbridge grammar school[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 redirect, but no prejudice against creating a disambiguation page at the proper title. -- Tavix (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to avoid confusion with Tonbridge Grammar School. Certes (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a traditional name and spelling of Tonbridge School.[1] Rather than deleting it, it would be better to create a disambiguation page. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted! There are only two articles to disambiguate, and each has a hatnote to the other. I don't think "Tunbridge grammar school" is a valid search term for the state school except as a misspelling. In the light of that information I think we should leave things as they are, unless we need to consider Tunbridge Wells Grammar School for Boys and Tunbridge Wells Girls' Grammar School. Certes (talk) 09:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the point of nomenclature: List of English and Welsh endowed schools (19th century) in its introduction makes the point that older English grammar schools didn't have standardised names (there was no "grammar school system" as such). Upper case is a relatively recent convention. It might be fair to say "confusion" is inherent in the history. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate as per the above. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm American, but Tunbridge Wells isn't typically just called Tunbridge, is it? So it seems unlikely that its grammar schools would be referred to by this name. If Charles is correct, the target article is the best fit. The second best option, Tonbridge Grammar School, is already hatnoted there. Given its much later founding date, it being referred to as "Tunbridge Grammar School" seems much less likely. --BDD (talk) 20:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BDD: In most parts of England except Kent, when I tell people "I went to school in Tonbridge", most would reply "Oh Tunbridge Wells? That's a nice place." Deryck C. 17:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, ok. Is the "Wells" likely to drop in the middle of a proper name, though? Any examples of such usage in the wild? --BDD (talk) 18:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Deryck Chan. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Deryck Chan. I still think there's only one place that would really properly be referred to as such, so I don't want to see a dab consisting of that and errors. But maybe search results would be best here. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tunbridge Wells is always called Tunbrige Wells in Britain. That kind of disambiguates it from other Tunbridges. Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells is a person continuously writing letters as one of the recurring in-jokes in Private Eye complaining of this or that (made up by the editors of course) or firing them off to The Daily Telegraph (natch) and has various addresses and is usually a retired colonel although his rank can change from fornight to fortnight, he lives in various places including the "Retirement Sunset Home, Tunbridge Wells", "Duncomplainin, Tunbridge Wells" and so on. It is a stereotypical very conservative place. But yes, it would always be Tunbridge Wells not just Tunbridge. Actually on the same tack I liked in The Simpsons when they put Granddad into the "Home for victims of unpopular wars". Si Trew (talk) 21:15, 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.

Eric Calderone[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) 13:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect was probably created when this person was mentioned at the target. He is not now, at any rate. Does not look to be another relevant target. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both - I added a redirect from this person's alternate name which points to the same place. Not in the list at the target, and probably not notable. See his Know Your Meme page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:54, 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.

Template:Italic[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 both ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is far too ambiguous, and certainly doesn't imply referring to {{Italic title}}. Most editors would probably assume {{italic}} to render the enclosed text in italics, so would consider it a synonym of {{em}}. PanchoS (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This redirect currently has 62 transclusion that would be affected by changes to it. Steel1943 (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I merged these two nominations. The nomination statements were the same for both. @Steel1943 and PanchoS: in case you want to revise your comments. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't disagree, but with 163 transclusions between them it's obviously being used, and I don't think there's a pressing need to change it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 163 transclusions are easily replaced, and some limited use (compare to 709267 transclusions of {{Italic title}}) doesn't imply it wasn't ambiguous. This should be a DAB page, if not deleted. --PanchoS (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PanchoS: I believe that one of Ivanvector's major concerns is that the transclusions exist (I've had such a discussion with Ivanvector in the past, and this is also a concern of mine.) Until they do not exist (possibly by bypassing all of the redirects prior to this discussion being closed), these redirects need to be kept for technical reasons. So, until those transclusions disappear, I'm "keep" as well. Steel1943 (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PanchoS: Also, disambiguation pages in the "Template:" namespace are usually not, if ever, made due to technical reasons. See my vote lower in this discussion for details. Steel1943 (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, not exactly what my concern is, although that is valid. I just think this is not broken. If our discussion here concluded that it was preferable to have this point to Template:em for example, then it follows that we need to correct the extant transclusions. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until all transclusions have been replaced. SSTflyer 23:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless all transclusions are replaced. If all of the transclusions are replaced, then I'm neutral. Steel1943 (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace both templates with target, then delete both. Giving this some more thought, these template titles are a bit ambiguous, but since disambiguation pages in the "Template:" namespace do not happen due to technical reasons, deletion is the only way to go. Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment. Is it just me who calls them eyeties (no). To call an Italian person that would be pejorative but to call an italic font that is just typographer's slang. Si Trew (talk) 05:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO these should apply a <span> with italic text, or barring that, <i>. Either way, they should not redirect to "italic title". --Izno (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — I was looking for the italic title when I went to the Template:Italic page, and I assume that most people do so. I did not even know of the existence of {{em}}. I suggest that we keep Template:Italic and Template:Italics as redirects to Template:Italic title and maybe put a redirect tag on the Template:Em page (“Italic” and “italics” redirect here. For the emphasize template, see Template:Em.”).
    ―PapíDimmi (talk) 02:03, 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.

Fallen Angels (upcoming Bob Dylan album)[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) 13:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No longer "upcoming". SSTflyer 12:02, 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.

King James of Scotland[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 21:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix) Not sure on this one. Patently there are more than one King James of Scotland in fact six before the Act of Union 1707 so is this a bit kinda ambiguous? I think so. I don't think we have a DAB on it but maybe we do and this is "blocking" me finding it. Si Trew (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Inaccurate: There were at least five kings of Scotland named James: I, II, III, IV, and V; plus VI and VII ruled both Scotland plus England and Ireland, and then there was also James VIII. At best this could be a disambiguation page for all eight of these. There are already disambiguation pages called James of Scotland (could retarget to that one even though it's incomplete), and King James, however. Softlavender (talk) 12:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
James VI of Scotland is James I of England and is usually referred to thus as "James VI of Scotland, I of England" in common parlance. Si Trew (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Och, I would think it a very likely search term. As I said in the nom, I just couldn't find it because my search was "blocked" by this being in the way. Probably best to send to James of Scotland. Si Trew (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear to me what you are suggesting, but I very very strongly disagree with retargeting to James Stewart, 5th High Steward of Scotland, which is very unlikely to be the subject the searcher or wikilinker would be looking for, not to mention there's no corresponding verbiage in the lead to that effect, and no hatnote for navigating to what the searcher is probably actually looking for. Softlavender (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, Softlavender. I was not suggesting that, but I can see how the statement would've been read that way. Clarified. --BDD (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on User:BDD that is unclear to me too. I am pretty sure you are saying "don't retarget it to James Stewart, 5th High Steward of Scotland" but with the exct wording with "looks pretty close" are you really suggesting that? Why would King James of Scotland go to the 5th High Steward? Si Trew (talk) 09:39, 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.

Dr. Rank[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) 12:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix) hmm I have marked Doctor Rank as {{R from fictional character}} and was going to do this likewise, however, I am not sure this meets WP:TITLE in the way we make the "Dr." 99% sure this is OK and can go that way but not 100% sure Si Trew (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that, makes it better. Si Trew (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily keep withdrawn by nominator. Si Trew (talk) 18:16, 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.

Simulsat 7[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 21:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

deletion, because neither needed nor mentioned in target article. Simulsat 7 is a commercial trademark. Antennenbau (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reasoning does not meet any of the WP:R#DELETE criteria -- samtar talk or stalk 12:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could cause confusion because the target article doesn't mention the redirect name, which is criteria #2 at WP:R#DELETE. ~ RobTalk 05:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Crossref to #Simulsat_5 above with no need of further comment I think by me at least (I'll do the same over there to here). I don't know if after comment we can reasonably combine these although (except mine) they have essentially the same pros and cons at both so far. Si Trew (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because there is no information about this specific antenna, just a general article about the technology. It is becoming less and less notable to put things in space. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's true isn't it, it used to be an amazing thing to see the Space Shuttle take off watching it on the telly, or whatever, it was a notable event but now it is so commonplace with a telecommunications satellite launched on an Ariane 5 or whatever we hardly notice. We rely on them kinda implicitly and never really think of it. For all I know my very words might be bouncing off one of them to get to the Wikipedia servers (more likely going by submarine communications cable but we never think of it, we take it for granted. Good point. Delete.Si Trew (talk) 08:50, 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.

Hebron shooter[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 21:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created when I moved page to Elor Azaria. I don't think the redirect is of any use; far too generic. TheLongTone (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It looks as if multiple sources refer to the killer by exactly this term, and I don't think there's another individual that's been reliably tagged with this title. We can add a hat-note in the future if it ends up being otherwise. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy(TALKCONT) 05:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is a discussion regarding merging Elor Azaria with Hebron shooting incident which would affect the proper target for this redirect. At the current moment, I think it's better for this to go to the person's article because that's what "Hebron shooter" refers to ("shooter" not "shooting"), and if the two articles are merged then one of the bots will clean up the double redirect. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 11:18, 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.

Sarothamnus[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix speedy denied. A species name without genus name that redirected to the species. A species name without genus is ridiculous, things like sapiens and catus. The user who reverted my nomination redirected it to the genus, even less helpful than the original target. I don't have access to the link provided in the revert summary which is http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Sarothamnus Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now for some pings. User:Patar knight who reverted me. And User:Plantdrew who knows a lot about this stuff. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That link (try opening it in an incognito mode if you can't access it) says "taxonomic synonym of cytisus", so I redirected it there. Based on a quick Google search, there was some debate name of the genus between Anglophone and Continental scientists. [2], [3], [4]. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a genus name, not a species name and is currently considered a taxonomic synonym of Cytisus. It shouldn't have been targeted Cytisus scoparius, but that's fixed now. Plantdrew (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Our expert User:Plantdrew always comes up trumps and I tip me titfer to that user. Si Trew (talk) 19:50, 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.

Z. Knezevic[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 by 78.26 per criterion G7. Steel1943 (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be assumed that "Z." always means "Zoran". Steel1943 (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. This redirect is not really useful nor needed. Urhixidur (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Urhixidur. Jschnur (talk) 03:15, 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.

Boleny[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. We don't redirect from partial title matches, and here we're only talking about a nickname. --BDD (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix) now this is a bit of a swindle. The target Béla I of hungary I don't think was ever called Bölény (in fact I know he weren't) and I have taken that to CSD because it is simply not Hungarian. Now, with this one, do we retarget to Anne Boleyn or do we delete it or what? I can help with these cos I speak a bit of Hungarian and type on a Hungarian keyboard layout. öóüöüóöóüö. Si Trew (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak Keep. The article does claim "Bölény" as an alternative name so WP:TRUTH probably applies. Anne Boleyn? baloney. Jschnur (talk) 03:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:Actually, Retarget to Bison, Searching for this in Google is a surprise. Jschnur (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with a retarget. This is English Wikipedia, and we don't provide redirects for every non-English name of any particular subject, plus the spelling is completely different because there are no diacritical marks in Boleny. That's what the inter-wiki links on the left side are for, and the article already has a Hungarian-wiki (Magyar) link there. Softlavender (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, so...
  • Delete. (this is the first RFD where I have managed to !vote in every possible way thanks to you). Jschnur (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hahahah. It's definitely not Hungarian so we can't do {{R from other language|hu}}. I'm still puzzled about how it came about to be created. Si Trew (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except it is Hungarian. Seems like Bela the Bison is some sort of nickname, and it's sourced in the article. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Hungarian: The Hungarian is Bölény; this is Boleny. Softlavender (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jschnur, would you mind strking and unbolding your outdated !vote, and bolding your current !vote? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)  Done Jschnur (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. Neelix nonsense. Boleny means a lot of things, none of them having anything to do with the target subject: [5]. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a load of baloney... er I ment boleny. how this came to be made is really puzzling me. The Hungarian interwiki quite rightly has him as Béla I, kiraly (king Béla I) so I am just puzzled how this got here, how the one with the accents got here is even more puzzling. Si Trew (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a RfD you started, so it's assumed that you want to delete it. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I want it deleted did i never say that sorry! Magyarul nem jo, nincs mit nem beszelni nincs. In Hungarian this is entirely meaningless. Si Trew (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Boleny Bela is sourced as a nickname for Bela I in the article, presumably as a nickname (i.e. Bela the Bison King). We don't redirect non-English translations to literal definitions without good reason, however Boleny is a potential searchable term for someone looking for information about Bela I (e.g. "who's that Hungarian king nicknamed Boleny). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, the nickname is "Bölény Béla", not "Boleny Bela". Boleny by itself does not mean anything like "Hungarian king nicknamed Boleny": [6] Softlavender (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In Hungarian the letters ö ő ó are distinct. You can't just do {{R from title without diacritics}} they mean completely different things. Which makes this nonsense and WP:RFOREIGN anyway. I have four letters öóőo on my Hungarian keyboard. They are very distinct you just can't do that. Kősszonom szépen. Si Trew (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DIACRITICS, redirects are recommended to be made with and without diacritics, because we assume that users of the English Wikipedia are not intimately familiar with the diacritic rules of foreign languages. Since Wikipedia is not in the business of redirecting non-English literal translations without good reason, what Boleny by itself means is irrelevant. If an English-speaking reader is likely to see it in context of Bela I's nickname, that's grounds for having a redirect. I'm not sure what your point about WP:RFOREIGN is unless you're suggesting that Bela I of Hungary is not Hungarian because that essay clearly says "foreign-language redirects to a topic not related to that language generally should not be kept." ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not when the word clearly means something completely different from what it is redirected to: [7]. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also bear in mind that in Hungarian the surname comes first (I am Trew Simon in Hungary and I have a receipt from the post office just the other day thus written) so this would be the nickname as the surname of the King. We don't have {{Hungarian name order}} unfortunately and {{Eastern name order}} is what I usually put when translating Hungarian articles because that template has a link to Hungarian names. (My keyboard looks like that at the pic there). It just makes no sense. It would be like having a redirect to Elizabeth II being "Windsor Erzbet. It is just wrong. Si Trew (talk) 09:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect avoids a word order problem altogether by only having the epithet. So this debate is more analogous to arguing if Cœur de Lion should redirect to Richard the Lionheart than arguing that over the merits of a Cœur de Lion Richard redirect.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lookit, I'm calling this one. You don't live in Hungary, you don't speak Hungarian, I do, and I do, I'm calling it, f. nonsense. (edit conflict) Minden nap bészelek magyarul, a dohánybolt, az utca, boltokban és itt otthon. I call it. Si Trew (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did a second check with my missus who is a native Hungarian speaker and bólény means roughly "wild animal" hard to translate. This is nonsense. Roughly guess would be translated "tiger" or "lion" like Richard the Lionheart but a literal translation would not mean that. It applies more to Béla IV than Béla I anyway. Nem Bölény hanem Bólény. This is just a pile of nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nickname is sourced to a book written by Hungarian historians that's used extensively throughout the article. I'm sure I could ask a number of Canadians who would never have heard of the nickname Rocket Richard, that doesn't mean that it's not an actual nickname backed by reliable sources that should be a redirect. As for what boleny actually means, we have a Hungarian wikipedia article on that defines it as bison. However, if you can show that both Bela IV and Bela I were called by this nickname, I would be happy to strike my vote in favour of a disambiguation page or deletion to show search results. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What you can't do, User:Patar knightm, is take the accents out. It's bólény. In Hungarian, these things are not some arbitrary bit of decoration they change the meaning of the word. Without them it is entirely meaningless. Can you give me a link, a reliable source, that uses it without the accents? If so it is wrong but I can imagine some English sources might. Thanks by the way for CSD'ing a load of Neelix ones I listed. Si Trew (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made a list with my missus to give you an example:
  1. Só means salt
  2. Sör means beer
  3. Szór means to be contrary, to make an exception
  4. Szőr means pubic hair roughly any hair except what is on your head
  5. sző means word
You can't just arbitrarily take the accents out of Hungarian words or change an sz for an s, they then mean different things as you see (the third and fourth examples are probablyí the best they don't differ in anything 'but the accent on them) You can't just go taking out the accents and expecting it to "work". Si Trew (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Show me a Canadian who's never heard of Rocket Richard, and I'll show you a liar. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good job I'm not Canadian then, never heard of him. Ever heard of Eddie the Eagle? Hahahah nice one. Si Trew (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously don't interact with Canadian high schoolers uninterested in hockey. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:39, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Boleny Bela (I'm ignoring diacritics) is a sourced alternate name in the article, as is Bela, but Boleny is not. You can just take the diacritics out of Hungarian words when you write them for English audiences, because English does not use diacritics except for words that are borrowed from other languages, like soufflé (c.f. souffle), but this is not one of those cases. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly aware of "borrowing" so this is why we have gyulas as a Hungarian town and gyulás in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE of the article at goulash even though that is the proper orthography in Hungarian. When it comes to quite "technical" ones like this the accents do actually count. What if I created (I am not planning to gyulás) what would you do with it? Would you send it to the town or the stew because if the accent don't matter you could send it to the town. Be a pile of nonsense but you could do as {{R from title without diacritics}}. Sorry, you just can't fiddle with Hungarian orthography in that way the accents are not some kind of Christmas decoration, they totally change the meaning of words (and their pronunciation). Si Trew (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a liar it's in Romania but was in the Kingdom of Hungary so has a Hungarian name too. Si Trew (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone who searches "boleny" is looking for Bela I of Hungary, I don't see why it shouldn't redirect to that article. This is analogous to having, say Beauclerc redirect to Henry I of England (if that small town that is actually called that didn't exist) even though the full nickname is Henry Beauclerc. Here the name with the epithet is Bela the Bison or in Hungarian without diacritics, Boleny Bela. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:46, 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.

Time limited[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 12:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix) ouch. We are all time limited but I am not sure this should go to this particular thing. It kinda makes sense but usually in an engineering sense "time limited" means "you can use as much power or signal as you want but you have to do it in two milliseconds" (that the limit is not power or signal but time). I am thinking maybe real time (a DAB) or real-time computing but not sure. Si Trew (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think, otherwise Delete but not retarget. Your suggested alternatives are worse. I note that the 2 online dictionaries I looked up both redirect to "Time limit". Jschnur (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I tips me lid at the amazing work you are doing at mopping up after Neelix. Jschnur (talk) 03:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily keep as withdrawn by nominator, if you say it's fine, it's fine, it seemed a close call to me. Tips his titfer back at User:Jschnur thanks for the double check. Si Trew (talk) 09:54, 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.

Sven-r-g[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 22:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect should be deleted, cause it's obviously wrong. Sven-R-G is not Slobodan Petrovic Jr. aka Pulsedriver, but Sven Gruhnwald aka Rocco (see de:Rocco (Produzent) and discogs.com and urheberrecht.justlaw.de) Ephraim33 (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. It's not even mentioned in the target page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-r-gize - per AngusWOOF, I don't know what the connection is supposed to be. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:10, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_25&oldid=1088109040"