Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 27, 2016.

Contra (Swedish magazine)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 4#Contra (Swedish magazine)

Greenisms[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 5#Greenisms

Environmentalistically[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) 03:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right ladies and gentlemen I give you this. Make of it what you will (Neelix), I took it to csd but changed me mind, you deal with it. Si Trew (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second one has it in scare quotes. That leaves us one RS and we need at least two. Si Trew (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Environmental social science as its not just used by those two publications but others such as this one. This is, indeed, a awful bit of social science researchers masturbating with academic terms, using alienating jargon rather than just communicating reasonably, but the redirect itself remains helpful so long as its pointing in the right place. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine Retarget as Coffee With Markets said. I got a bit upset because it seemed every Neelix redirect I sent to CSD User:Patar knight was batting back, which makes it hardly worth doing the job. Si Trew (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletationisticalizationalisticisms. Nonsense. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me there are far worse than this. I know youjust made that up (I am going to wait to see how long that takes to get on an online dictionary I reckon about a week) but there are far worse. Antehypotheticating I would guess about a week. Si Trew (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a plausible search term, not used in news articles, and too vague in that could refer to enivronmentalism as much as the social science. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just implausible search term. Jschnur (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletistically per WP:NOTDIC. Just because it has been used in the past, doesn't mean we should have a redirect for it. We keep redirects for common word forms (WP:R#K6), but this isn't one of them. -- Tavix (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's not a word anyone would use. MSJapan (talk) 03:42, 3 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.

Σημείωσις[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 Latin with diacritics version. No consensus, default to keep on the Greek version. Deryck C. 21:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Semiosis is not particularly Greek. The etymon is Greek, but the concept itself has no specific relation to Greece or anything Greek. Gorobay (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I believe that an etymology is a strong enough affinity to a language per WP:RFOREIGN, as long as the etymology is presented in the article (as it is in this case). -- Tavix (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I've opined elsewhere, Greek is one of a few languages who has given so much to English, it makes sense to apply WP:FORRED strictly and ask whether the subject has a substantial connection to Greece. As the nominator notes, this doesn't. --BDD (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sēmeíōsis The macron version is not used in any notable fashion. Not like résumé and resume. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. -- Tavix (talk) 18:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the first as {{R from other language|grc{}}, delete the second as a bit of a mix. Although a lot of English language comes from Greek in a roundabout fashion (usually via Latin) these ways of typing it are not going to be helpful to an English language speaker. It doesn't make much sense kinda to transliterate and then do the accents, otherwise we end up with boleny as I was arguing the other day, accents in Greek are not some kind of Christmas decoration that you can just put on top of something. Si Trew (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both Macron version is used [3], and WP:DIACRITICS notes that redirects may be with or without diacritics. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they can be that does not mean it makes any sense to do so. I have been arguing this with the Hungarian ones, and it is the same with Greek ones, they are not some bit of tinsel that you drape across a letter at Christmas time they change the meaning of the word. Am I on my own arguing this? In Spanish for example the diacritics really just emphasise the pronunciation they do not change the meaning of the word, in French similar. In Ancient Greek or in Hungarian they do. To take them out is essentially to well talk bollox frankly. Si Trew (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SimonTrew, what's wrong with the diacritics? ē is the standard transliteration for η, and so is ō for ω. If we keep the Greek-script version, we should keep the transliterated one too. Uanfala (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh User:Uanfala I can see that. I didn't express myself well (personally I'd delete both). The thing is although it's a fair transliteration Nobody is actually ever going to type it that way so it is just so much clutter. I know WP:CHEAP but these things then tend to clutter the search engine and make it harder for readers to find things. F'rexample it probably makes it harder to find semiotics. Si Trew (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The book reference only shows the etymology/pronunication of the term, but the term itself isn't referred to in the book with the macrons in its usage. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - why would people be searching in Greek on English Wikipedia, and why would they be introducing an odd spelling with non-English letters into a perfectly good English word? It's all a matter of plausibility, and just because something exists doesn't mean we redirect it. For example, we could have incoming Japanese language redirs for American actors, but we don't, because this is the wrong project for that. MSJapan (talk) 03:45, 3 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.

White washing[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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a better target for this? User:Patar knight has taken some speedily delete but declined others that is just fine that is how we get WP:CONSENSUS I don't take it personally. To me it would be more to do with washing powder and adverts for washes whiter and so on but is there a better target? Si Trew (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep at this target My line of reasoning for this is essentially that redirects that added the dash were implausible, while spaces are, and in this case that white washing as an verb can refer to more things than things like "white washer" which aren't commonly applied to other terms (though I don't know if those who use white wash even use the term). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But you're being judge and jury in your own case now. I don't think you should decide any Neelix ones I list at CSD. Si Trew (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like it's useful for this to stay there. There isn't an article/redirect specific to washing white (clothes), but one could be added later. Similar to clothes washing or washing blue. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be a plausible variant for some of the dab entries --Lenticel (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Doing a bit of searching finds that even if its improper English (or, at least, I think it is), we still have a lot of people online wording things as "white washing investigation", "white washing efforts", etc in various commentaries. It's a helpful redirect, even if I don't much like it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:18, 2 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.

Schwarz Gelbe Allianz[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 4#Schwarz Gelbe Allianz

U.S. Route 48 (1965)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declined at CSD. So why is this particularly 1965. The road only existed in 1965? User:Patar knight as the declining admin can you please explain why you think this is not a pile of nonsense? Si Trew (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep The lede from the target article says "From 1965 until the freeway's construction was completed in 1991, it was designated as U.S. Route 48 (US 48)", so the target article was the U.S. Route 48 that was designated such in 1965. If the consensus is that this is too tenuous a link, I'm okay with that. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so it is OK if I create U.S. Route 48 (1966), U.S. Route 48 (1967), U.S. Route 48 (1968) all the way through to U.S. Route 48 (1991)? That would be absurd. Si Trew (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, the the route was designated as 48 in 1965. Then in 1991 it was redesignated as I-68, and in 2002 a new, largely unrelated US 48 was designated.This would be the road equivalent of Generic Title (date released) to differentiate between works with the same name but different release dates. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I stil don't see the logic there. As it happens I think the first section of the British M1 (motorway) was opened in 1958 (the Preston Bypass) but we don't have M1 (1958). If it were an entirely different road I could see the use in the disambiguation but this is just frankly pointless, it's about as much use as a snake in an arse-kicking competition. Si Trew (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There have been three US 48s in history: U.S. Route 48 (1926), U.S. Route 48 (1969–1989), and U.S. Route 48. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 10:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the 1969–1989 US 48 is the target of this redirect in question.1965 was when the highway was authorized and when construction began, and I'm not sure where the 1969 start date in the above redirect comes from, as the article indicates that the route initially opened in 1966. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Usually the standard redirect/title for a route that has been decommissioned would be use the date range, but there is no harm in having this redirect using the beginning date. Remember, redirects are cheap. Dough4872 10:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. reasonable redirect. Plausible search term . DGG ( talk ) 07:06, 2 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.

Issoufi[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 04:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from just a middle name. ~ RobTalk 04:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This appears to be a first and last name for multiple real people, some of which may be notable. As it stands, the redirect doesn't make sense. Looks like an open-and-shut case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. I assume there is no evidence he went by his middle given or family name whatever it is. Legacypac (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There isn't any harm to keeping it around, and the way the article is written, Issoufi is his surname, or at least the name that is used as one (African names can be weird about that). -- Tavix (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. If it were truly just a middle name, I would agree with deletion, but it appears he's actually called by this name. I wanted to confirm this, but all of the references are dead. At least the article wasn't tampered with by Neelix to support this. With the present evidence, though, it looks to be a legitimate way of referring to him, and unambiguous. --BDD (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Tavix and BDD. That person appears to be the only Issoufi mentioned anywhere on wikipedia. When new articles get created about other Issoufis, then set-indexifying or dabifying might be appropriate. At present, all I can see is Elez Isufi, but that's spelt differently. Uanfala (talk) 00:24, 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.

Jenna Thiam[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 04:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why we have a redirect to French Wikipedia. Stefan2 (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:SOFTRDR AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage article creation --Lenticel (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I greatly object to the practice of shoving people over to a non-English encyclopedia when they're looking for information in English, and these really need to be pruned. Please do keep looking for these and nominating them. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:31, 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.

109-028[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why we have a redirect to German Wikipedia. Stefan2 (talk) 16:24, 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.

109-507[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 Walter HWK 109-507. -- Tavix (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this points at German Wikipedia instead of our own article Walter HWK 109-507. Is the number unambiguous? Phone numbers and postal codes might be six digits in some countries. Stefan2 (talk) 16:23, 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.

Centro Latinoamericano de Administración para el Desarrolho[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 04:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why we have a redirect to Spanish Wikipedia. Those who are looking for Spanish articles will probably look there by default instead. Stefan2 (talk) 16:22, 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.

Pruned tree[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 5#Pruned tree

Triple metres[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) 00:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix) Triple meters went and so, should this then stay or should it go? I ask you it in rhyme iambic am I being too pedamtic? Trimeter is what you'll find the poets call it if they mind and this one I am not averse to keep but makes my cod verse worse. Si Trew (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 15:42, 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.

Strategic Air Command Group and Wing emblems gallery[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 04:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why we have a redirect to a gallery page on Commons. Stefan2 (talk) 11:45, 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.

Songpadaero[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 04:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why we have a redirect to an article about a road on Korean Wikipedia. Stefan2 (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator; no better target on English Wikipedia. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 13:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete WP:RFOREIGN. To link it across to another Wikipedia is a new one on me so I am going to be watching out for them. That is what Interwiki links and Wikidata is for. There is absolutely no point sending an English speaking reader off to a korean web page. That makes about as much use as a snake in an arse kicking competition. Si Trew (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reason to have a redirect to an article in another language.. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SOFTRDR. The road is only mentioned in passing by Songpa District. Not notable enough to have its own article on EN Wikipedia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete might cause confusion and also no viable en.wiki targets --Lenticel (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clear-cut case of a redirect that should be trashed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:38, 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.

Yeongdongdaero[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 04:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why we have a redirect to an article about a road on Korean Wikipedia. Stefan2 (talk) 11:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No better target on English Wikipedia (note: this title is for a surface road in Seoul, not the Yeongdong Expressway). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete essentially WP:RFOREIGN though transcribed. Here I am saying that Boleny makes no sense because you need the accents Bölény and now we have Korean ones transcribed. Find a Korean expert to see if this makes any sense in English. I bet you a daewoo to a China orange it does not. Si Trew (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably going to be accused of being racist, now. "some of my best friends know Asian people". The fact this makes no sense in English Wikipedia does not make me racist. I hate everyone equally. User:Lenticel could maybe call it but I am not sure that user knows so much about Korean but could probably call it. As it happens I grew up and went to school with a Korean Dutch um refugee I don't want to give the name I know the name but that is not fair so I learned from him both a bit of Dutch and a bit of Korean. Long time ago, now and I have forgotten all my Korean. Si Trew (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He used to rib me and me him because in his Dutch he would pronounce my name as "Shimon" and I would pretend I didn't understand. Lovely fellow I hope he and his family are doing well. I know the name but I am not going to give it out on Wikipedia. He probably has done very well for himself. Si Trew (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact this makes no sense in English Wikipedia Well I'm no expert, but unlike the Hungarian cases this is basically the correct transcription of the native name (Revised Romanization doesn't use diacritics, Korean transcriptions are usually loosey-goosey with hyphens/spaces/etc., and even in Korean itself folks disagree all the time about spaces, with three different standards - Northern, Southern, and Yanbian - honored more in the breach than in the observance). Also for some reason with roads it's reasonably common in English to use the local word for "road" rather than an English word: Rue de Rivoli, Mita Dōri, etc. and even when it's not the article title we'd usually have the transcription of the native name as a redirect. In short, WP:RFOREIGN would say to keep this one if there were any viable target here. It just so happens that there's not. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 06:11, 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.

Glacier related redirects[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) 16:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a list of redirects to Glacier ice accumulation. All were created by Neelix. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirects as Glacier buildup exists.
Implausible redirects
Won't the redirects in this section be useful for linking to (without piping) from within article text? The rest look frivolous though. Uanfala (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Accumulating glacier ice. Will suffice. Especially in my G&T (don't bother me). The thing is that if we have kinda seventeen hundred redirects to the same target it makes articles inconsistent because articles are then edited and put in any redirect that comes to hand. This is the argument I made essentially at I forget now King of Hungary which we had seventeen redirects to many years ago, it makes the entire encyclopaeida inconsistent so someone looks at article X and sees a link and it goes to Y. They look at article Z and sees a link and it goes to Y. They are WP:SURPRISEd because they would think things with different names go to different places. I am no deletionist but there's a limit, you can't just make up any redirect that happens to suit you. As another editor has pointed out, the problem with some of them is they become feral and end up on online dictionaries (which should know better) so it would not surprise me in the least if Glacier build ups will be online at Merriam-Webster. Anyway surely a Glacier build-up is an igloo. Si Trew (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(only) Unnecessary pluralisation.
Unnecessary as Glacier ice buildup exists (and possibly "Implausible pluralisation").
Unnecessary when there's Build up of glaciers (and possibly "Implausible pluralisation").
Unnecessary as Buildup of glacier ice exists (and possibly "Implausible pluralisation").
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.

List of British television programs[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) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(owww) There ae lots of these (Nelix). The thing is really there is no such thing as a British TV program because it is a programme. I understand we do the variant spelling but when specifically it has "British" in it doesn't it make it a bit nonsense? Si Trew (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as much as I agree that it's spelled "programme" in Britan, this redirect should stay because places outside Britan may want to find a list of articles, and may use the "program" spelling. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Righty ho I could see that point of view too. Speedily keep as withdrawn by nominator thanks to Anarchyte for the second call. Si Trew (talk) 11:17, 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.
Comments after discussion closed
  • People outside of Britain should learn to spell Britan correctly to start with! {{tongue in cheek}} Si Trew (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown (book)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are many books called "Countdown". Will need additional disambiguation if kept. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:55, 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.

The Harbinger (newspaper)[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 04:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. The whole section in the target article is unreferenced, too. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - brief Google search shows that there are many high schools with a newspaper called the Harbinger, and this one isn't one of them (theirs is the "Algonquin Harbinger"). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:50, 2 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.

Extinction (peerage)[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 01:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausable search term/redirect Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, this has a specific sense which I am not sure is mentioned at the target. If a hereditary peer has no heirs then their title goes extinct they cannot pass it on to their sons (and yes, it is sons, daughters have no chance).
In section 4 Hereditary peer#Inheritance of titles. Keep and refine to section. Si Trew (talk) 11:23, 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.

Equilibrium (systems)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 4#Equilibrium (systems)

Doomsday Machine (destruction)[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 Sphilbrick. --BDD (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense shows that a "doomsday machine" will cause "destruction". Unnecessary disambiguation. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:43, 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.

Practical joker (person)[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 CSD G6 speedy deletion as Neelix redirect. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary disambiguation Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:41, 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.

Pegasus (rocking horse)[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 CSD G6 speedy deletion as Neelix redirect. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unmentioned in target article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is just nonsense. Pegasus was not a rocking horse. Take it to CSD I will. Si Trew (talk) 15:34, 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.

Rascal Scooters[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 04:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unmentioned in target article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and tag {{R from brand name}}. Well known. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Nothing wrong with this one. Not every neelix redirect is idiocy, you still have to use your noggin. That is why it is hard. Si Trew (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a nagging doubt on this one but can't place it. I agree with Ivanvector the brand name is well known I am trying to think of something else that could make it WP:TWODABS but I can't think of it. The poet Horace said a liar should have a good memory! As it stands, this is the best option. I was probably thinking of the Reliant Robin or something like that my brain is now doing overtime trying to place it, Si Trew (talk) 22:11, 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.

Conundrum (song)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 4#Conundrum (song)

Royale (hair)[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) 17:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:25, 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.

When the Bough Breaks (The Serrated Edge)[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) 00:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned once in the target article. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I seem to recall we had an RfD for When the Bough Breaks about three months ago. User:Anarchyte you do not need to list these all at RfD if they are Neelix (as this one is), under the WP:G6 Neelix concession you can take them straight to WP:CSD. That don't mean you always "win" a few of mine tonight have "bounced" but it saves the bother of everyone listing them at RfD for obvious WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You were probably thinking of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 29#When the bough breaks the cradle will fall. -- Tavix (talk) 20:27, 2 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.

Call to Arms (Lu Xun)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausable redirect. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article mentions "A Call to Arms" as a political text of Lu Xun's so not necessarily an implausible search term. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:30, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment perfectly plausible link, given that Call to Arms is a disambiguation page. OTOH I'm not sure whether this should be a WP:REDLINK to encourage article creation. Many of the stories in the collection are notable, but I'm not sure whether the collection itself is. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's an {{R with possibilities}} that points exactly to where I'd expect. Nahan / Call to Arms (wikisource:Translation:Call to Arms (Lu Xun)) is among the most well-known books in 20th century Chinese literature, partly due to its subtle but apt criticism of Chinese politics and culture in his time. Incidentally the story in the Preface of Call to Arms was extensively quoted in the political rhetoric of the Umbrella Revolution:

"Imagine a corrugated steel house is on fire and its residents are about to suffocate to death, but they're asleep and won't feel the pain of death. Now you start shouting and people wake up to the unmitigated agony of a violent death. What makes you think you're doing them a favour?"
"But even if only a few people wake up, you can't rule out the hope that they can break free."

(my translation) Deryck C. 16:00, 2 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.

Paradise (football)[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 04:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausable redirect Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Places calling themselves "football paradise" and/or having "paradise football" seem to be not that rare, at least from a bit of searching, and none of them appear notable. The connection with Celtic Park comes out of nowhere. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have seen the term used for Celtic Park (Belfast) as well, the old home of Belfast Celtic. The article there (with a dead reference) states that this stadium, like the one in Glasgow, was referred to as Paradise. Unfortunatly the two references in the Celtic Park article for the term Paradise seem to have moved as well. Calistemon (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as nonsense. GiantSnowman 09:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Paradise is (or perhaps was) a common nickname for Celtic Park search, typically used for dreadful tabloid puns (Paradise found, Paradise lost, etc.). But I don't see any need for it to be an actual redirect. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - implausible that someone would type this with the disambiguation rather than the actual article title. Fenix down (talk) 06:58, 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.

Whisperers[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 04:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The Whisperers" is not known as "Whisperers". Implausable redirect. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment whisperer has been a disambiguation page since eight years ago. OTOH the only entry there that could be called "whisperers" is the plural of "one who whispers". All the other entries are proper nouns. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Whisperer disambiguation page. News article searches show use of this term in plural. Also there's a Walking Dead group called the Whisperers. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Whisperer as {{R from plural}}.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:12, 2 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.

Endgame (anthology)[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 04:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book "Endgame" itself is not an anthology. It's a member of one, but it is not one. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Endgame is a play by Samuel Beckett isn't it? Was that the one in the anthology? Si Trew (talk) 20:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The Star Wars Clone Wars comic book is also an anthology set with different authors per volume. Same with the Doctor Who novels. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:42, 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.

Crystallisations[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. -- Tavix (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This gives me vexations, crystallisations, you can't to it thus, this is just a cuss. (Neelix) Declined at CSD by User:Patar knight. Si Trew (talk) 06:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the pluralization that gives me the heebie jeebies but that it is essentially an abstract noun and you can't go just whacking an s on the end of it. You don't have, for example, the crystallizations of granulated sugar even though it happens billions of times a day, it is the crystallization of such. Si Trew (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. "Crystallisation" wouls make sense as a redir from alt spelling, but this is too m=remote. Anyone who can think of the plural can thing of the singular. DGG ( talk ) 07:04, 2 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.

Crystalizations[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) 00:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declined at CSD by User:Patar knight. I think this is a bit too far missing the L and whacking an S at the back. Is it OK? Si Trew (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I have the subst rfd2 below this perhaps Twinkle was playing up but am leaving it there in good faith. Si Trew (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it was listing UK TV Programme at CSD. not sure how that ended up here. Si Trew (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep as a plausible misspelling for the British plural version of the target. WP:RPURPOSE says that redirects may be used for plurals, alternative spellings, as well as likely misspellings. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)Moved to above RfD ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the ise/ize that is the problem. This is missing an L in the word so it is a misspelling then we are turning an abstract noun into a concrete noun by making seventeen crystalizations instead of one of them. It just makes no sense. Si Trew (talk) 06:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I declined both of these at the same time; this is supposed to be for the one above it. Struck, and replaced by rationale below. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:57, 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.

Crystaline solids[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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix) oh bugger. This is just on the cusp. The redirect Crystalline solids is all right but this is a kinda {{R from misspelling}}. That would be fine I would have no problem with that but since it just goes to Crystal anyway is this a bit out of whack? I am taking it with a dose of salt. (Oh dear me, a dose of salt is crystalline solids. Who knew?) Si Trew (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have already taken things like Crystalizationally straight to CSD under the WP:G6 concession. Si Trew (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again this is a mispelling because crystalline has two Ls in it. We can mark it {{R from misspelling}} but considering that all it goes to is crystal (to which Crystalline solid also redirects) this is about as much use as a snake in an arse-kicking competition. Si Trew (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once I did actually make a chocolate teapot. Turned out quite well but was about as much use as, er, a chocolate teapot. Si Trew (talk) 06:21, 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.

The Cruiser (politician)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix) I am well aware of this politician have great deal of respect for him he helped in the "Troubles" to get the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I am just worried about the (politician) at the back. It is probably fine but do we need it? Si Trew (talk) 02:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The "(politician)" disambiguator separates him from, erm, all the ships and trips that might take on the nickname "The Cruiser". Sufficient disambiguation, marginally useful, and harmless. Deryck C. 11:45, 3 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.

The Wrestlers (film)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix) Now I believe we had a similar one here a few days ago. Why this goes where it goes I have absolutely no idea. (Neelix) but we kept the other ones but they were to a different target I will check just listing quickly. Si Trew (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The reason this redirects to Uttara is because (according to the article, anyway) the English title is The Wrestlers. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:11, 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.

Green Thumb Theater[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) 15:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix) oww. While I appreciate this is the way it is spelled in American English, this is the name of a particular theatre that is not spelled that way. Keep as {{R from other language|damyank}} or delete it? Si Trew (talk) 02:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep - Si, I'm going to call this one frivolous. You know we keep American spelling variants, wrong though they are. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily keep if you call it I'll play it. I would normally mark as just variant but because it is the name of the theatre I was not 100% sure. Fine by me, withdrawn by nominator. How do we tag this, R from other variety of English or something, I forget. Si Trew (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{{R from other language|Yankee}}?? I think it's {{R from alternate title}}. Colour has {{R from spelling}} on it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, {{R from other spelling}} I think. Nicely done. Si Trew (talk) 02:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots more Green Thumb redirects by Neelix that make much less sense than this. Wasn't it Dorothy Parker who said you can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think. Si Trew (talk) 03:53, 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.

Fidesz – Magyar Polgári Szövetség[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:RFOREIGN. Nobody in English is going to search for it this way. The only way I got here was because I looked up the Hungarian and copy pasted. Fidesz (roughly, faith) fine but nobody is going to search this way. What, with the hyphen and stuff? (eyes roll). It is marked as {{R from other language}} but not from any particular language, I guess it might be Czech or Horvat or double dutch. This is not the way we disambiguate and there is no need to disambiguate here even in this peculiar way. If we keep it, which will give me a heart attack, mark as {{R from other language|hu}} and {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Throw it away. Here I am trogging through Neelix redirects and come across this kind of nonsense not made by Neelix. It makes perfect sense in Hungarian. Mark as {{R from full name}} if you like. But it makes no sense, I claim, in English. Tell me, anyone, without checking, what a szövetség is? How is anyone on an English keyboard layout to type that? Bollox Si Trew (talk) 01:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And how would an English speaker know unless they know Hungarian that sz is pronounced like English S and straight s is pronounced like English sh. It's just bollox. You have to let me call the Hungarian ones because I am your only editor who speaks Hungarian, however badly. En ertem nem beszélek nagyon jo de ertem, és minden nap beszelek magyarul. This is a nyitva and zárva case. Si Trew (talk) 01:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Igen, ertem, but they don't edit RfD. The only user who speaks Hungarian and edits RfD is me. I used to have boxes like that on my talk page but got fed up with them essentially because people like to brag and so what they say in the language boxes is pretty meaningless. So I think you have to trust me on some of these. Si Trew (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I do trust you on these for the most part, as far as translation is concerned. But the text is right there in the article, and it's up for discussion, so I have to point it out. If I were to come across a Hungarian redirect needing an English translation (like the Turkmen one that came up recently, or the other French/Spanish ones that you and I have both done) you would probably be the first user I would approach. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am honoured to hear that and I would be at your service. I can only parler francais comme une vache espanol. {{R from full name}} I guess. Si Trew (talk) 03:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
speedily withdrawn by nominator if someone says keep, then keep, can the closer please put the hu on the {{R from other language}} tag. Si Trew (talk) 02:34, 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.

Shitpost[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 04:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article or elsewhere. Not a topic exclusive to 4chan, though I'm sure it started there. BDD (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt. I can see this being used for anyone who is fed up with the post office, but this is a bit ridiculous. Si Trew (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a complaint to the Royal Mail that my letter arrived two days late. I got a refund in the mail three years later. (joking). Si Trew (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only related to 4chan. No need to salt as this is a proper topic and salting may stop non-vandalistic editors from making it. (if the closing admin salts the page, I'd say don't go any higher than autoconfirmed). Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt both because this is a concept beyond 4chan but also because a future article under this title would serve little purpose other than to be a magnet for trolls CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:15, 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.

Pattern of cracking[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 Sphilbrick and Anthony Bradbury, respectively. --BDD (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix) I can see the logic to these, target is a WP:TWODABS, but are these harmful? Si Trew (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 00:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - interesting, rather than just saying that these have no hits, the stats tool actually returns a "no data" error for these. I think that means that nobody has hit these redirects ever, not just in the last 90 days. Utterly useless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK I take to CSD as WP:G6. Thanks for the second check. Si Trew (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is an interesting thing I don't know if we have an article on it used in roadmending called controlled crack. Rather than repair the road when you get a bit of ice or something and it cracks the road, you just whack in a bit of well rubber, latex, which sorts it out "on the cheap" but it is not just "on the cheap" but kinda an expansion gap, then it can expand and reduce depending on the temperature, and your road lasts longer. Used a lot on concrete roads on motorways in the UK. I should write an article on that, but heaven knows how I would source it. Si Trew (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think they are a bit nonsense Chemistically. Si Trew (talk) 02:45, 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_27&oldid=1146660245"