Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 2
May 4 >

May 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 3, 2016.

Religiose[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. Just Chilling (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

adjective "excessively religious" which is not at all the target. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Neelix redirect Legacypac (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:NOTDIC per Legacypac, and even if it were, it would be WP:RFD#D2 because religiosity is not being excessively religious (whatever that means, is the Pope or the Dalai Lama excessively religious? Is the Moderator of the General Assembly Of the Church of Scotland only moderately religious, or does he ensure that the Assembly's excessive religious views are moderated? Who are these moderate religionists or excessive religionists I have never heard of? Do they differ from religious moderates?) But then I am C of E (but never been christened but married by em) in which you can believe almost anything and still be a member. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I recall from the film that even Alex DeLarge is an adherent. Talk the C of E accepting anyone with a pulse. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:26, 6 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.

Litigators[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 12

Litigiousness[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 12#Litigiousness

White-berry[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) 02:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) I imagine there are lots of white berries other than a Japanese rock group. The mistletoe for example. Calling User:Plantdrew. Si Trew (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there is no reason to hyphenate the name of the band - he just loves incorrect hyphens (hundreds and hundreds of these redirects). Legacypac (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can we add white berry to the RfD (it also goes to the rock group)? Ugh. I don't think anybody searching for "white-berry" or "white berry" is trying to get to the band. White-berry/white berry/whiteberry (or white-berried, etc.) show up in common names such as "white-berry dogwood" (Cornus sericea), "white berry nandina", (a cultivar of Nandina domestica) "white-berry yew", "white-berry bush" (Flueggea virosa) and "white-berry snakeroot" (Actaea pachypoda)(except for the yew, these names aren't mentioned in the articles). I'm sure there are some more of these. The dogwood, nandina and yew are probably partial title matches (i.e., those terms are never dropped), and I'd expect the same of the snakeroot, but there are a handful of sources (e.g here) that list "white-berry" by itself as a common name for Actaea pachypoda. But I'd be surprised if people don't drop "bush" sometimes when talking about "white-berry bush" (though I can't find any sources to confirm this).
Along with the above, per search engines, "white berry" often refer to a cannabis strain (as "White Berry"), or an alchemy ingredient in Runescape (apparently produced by the fictional "whiteberry" plant).
If we must keep this, Actaea pachypoda is probably the best target (based on the articles we have and sourceability), but it's not currently mentioned there, and I'm not excited about adding it. Another option is making a crappy disambiguation page. Or we could move the rock band back to Whiteberry and delete the Neelix garbage redirects. Plantdrew (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've added White berry to the nom as requested. I moved the band page because whatever whiteberry is, the band is definitely not the primary topic. Legacypac (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to add it myself but got lost in the midst of Neelixland. Fortunately it seems there are no plurals White-berrys, White berrys, White berries, White berries, so I think we can stick at those two (but I imagine some malformation of white berryed or something has escaped my notice. Either red or not. @Plantdrew: thanks as always for your expertise. Doing another Neelix shift on Eurpeoan time so expect me to handover to the North Americans with a few listings here for today (tomorrow). Si Trew (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Legacypac: If the band isn't the primary topic for "whiteberry", what would you list on the disambiguation page besides the band? The Runescape plant? A restaurant in Florida? Actaea pachypoda? If one (or more) non-fictional plants belong on a dab page at "whiteberry", I'd go with retargetting "white berry" and "white-berry" to the dab. Plantdrew (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe White is just a descriptor. Let's look at Red berry Green berry Sweet berry sour berry. red car, white car, white leaves, white bark We don't seem to commonly have color-object pages but red berry is a good example of what could be done. Legacypac (talk) 08:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

White bands[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete both. JohnCD (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect). Surely there are plenty of white bands other than these. White armbands to signify surrender or captaincy, for example. As usual, going through the neelix redirects, have not had a chance to check yet. Si Trew (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as confusing. There are not many titles at wikipedia with the phrase "White band" but lots of things. Legacypac (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are many things known as white bands -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 07:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. I listed here because I was not sure to take it straight to CSD. We probably have the White-banded moth or some such so this is just WP:RFD#D1 hinders search. Si Trew (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like an open-and-shut case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:41, 6 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-Tao[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. The discussion has established that Green-Tao theorem isn't commonly known in short as "Green-Tao" among professional circles that use it. Deryck C. 13:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect). Have only cursorily glanced at the target but I imagine Green and Tao were different people and you can't I think quite combine in this way (do we have Marx-Engels or Newton-Raphson and so on. You probably can but on the Anomie list and not sure, eighty done tonight so please excuse me not thoroughly checking at first glance, rather referring to RfD if I think there is any doubt (and boldly rtagging but never retargetting some myself) Si Trew (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed two different people. Just seemed to me it could be confused with some kind of green tea but haven't checked that line of country yet, does tao have much to do with tea? Don't think so (chi or cha does of course) but after too many Neelix redirects your mind works like that. Si Trew (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My own examples show that what I said is bollox. Quod erat nil demonstrandum. It is probably just in scientific speech or writing that the "and" is elided. Like I always wanted to know who Al was, you know who writes all these scientific papers for which the references finish et al, "and Al", he knows a lot that guy. Si Trew (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Green-Tao theorem is well-known among mathematicians who study number theory, but I have never heard it called (outside of informal elliptical speech) just Green-Tao. I don't see this as a plausible search term, so deletion would be no loss to Wikipedia. --Mark viking (talk) 08:24, 4 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.

Colour key[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, with no prejudice against creation of a dab at Colour key or Color key. Note that the latter was not included in this nomination, but I'm deleting it because it has the same issues as the ones that were. --BDD (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirects) Will combine there are STACKS at chroma key and color key cos Neelix knew nothing about technology I assume, it is usually in inverse proportion the more Neelix knows the less he creates redirects. Which is essentially masturbation or something Si Trew (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not had time to check on Wikipedia or elsewhere yet but often there is a "colorist" or "colourist" listed in the end credits (on BBC you still get full size credits without adverts, usually, except their own adverts for the next programme) so it may be a term for kinda a person who does the colour balance in TV, a lighting technician essentially I don't know why they use that term but colorists I think equally refers on the adverts "On Other Channels" as the BBC used to put it as people who do hair dye. Si Trew (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Burn them all down if any of these are valid some informed editor can recreate them correctly. Neelix's obsession with useless redirects makes them all very suspect. I've combined these into one nom for you. Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A colorist or colourist (as linked above) are people who fill in the colours in comic books. That is not what they are in TV, they are more some made up word for people who used to be called vision mixers before the days of digital TV. (and you hear it a lot on L'oreal adverts etc.) Since that target suggested by some idiot above, oh, me, is probably out, Add to the carbon footprint per User:Legacypac. Si Trew (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Color key has multiple meanings. It can be a synonym for the chroma key compositing method, but it could also refer to the legend of a choropleth map. I don't see the first three as compelling redirects. Chroma keyed seems OK and the term is out there. --Mark viking (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. It could refer to a color legend as with: [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of them except for Chroma keyed, which should be kept as a useful search term. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as nominator I did not say delete or keep to any, but I agree with Coffeewithmarkets, if Chroma keyed is useful then keep it WP:RFD#K5. The rest through normal channels Delete. I think this is a good example of why I bring the Neelix redirects to RfD rather than just mass delete them, when I am not sure. Si Trew (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Color Key Color key has multiple definitions. PC Magazine has two definitions as prepress proofing and Chroma key. Popular Science magazine also supports the proofing, calling the process 3M Color Key [2] Colorist or color key artist is also a valid occupation [3][4], and CMYK is sometimes referred to as a key because K stands for key / black.[5] It can also refer to keys with different colors. [6] I would also Delete -keyer, -keyers, as those aren't they are referred to in the occupation. Keep Colour key. Color Key is also an art term for brightness and saturation. [7] [8] [9] and High key / Low key AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC) updated 18:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page is a good idea for all the reasons you give and I'd support that option, too. --Mark viking (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support making the DAB but have no idea where I would start. I think L'Oreal uses colorist in their ads for hair dye but can't quite remember with Jennifer Aniston advertising them. But that is just from memory and not RS in any way. (Her hair is rubbish she is doubleplusunsexy). Fine by me but I would not know where to start with the DAB. I am quite happy to withdraw by nom but I wouldn't know where to start with the DAB. Si Trew (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colorist (disambiguation) already exists, so I would DAB Color key with the definitions as proposed above, and Colorist can be a See also. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:40, 12 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.

Greets[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 19#Greets

John Faustus[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 03:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because as a neelix list I thought I should give you this for the unspeakable bounty of human knowledge. I also know Fred God, Bert Devil and Harry Odin personally, but don't like to name drop. (Already at WP:CSD. Si Trew (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on no it didn't it went to Faust. Double check. Si Trew (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because in double quick time User:Amakuru changed it into an RfD with the edit comment "Apparently it goes to Johann Georg Furst". Now, Amakuru, why do you think it does, apparently? May be apparent to you but not to me. Now it is at redirects for discussion, you're quick enough to bring it here so I bet quick enough to say why. (That was fifty seconds between listing and turning into an RfD while I was writing the edit comment and I touch type quickly but it was essentially an (edit conflict). A bit slower now, Amakuru is. Not so much fifty seconds now, there are seven days now to explain the sharpshooting.) Si Trew (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK I will fill in the details. In the lede at the target it says that Dr Johann Georg Faust is also known in English as John Faustus. That is a perfectly sensible and bleeding obvious retarget. The even more sensible thing to do with a redirect I was marking as RfD would be to avoid a mixup and simply take out the RfD and rcat it as {{R from other name}} and {{R from other language|en}} rather than just bung in a retarget rather than get others to have to do your homework. Can you please go and finish the work you started and rcat it please, User:Amakuru? Si Trew (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, I didn't know you'd marked it as an RfD entry, I just saw the CSD and rather than just blindly following it, I did a little research and found that "John Faustus" is an Anglicization of Johann Georg Faust. I'd have thought my edit summary made that plain. CSD should be for things that obviously make no sense and need deleting, not for something that just needs retargeting  — Amakuru (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Although having said all that, it's possible the original redirect was actually correct - this book here,[10] appears to be talking about the mythical Faust rather than the real life doctor on whom he was based. This will benefit from a seven day discussion I guess - the best outcome might even be a redirect to Faust (disambiguation.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you didn't know it was an RfD entry. It is not some little mark it is a "BLOODY GREAT BIG RED BOX ON THE TOP OF THE PAGE YOU WERE EDITING". I or you would have got an edit conflict. It had a BLOODY GREAT BIG RED BOX SAXING IT WAS LISTED AT RFD before you changed the redirect. IF NOT YOU SHOULD HAVE LISTED IT AT RFD. YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS OLD BEAN. You cannot take it OUT of CSD and then not procedurally inform the raiser that you have done so, so either YOU DID NOT SEE THE BIG RED RFD BOX, OR YOU DID, but you are not a WP:NEWBIE and I am not wet behind the ears. Now you are arguing against your own WP:BOLD change that has ended up with your retarget at this RfD being listed by me. What am I to do about it? You didn't list it. I listed something else. I am not to blame for that, probably neither are you except for not following CSD process by informing me on my talk page that the CSD was declined, by first removing the CSD notice and informing the editor, in one edit, then raising an RfD in a second edit but I am not that fussed.

Now, as it stands at an RfD that I have not even suggested should go to the current target another user who says he did or did not change the RfD is now saying put it somewhere else. procedural close as withdrawn by nominator, this is just a timing mess because Amakuru did not follow the CSD or RfD instructions, but I am not going to make a big deal of it. I realise now why it was not an EC, because the removal of the CSD and the retargeting of the RfD were combined in one edit. (At least I think so.) I had already added the RfD notice while it was at CSD, I do that sometimes when there is an existing RfD to inform the CSD admins (specifically for Neelix redirects like this one). Si Trew (talk) 23:34, 3 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.

Congeals[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) 21:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) This is just my crossword head on, but any chance it could go to Conger eels? Probably not thence {{R from verb}}, asking for well just in case it could as {{R from typo}}. To list the Conger as a hatnote at Congelation would be absurd (wouldn't it?). The Conger and the Conga both cross-ref via disambiguations. (I have already done other more obvious ones such as congealed). Si Trew (talk) 20:44, 3 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.

Labille[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 one. Neelix injunction continues to apply for the other items in User:Anomie/Neelix_list/1#Adelaide_Labille_Guiard but no specific judgement is given concerning other items. @SimonTrew: I think the best way to break the section is by adding a normal section heading. Deryck C. 13:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestions please. At User:Anomie/Neelix_list/1#Adelaide_Labille_Guiard on 27 April 2016 I put a stop message separating those above (some of which I have CSDd and gone red) and those below (with this diff) because the six below my STOP message there go to different targets from those above. This and another seem unecessarily general but I don't think there is any more likely topic (or rather there are probably many) therefore to RfD. All those above go to the same topic, all those below to another. I did suggest in the early days that it would be helpful to list the topic at the the list, and this was indeed taken up and done as a one-off on another of the early Neelix lists, but has never been incorporated into AnomieBot, thus making manual checking unnecessarily difficult user:anomie may wish to review the early Neelix discussions because they happened before this bot started this work and is, to be absolutely technically correct, not running with the bot right consensus it was given (I think).
Before the bot runs again, preferably listing the redirects without them directing to the targets, and then the targets themselves, with perhaps easy links to their WhatLinksHere, stats and histories (if that sounds at all familiar), you can all check manually what I say is true cos I made the cut and I made it in the right place. Not all of us buy the quickest Internet ever (TM). I can get through these pretty quickly because I am a seven year old quad core beast I bought for about a thousand quid spec'd up by me to run no games or whatever but as a basic fast processor to go like shit off a shovel and to last for about seven years (the average time it takes me to buy a new box), but on laptops and other things I edit this is painful to go through the neelix list, even though they are newer than my box here. Which is fine but needlessly painful when retarget -> target is a fairly simple way to make it easier for those going through it. Anomiebot's six months WP:G6 concession is nearly up and I think we ought to review this before giving it another six months. Si Trew (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AnomieBOT has no G6 concession. Are you referring to the temporary addition to WP:G6 for any admin (which does not include User:AnomieBOT) to speedy-delete Neelix redirects? Anomie⚔ 12:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bot was a one-time task (so it won't run again) and created the list in essentially random order, so which pages are listed together really has no significance. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Then presumably there is no point adding or removing from its list because it won't affect the percentages at the top. Which makes the discussion for the Neelix renewal of the WP:G6 concession moot because if it has only run once we have no idea how many we have done. What it amounts to is that we are actually squatting in User:Anomie's space and need to move this list elswhere outside of users space, since Anomie doesn't seem to wish to comment on it (understandably, probably fed up with it) so we should move it under WP:RFD/Anomie List or something out of that user's space. Si Trew (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I would call it something other than "Anomie list" but since all the regs know it as "Anomie list" it would be confusing to do otherwise, unfortunately User:Anomie is going to have that on the search engine for years. Si Trew (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't even a bot, I just executed a manual database query on Tool Labs and formatted and copied the output into a wikipage. Feel free to move the pages elsewhere if you'd like. Anomie⚔ 12:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the redirects appear to always be clustered by target. The linked list is another example of a block that should be speedy deleted Legacypac (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is not how compound surnames work. The surname is "Labille-Guiard," Labille would be incorrect. -- Tavix (talk) 03:31, 10 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.
Then I need to apologise to User:Anomie for assuming that the list was made by User:AnomieBot. That is simply my error and I ain't got any problem with it but was just assuming it was made by that user's bot, wrongly as said by that user. When I am wrong I change my mind as John Maynard Keynes said famously, what do you do sir? My kind apologies to Anomie. Si Trew (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fruity noob[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all for now, without prejudice against anybody starting food brands called "fruity noob" or "nub flakes". Deryck C. 12:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

None of these phrases are discussed at the target article. If they're simple synonyms for "newbie", they aren't adding much and are unlikely to make it materially more difficult to find the target article. If they mean something more specific, they're misleading readers. --BDD (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar thought. "Fruity Noobs" also sounds like it could be a breakfast cereal, but please keep "lube noob" far away from my table! --BDD (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[11] Legacypac (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably trademark it and try to sell the name to Kellogg's. In any case first use for a breakfast cereal is here at Wikipedia, and nothing we say here is copyright of Wikipedia, so I have first use as the name for a breakfast cereal. I imagine it would have raisins, cranberries, the stuff they sweep off the factory floor, and all the other chaff they put in their products but perhaps that is not a great advertising slogan.

(In an D major 4/4 please, with back singing by the Andrews Sisters)

Frooty noobs
They're the doobs
they'll noob everything you wanna doo (b)
Frooty noobs, they are the best for you
Brought to you by the Kellogg Corporation (c) Simon 2016 Si Trew (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:IMPORTANCE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 12#Wikipedia:IMPORTANCE

Although[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) 02:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 30#Though. Delete as WP:NOTDIC. Though I believe both to be NOTDIC, this is less likely to be a typo for through or thought so is a weaker case. Si Trew (talk) 13:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and it is a common word that wouldn't require linking anyway. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:43, 11 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 GM[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 GM. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the entries at GM may conflict with this. —Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the unreferenced article, it is sponsored by the University of Bolton, which means nothing, it just means someone from the University of Bolton gave them some money once. The article says it is an English Secondary School, and that is all it is. It has nothing to do with the former or present Universities of Manchester (none of which has ever been a Collegiate University).
The target is an unreferenced stub article, and if someone wrote this from the College they should learn (WP:FIRSTSENTENCE) the difference between "formally" and "formerly" or the article should be called The Greater Manchester Sustainable Engineering University Technical College if that is what it formally is. The target really needs deleting per WP:SCHOOL, but that doesn't help us decide what to do with the redirect except don't keep it going where it currently goes. The catch-all implausible title sounds like it could be a diploma mill for foreigners, unfortunately, but I haven't checked that yet.
Although proud to be an alumnus of UMIST (a long time ago), I add this personal knowledge of the higher educational establishments in Manchester, England in case it helps others to decide.
The creator User:Crookesmoor could perhaps shed more light on why it was created. I couldn't help thinking in a Dickensian, which is my fault not the users, that it was "one more crook" but this editor has recently been thanked for adding content to UTC Oxfordshire and Global Academy. Si Trew (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. thegm.co.uk/about/welcome/ has no information about it (this is what Google brings me up when searching for The Greater Manchester Sustainable Engineering University Technical College, and it is on the page there), and usually in the UK bona fide educational establishments are in the top-level (administered by UK government) domain ac.uk (or if the site is run by the school often org.uk), not co.uk. Of course individual spin-off companies of universities or colleges that like to do such things, such as the Engineering Department of the University of Cambridge, often have co.uk, but that is the domain of the for-profit company not of the educational establishment, and they maintain and pay for it. Si Trew (talk) 13:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment PRODded target, referring back to here. Si Trew (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy retarget to GM as obvious. The current target article should be added there if it isn't deleted. Just at a glance, there are multiple entries there that could be referred to with the definite article. --BDD (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to GM per BDD. In business it refers to General manager, in RPGs it's Game master, so disambiguation is most appropriate. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to GM -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to GM -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:39, 5 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.

17/2[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. JohnCD (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article 8½ is about Fellini's film called 8½. It can be tricky to navigate to because most keyboards don't have a "½" button, so there are are a number of sensible redirects like "8 1/2". However 17/2 isn't sensible. No user wanting the page about the film is going to type "17/2". If a user mistook Wikipedia for a calculator, taking the reader to a page about a film doesn't help! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I went through and listed at RfD all the day/month combinations in both British and American date order with various punctuation from 1 Jan to 30 April a few years ago, deleting nonsense like this. (I can't find those listings now.) I stopped at the end of April and don't intend to start again because I got no help and some complaints for doing so. Therefore it does not surprise me that many still exist. I didn't list them individually – we were more lax back then – so there's no record of my doing so on an RfD page, but I bloody well know I did. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing on that film article mentions 17/2 as an alternate name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's also nonsense in traditional Oddsmaking by the way (ie. divided a pound sterling by eight to give you half a crown). Theoretically (mathematically) it would be halfway between 8/1 and 9/1, but it you will never be offered those odds as you would and can be at a British bookmaker 5/2, 7/2, 9/2 11/2, 13/2 (it stops there because the fracs aren't worth it. You also don't get 3/2 because it is 6/4 for the same reason, roughly, the fracs get too "large" i.e. the denominator does not have enough resolution, so you make an improper fraction, then 5/4 and so on. Please don't ask me how I know this when I was just about born after decimal, but gambling isn't the cause -- a family friend who was a bookie's runner taught me when I was learning basic arithmetic age 6 or 7, I just about was born when Britain went decimal but all bookie's odds in Britain are still done in those fractions. I have tried repeatedly to improve our articles on bookmaker's odds and so on because they are a mess, but have trouble knowing where to start, mathematics of bookmaking is not the place to start.) Si Trew (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


6 (UTC)

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_3&oldid=1088109000"