Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 3
May 5 >

May 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 4, 2016.

John H Morrison[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator.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) 19:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It goes to a different target actually Si Trew (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Si Trew:I don't get it. I don't understand your rationale at all. This redirect seems to make perfect sense to me. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see the reasoning provided. -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm I think I made a mistake. When I was clicking through the Neelix list both John H and John G targeted the same target, but I must have just slipped and clicked both at once. That is why if in any doubt I bring them to RfD. Speedily keep, withdrawn by nominator. Just a slip on my part. Si Trew (talk) 07:55, 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.

John G Morrison[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator.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) 19:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was he John G Morrison or Hohn H Morrison (listing next will combine). Neelix nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the target article's name is "John G. Morrison", so the redirect is proper as far as the current target's article name is concerned. Renaming the article should be done first if that is the thing that is incorrect -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm I think I made a mistake. When I was clicking through the Neelix list both John H and John G targeted the same target, but I must have just slipped and clicked both at once. That is why if in any doubt I bring them to RfD. Speedily keep, withdrawn by nominator. Just a slip on my part. Si Trew (talk) 07:56, 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.

Roscoea lutea[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) 13:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) rather than take this straight to CSD under WP:G6 housekeeping I give you this as a very good example to the one I listed below. Now, in the synonyms at the target, various things are listed and are said. Not one of which is this, so this is Neelix trying to reinvent the Linnean system, but how I expect to find an infobox on plants or animals User:Plantdrew do you agree? I don't have to click through the infobox, it ain't linked, but expect to find (at the target not this sillly redirect) who called it that abbreviated with taxonomic abbreviations (because it is an infobox and the narrower the better in the infobox). Si Trew (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to list this twice with the same title so removing that. Somewhere servers are lagging.... Si Trew (talk) 23:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Curcuma zedoaria because its a synonym for this plant. Disambiguate because there is another plant I can find with this name as a synonym: Curcuma zedoaria. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are two Roscoea luteas described by different people (Roscoea lutea Royle and Roscoea lutea (Blanco) Hassk.); both are currently treated as synonymous with other species. There are some other cases like this on Wikipedia; although it's not currently very common, it has the potential to turn into a nightmare as more redirects from scientific name synonyms get created and are found to be ambiguous. One way to handle these is to turn them into dabs as was done for entries in Category:Species_Latin_name_disambiguation_pages. Another option is a redirect with a hatnote at the target. One name will be "legal" under the rules of nomenclature, and the other(s) "illegal". In this case Roscoea lutea Royle is a "legal" synonym for Cautleya gracilis, so we might keep the redirect and add a hatnote to Cautleya gracilis pointing to Curcuma zedoaria. I'd prefer to delete to avoid the headache here, but I guess I'm pretty deletionist for the RfD crowd. Ideally, Wikispecies would handle stuff that comes down to obscure technicalities and we could redirect to Wikispecies and sort it out there. Plantdrew (talk) 03:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Plantdrew I concur better off deleted than ambiguous, WP:XY I think. I just thought it a very good example of a very bad redirect. There were stacks of other Lutea ones that I took straight to CSD under WP:G6 Neelix concession. Next up is a stack of apis ones for wasps, And I know a bee (apis) from a wasp (Vespa) but I don't know if they are good taxonomic names or just rubbish. Si Trew (talk) 08:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirects from obscure synonyms that aren't ever likely to be used as links are pointless. The search engine will find synonyms in taxoboxes; only the very major ones need to be made redirects. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:23, 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.

Pelidnota lutea[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. Pinging Plantdrew as requested. JohnCD (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have stacks of thesew coming it is in the infobox as a synonym but without explanation or source which normally bio articles do (there are loads of bio templates specifically to quote the designation). Could just be unsourced but Neelix redirect from the infobox I imagine Si Trew (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Disambiguate - The redirect is supposedly a synonym of it, but it might be an incomplete name. It looks legit though from a Google search. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's been a confusingly phrased bit about Pelidnota lutea in the grapevine beetle article for a long time, but Neelix added P. lutea to the taxobox as a synonym and created the redirect. Sources differ in whether or not P. lutea is a synonym or an accepted species. Catalogue of Life has "Pelidnota lutea (Olivier, 1789)" as an accepted species. The parentheses around Olivier are important, because they indicate that the species was originally described in a different genus. CoL doesn't have any entry for the original name in the synonymy section. ITIS has "Melolontha lutea Olivier, 1789" as a synonym of Pelidnota punctata, but doesn't list "Pelidnota lutea (Olivier, 1789)". I can do a bit of synthesis to infer that ITIS should have P. lutea as a synonym of P. punctata, but there's really no good source we can cite to support redirecting P. lutea as a synonym. It's troubling that both ITIS and CoL are missing one of the two lutea combinations; I don't really want to pick one of them as the reliable source to follow (though CoL has been more recently updated). The bottom line is, we don't have a source for treating P. lutea as a synonym, and if it is an accepted species, it better to delete the redirect and encourage article creation with a red-link. I'm leaving grapevine beetle as it is while the RfD is open, but it needs some work; please ping me on closing and I'll fix it up. Plantdrew (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, If Plantdrew says delete and knows a damn sight more than I do about taxonimic names then I don't think you can doubt Plantdrew's expertise. That is a weight on his shoulders becase there are THOUSANDS of neelix redirects, some may makwe sence most not. If they are patent nosnese I take them via G6 housekeeping, but some I have doubt with. I think Rosa obscura trewii is red. Si Trew (talk) 06:24, 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.

RBLX[edit]

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

21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership[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) 02:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) Not sure about this one. If anything it should go delete, but the "The" is part of the book's title, it is not that without the "the' it would mean anything. I bet it is a crap book cos I will quite happily refute 21 things about anything. I may not win the argument,but I can argue the tail off a donkeyű (especially if it is Eeyore but then he makes it too easy by having a detachable tail). Si Trew (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blantantly obvious keep, since everyone sometimes forgets whether titles have a the in them or not. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a reasonable redirect since all it does is drop the "The", and redirects of such forms exist for other topics with the same formulation created by many other users. Lazy users who drop the 'the' will get where they're going. -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to User:SimonTrew where the irrefutable laws of nature are clearly stated. Unfortunately most of them are red but I am working on that. Si Trew (talk) 11:25, 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.

Sea-devils[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted, WP:G6, by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs). I will note that anyone can boldly recreate the redirect if someone still wants it redirected to sea devil. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) I think sea devils in common English would more mean a sailor. I think in Blackadder II Blackadder addresses Sir Walter Raleigh as such (it may have been you old sea dog) the point is in common parlance, which is what was being playing on in that comedy, it would mean a sailor. Neelix redirect listing as procedure. Is in lede unhyphenated but readers could find it without it. Another of Neelix' attempts to subvert the Linnean system of classification Si Trew (talk) 22:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget this (and sea-devil) to the sea devil disambiguation page. There are other fish listed there. I'm not finding any sources that suggest that sea-devil is a common name for the entire genus Lophius. Google Books has some 19th century sources giving it as a common name for the common European species Lophius piscatorius and an Asian species now classified as Lophiomus setigerus. Plantdrew (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Plantdrew -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swiftly retarget as above. Sea-devil is actually not a Neelix creation so I think fair to give notice to User:Ykvach who created it redirecting to Lophius piscatorius on 6 March 2013, it was changed on 1 July 2014 by Neelix with the edit summary "This term refers to the entire genus.". I think to list it separately is just makework, but that is not technically by the WP:G6 concession a Neelix redirect. I bet we have to try to find (or "go search") lots more Lophius ones that Neelix changed from species to genus, but this will do for now. Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need the Neelix G6 to just retarget something. Anyone can boldly do that. Legacypac (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. I can do that and often do if it is bleeding obvious. I take them to CSD for deletion if it is bleeding obvious. I list the ones that I think are less than obvious. I've been doing the cryptic crossword puyyle in the Financial Times and that is screwing me head around bit I got eight across and six down but the style is diffeent from The Times so it is hard it is a metapuzzle to work out what the clues mean. With any cryptic crossword if it's done properly the answers are easy but the clues are difficult. Si Trew (talk) 06:32, 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.

Frog-fish (disambiguation)[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) 02:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am listing this mainly beause the front of the Anomie list of Neelix redirects said we did all the frogs! You missed this one then. I Think' quite patently delete and not {{R to DAB}} but it don't quite fit the WP:G6 Neelix concession Si Trew (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, why not. There's a mess here with Neelix creations/retargets of frog fish, frog fishes, frog-fish, frog-fishes to the genus Lophius, while frogfish is an entirely different family (that doesn't include Lophius). I don't think Wikipedia's readers will expect the presence of a space or hyphen to take them to different articles in this case. Plantdrew (talk) 04:30, 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.

Sea-devil (disambiguation)[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) 02:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit procedural. The DAB already exists at the target, this has a hyphen, and the title suggests (disambiguation) which generally is no good for editors wishing specifically to link to the DAB. I have marked it as {{R to disambiguation page}} but probably should be deleted. Neelix redirect. Si Trew (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to sea devil as a plausible synonym. I'm also fine with a delete --Lenticel (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would that be a retarget? It's already the target. In any case, keep. Harmless, possibly useful. bd2412 T 19:00, 10 May 2016 (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.

Mathematical recursion[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) 19:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think someone who is looking for the logical concept of recursion wishes to end up at this film Si Trew (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily withdrawn by nominator. I think that some Internet cache router in the way of me and the web server bank has a very odd idea of what I am doing, because I got something other than the target of this the first time. I am not sure the picture is the best way to illustrate it (and Magritte's were certainly self-referential but not recursive) so keep it, I just blundererd there. Withdrawn by nominator. Si Trew (talk) 22:22, 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.

Probe test[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) 02:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there are other kinds of tests that involve a probe. And there's on an article on test probe. Plantdrew (talk) 17:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them make you cough. i don' think test probe is a good target. Si Trew (talk) 17:41, 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.

Jonathan Hartgrove[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) 02:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) Not sure on this. He does not ever seem to be called just "Jonathan Hartgrove" rather than "Wilson-Hartgrove". I don't think you can play with double-barrelled surnames like that. (The owner of the surnames frequently do, they might as well get not so much a double-barelled gun but a blunderbuss, but I don't think we at Wikipedia can). Si Trew (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete we have tested this type of his name play before and deleted them all. Will tag. Legacypac (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Si Trew is absolutely correct in that you can't break up double-barrelled surnames like that. The obvious exception would be if he also went by that name, but I see no evidence of that. -- Tavix (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had not noticed that there was a declined speedy on this when I sent it to speedy delete. The editor that has taken two speedy tags off has only insulted me so far and not provided any rational for keeping here. Legacypac (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I sent it the first time. That is very insulting and the admin should be ashamed of his or her self. I shall try a third time and I bet it is declined but I do not like you being insulted by an admin. I don't mind insulting you, you half-arsed small brained fuckwit, but I don't like an admin doing that, that is not what admins are for. Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is now the fourth time that the CSD has been reverted. I don't know about you but I think admin User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz should come here to explain the actions, obviously either Legacypac or I am an idiot and I don't think it is Legacypac. This has consensus at RfD for deletion and I can only list by one criterion. The usual criterian is WP:G6 housekeeping per the Neelix concession. This has now had four times to be taken to CSD under the Neelix concession, always refused but never with the closing admin actually bothering to come to RfD and explain why they have refused it. Can you please explain it to us mere mortals that are trying to make the encylopaeidia better? (And yes I am pissed off.) Si Trew (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've been editing since 2009, so you know perfectly well that calling an editor you disagree with you half-arsed small brained fuckwit is beyond inappropriate. You've been editing since 2009, so you are expected to know that for an involved editor to put this speedy tag on a page [1] when the discussion has run only 48 hours, rather than the standard week is abusive and difficult to see as good faith. To rant and complain that I am not participating in a discussion you have not troubled yourself to notify me of is simply and undeniably rude at best. Given that you never responded to my comment that the redirect appeared plausible -- it doesn't matter whether the article subject ever used this form of his name, only that a user unfamiliar with the subject might search for it (just as it doesn't matter whether Emmylou Harris ever used the name "Emmy Lou Harris), it's evidence that attempted rational discussion with you has proved a waste of time. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly fine to add speedy tags to Neelix redirects during a discussion - that's one of the the reasons G6 Neelix got invented, so we don't need to run thousands of RfDs for a full week. Scroll through the last month (or even the last week) and you'll even find Admins speedy closing and deleting Neelix redirects. Legacypac (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not at all representative of the consensus reached; the discussion made clear that uncritical tagging of plausible redirects was not within the scope of the proposal, and this is a nearly perfect example of a plausible redirect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do I recall correctly you oppose touching the Neelix redirects at all? Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's just a false statement you trot out when you want your way in a deletion discussion and can't refute a policy- or guideline-based argument against it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the CSD criteria to cover your removal of CSD tags by three different editors on this page is interesting [2] Legacypac (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the page to accurately quote the proposal which received consensus. The fact the proposal was misquoted two months after it was adopted in no way reflects any change in the consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He doesn't refer to himself like that, and precedent is clear to get rid of these kinds of redirects. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:20, 9 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.
  • Believe me User:Hullaballo Wolfowitz with listing these Neelix redirects I get called a lot worse than a half-arse small brained fuckwit every day. Now, after your disruptive keeps, your imaginitive sense of what the WP:G6 Neelix concession means, your persistent removal of any CSD I was putting on there (I imagine now you have read the instructions after I reminded you) and the fact you don't turn up at RfD or CSD may or may not indicate that I had to put my foot down. Otherwise nothing ever gets done. WP:BOLD and I am boldly doing it and taking all the flak for stupid redirects I did not create, Neelix acted in good faith. If you do not think so, the bad faith lies well at your doorstep really. hulye. Then ask ANI for Neelix to have a total ban because actually the ban was just from creating redirects. Neelix kinda banned or banished himself as shame and going through them I think he is a very committed Christian who probably has asked for forgiveness and I for one although not a Christian, I will give him that forgiveness, show me a man who never made a mistake and I shall show you a liar. Forgiven by me. Si Trew (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Berkshire Hathaway[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) 02:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of a constituent company is not criticism of BH itself, and in any event it's a minor criticism of a minor constituent company. ÷seresin 16:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there is so little criticism about the entire organization this is a bad redirect or title. Legacypac (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And that would have nothing to do with Berkshire Hathaway owning a lot of the US media? Or am I being too cynical to suggest that a media mogul may influence what was read or printed about him. But we haven't Berkeley brothers who own the Daily Mail while living in Guernsey and paying no UK taxes. But that is just my own opinion; so this should go as simply as WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Si Trew (talk) 14:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More to do with BH being a holding co with about 20 employees that takes a very hands off stance with management of its holdings. There is no history of Buffett has ever tried to manipulate his media holdings to do his bidding, rather quite the opposite. Also they stick to non-controversial businesses for the most part. The extreme success of Buffett, his simple lifestyle and his folksy ways have earned him significant praise and admiration. Legacypac (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is no history of Warren Buffet being anything but a folksy guy who likes to spend time with his family. Who would ever suggest otherwise. Being a tax exile is not mentioned at all in the article, of course. New Hampshire is a lovely place to live. Si Trew (talk) 06:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will bet you all Lombard-street to a China orange that when he dies he gives an enormous fortune to charity. I have no truck against the man. I just cannot believe we have no criticism about him, but you're right in the wrong way that would be Criticism of Warren Buffet not of some subsidiary company, and we need to find criticism about that. WP:REDLINK. Si Trew (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should like to know how one chap who has no criticism seems to run a bit of a company here and there with only twenty employees. Can you get my drift? I don't care if he is a billionaire or a trillionare, but on Wikipedia I am surprised there is no criticism of he or his firm (I didn't even mention the man). THere shold be but I can't magically create the well-sourced article with criticism of Berkshire Hathaway because I can't find any sources. That is not because he is a nice guy. Donald Trump might be a nice guy Ronald Reagan was a nice guy. Need I put it more clearly? Si Trew (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Buffett has already given hundreds of millions to charity and has pledged to give 99% of his money to charity - via The Bill amd Melinda Gates Foundation and charities run by his three kids mostly. He lives and pays taxes in Omaha of course, wheee he has lived all his life. Legacypac (talk) 00:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Going to add that there should probably be some kind of discussion on Wikipedia in terms of criticism of Berkshire Hathaway (which can be cited to reliable sources (see: here and here), but the point remains that what this redirect is doing isn't right. If anything, having the text red encourages proper article creation. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clayton Homes is a tiny part of the parent company. This redirect is misleading. Legacypac (talk) 05:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong target Clayton Homes is one of many companies owned by Berkshire Hathaway. I expect a redirect titled Criticism of Berkshire Hathaway to go to a page which covers criticism of all companies, not to a page which only covers criticism of one company. The redirect should therefore not point at Clayton Homes as this is an unexpected target. I don't know if there is an appropriate target somewhere on Wikipedia. If so, then retarget; otherwise delete. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ottawahitech created this redirect to a subsection of Clayton Homes and linked it from the parent company here [3] as a See Also. Sometime later it was turned into a section heading indicating this redirect to a subsection to be the main article on the topic. Ottawahitech made a misleading redirect. If there is a topic about the parent company it should be started as a section in the Berkshire Hathaway page, not as a redirect to a minor investment that does not warrent more then a fleeting mention on the parent company page. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 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.

Wythy[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. JohnCD (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contested CfD.

This is a trivial local nickname for Wythenshawe, of such little encyclopedic significance that it doesn't even justify a redirect. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That has no encompass. I know damned well where Wythenshawe is and it is common parlance to call it Wythy for short (I don't know where Withy is an article about forestry). What's the problem'? Gets people to where they are likely to go WP:RFD#K5 somebody finds it useful. In the words of Wikd99, "no reason has been given to suggest deletion". I and Y are not easily confused in written english. Si Trew (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - That a name sounds goofy and trivial doesn't negate its validity as a name, and its not as if this isn't applied not just online but also in book form. It's easy to look up. As far as misspelling goes, there can always be a hat-note to "withy" added if need be. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Canna concinna[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) -- Tavix (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) calling User:Plantdrew: I can't see this at the target at all (beautiful flowerby the way) Can you fiddle it taxonomically? (You hum it, I'll play it.) Si Trew (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's in the article, but the synonymy section of the taxobox is collapsed. Ctrl-F won't find it until the section is uncollapsed. Neelix created several dozen redirects from synonyms of this species. They should all be fine (I trust the work of the editor who added the synonymy list in this case, and Neelix was just going off that list). From what I've seen Neelix's redirects from scientific synonyms are unproblematic (though I don't have a clear picture of the quality of synonymy lists in frog articles). On the other hand, Neelix was creating redirects from abbreviations of scientific names (e.g. C. annaei, C. barbadica), and these often turn out to be ambiguous (multiple species with same abbreviation). The abbreviations redirecting to Canna indica seem to be unambiguous, but in general, Neelix's abbreviations will need scrutiny. Plantdrew (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I call for your help and trust your opinion. Some are absurd. keep per expert User:Plantdrew. Si Trew (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedily keep by nominator after discussion> close please. On a technical point infoboxes don't tend to count at things like WP:DYK an infobox is there to condense the body of the main text it is not a suubstite for it.And ctrl+f does note xexpandtthat for me. It is obscure only to put it there, it should be in the lede of the main running text, nevertheless it is there and no good comes of doing anything but keep it. Si Trew (talk) 17:29, 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.

Artificialities[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted, WP:G6, by Anthony Bradbury (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) this is WP:MADEUP in the way that contrafibularities was in Blackadder III, expressing his hopes for Samual Johnson's complete dictionary. However it might mean something, but not this Since we have for example Antiquaries it sounds very late eighteenth century, an Artifice may be (but not much) a better target. Si Trew (talk) 15:44, 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.

Gee gee[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted, WP:G7, by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The target is a DAB page at which it is not mentioned. In Britain, a "gee gee" is nursery slang (kinda onomatopoeic often to children like me who had never seen a horse) to mean a horse (please I don't have to link horse) and adult slang in gambling on horses is to have "a bet on the gee gees", "I had a bit of luck on the gee gees" and so forth. WP:RFD#D2 confusing, no content at target, a DAB. Not mentioned there. Si Trew (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope that would be equally absurd as if I suggested it should go tgo Horse as {{R from other name}}. Delete it and be done with it. WP:XY let the search engine deal with it. Si Trew (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shit looking at the history it was me who created it and Tavix who retargeted it. I agree G7 author requests deletion and will take it this. Si Trew (talk)
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.

File:East Logo.png[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 12#File:East Logo.png

Manhunt International 2009[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) 02:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

confusing redirect. How can 2009 be 2010? Legacypac (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as Wp:R#D2 confusing. In theory 2010 could have originally been 2009 with an extreme delay (and IIRC we've kept some election redirects where that was actually true & sourced at the target), but in this case it seems like 2009 was simply cancelled [5]. In any case it's a bit of a moot point since all the articles about individual years (even the ones which actually occurred) will probably get deleted or redirected back to the parent article anyway. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 03:14, 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.

User:Bbauer25/Bull Run Regional Park[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 19#User:Bbauer25/Bull Run Regional Park

Gold-black[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete all - early WP:SNOW close. Several of these have already been tagged for speedy, and I don't see a need to keep this discussion of Neelix related made up colours for a whole week. All deleted by admin  — Amakuru (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shakespeare said that all that glisters
Is not gold, but now it blisters
That black is not gold, here we find
A creature of another kind
Who mixed some colours Will ain't thought of
And Wikipedia still aint taught of


These Neelix redirects doesn't make sense because Goldenrod (color) doesn't have any black in it. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete we went through other color+color redirects by Neelix a few times before - they are nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as nonsense CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:24, 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.

Mr. Gee[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 Mister G. --BDD (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think these Neelix redirects needs to be retargeted. Chris Lilley has played a character named Mr G. I'm not sure whether Mr G or the disambiguation page named Mister G is the better option. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Gee (surname). Recent consensus has been fairly strong about sending these type of redirects to the relevant surname page. -- Tavix (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per T - stupid redirects Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Tavix -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mr. G. does not necessarilly mean someone whose surname is Gee, but anyone's surname which starts with the letter G. I think that is the wrong target. For if not Mr T or Mr Tee can redirect to Trew a surname DAB, or anything else I made up. WP:NOTDIRECTORY.; WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. You seem to have missed that we do have an article at Mr G which would seem to be the obvious Retarget to Mr G (about this comedian and linked to him with due prominence). Care to recast those redirect votes, boys? Who didn't do their homework? Si Trew (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no person with such a moniker. Someone searching for Mr. Gee or Mr. Tee would search for the single letter. Mr. G can redirect to Mister G dab page though as there are multiple characters and people who use that as their common nickname. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to DAB Mister G by but not per AngusWOOF. Best suggestion so far. If AngusWoolf doesn't know that G (letter) is often said taught and pronounced "Gee" in English then I give up hope. That is why a Gee gee is a horse but a GG is not. (Both go to the DAB at GG). Si Trew (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so that there won't be more hopeless cases, I'm adding G to the Gee page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to deal with terminal cases in some kind of mathematical recursion. That still don't solve where this one should go. Si Trew (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 4 May 2016
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.

Double marking[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) 12:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) Not sure could also mean double counting in Common Engish. Si Trew (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete could refer to road marking, student test marking, or a host of other things. Legacypac (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Far too much vagueness. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:23, 9 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.

DDW (language)[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) 19:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect). "DDW" is not at target. This is how we usually disambiguate natural languase, but there is no DDW (computer language) that we have, probably Delete. Si Trew (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "ddw" is clearly in the target, it's the ISO 639 language code. The target is a natural language, a human language, and not a computer language. -- 70.51.200.96 (talk) 06:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep deffo keep. I was listing very quickly lots of Neelix ones and this stuck out like a nail on the thumb, I did check the article for DDW but for some reason my search didn't find it. Definitely keep, I don't know if this is considered Withdrawn by nominator or what. Thanks to 70.51 for double checking. Si Trew (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You bugger, you made me have to check whether we had da nada on EN:WP (fortunately we don't). Semmi baj (Hungarian). Si Trew (talk) 08:18, 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.

Etudes philosophiques[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) 12:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix redirects) More than one French philosopher had an etude or étude, or a philosophical study. In fact almost all of them did Voltaire did and so on, so Delete per WP:RFD#D1 unnecessarily hinder search. What worries me more is that Neelix thinks he can speak French but j'ai aurait bien chercher le wikipédie francais Si Trew (talk) 02:35, 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.

The Parker Square[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) 12:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Achievements" section from the target article containing information about the Parker Square was removed in Special:Diff/718473867. This page was previously listed at AfD. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the achievements section, the statement "Parker's eponymous square is the first known square to satisfy nearly all the conditions:" was inaccurate, since, as shown by a web page referenced in the old parker square article, other people had already done it before Matt Parker, with better results (no duplicate numbers). I believe that for this reason, some editors believe that it is merely a joke.
Maybe the word "achievements" is too strong, and should be rephrased "known for" or something like that. Dhrm77 (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a question for RfD, that is a question to be asked in the article's talk, retargeted, or whatever. Si Trew (talk) 13:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing not at target. We don't need the ramble of when or where, it would help if a reason were deleted it is stated quite clearly at the top of WP:RFD (admittedly I should like the reasons to be more prominent than the procedure). Wandering in without a suggestion of what we should do with it is not a great help; sentence first, verdict afterwards, as Alice said. Si Trew (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SimonTrew. A search within Wikipedia shows lots of towns that have a Parker Square. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:14, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_4&oldid=1166570219"