Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 9, 2016.

Pacific Sea[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, as this redirect was recently created and immediately challenged, and the discussion did not achieve consensus to retain the redirect. Deryck C. 21:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was created yesterday (not by me) after the discussion below about various other Pacific redirects. .That just muddies the waters although admittedly the Pacific has very large waters. Si Trew (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. SimonTrew, you didn't really give much of a rationale, but this one is okay. If you've ever heard the phrase "Seven Seas," the Pacific Ocean is technically two of them. -- Tavix (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: there are stacks of these which are more absurd than this. I don't give a rationale because if I bring them to RfD I am not sure about them. You would damned well think that the Pacific Sea is the Pacific Ocean but it seems that it is not. I listed something like Marinus pacifii or some other Neelix nonsense yesterday at CSD but then was told off by another editor for listing too many. Well we have about forty thousand to do, about half way through, and I don't wish to flood either RfD or CSD. I take the obvious ones to CSD or speedily keep and rcat but the ones I have any doubt on I bring here. Si Trew (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as searches show no one calling the Pacific Ocean the Pacific Sea. Instead this hurts readers by messing up search results because there are many articles that start with Pacific Sea..." Legacypac (talk) 06:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{R from incorrect name}}. It isn't technically a sea, but this is a plausible misnomer that is unambiguous, and it doesn't really do any harm.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - There's multiple entities with a name that starts with "Pacific Sea". Examples: Pacific sea nettle, Pacific Seacraft, Pacific Seafood, et cetera. I'm wary about having things go right to the ocean's central page where so many alternates that specific frame things in terms of the "sea" exist. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But aren't all these partial title matches that users are very unlikely to be looking for when simply typing "Pacific sea"? Uanfala (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I believe I probably thought I had typed Delete when I actually didn't. Clarifying things now. As per the partial title matches, yes, it's a matter of letting auto search completing happen and people go through full searches. I do think an incorrect name is unhelpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:43, 19 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.

Curser[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) 13:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cursers' not a cursor it declined at CSD but I can't see that this is plausible as the admin see. A curser is a bloke that swears a cursor is owt else, I don't know why was thus declined but I can swear much worse. (Neelix redirect sorry forgot to say that) Si Trew (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect doesn't help navigation. Either delete (in which case the normal search facility is sufficient to get users to Cursor as it's the first item in the results, but Curse is inaccessible), or dabify (including links to Curse and Profanity). Uanfala (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah @Uanfala: please excuse me if I swear, I do not in real life ever, my mother would have washed my mouth out with soap and water, but there are so many swearing/profanity ones to do that I do occasionally use rather profound language. For that I can only apologise in real life I would not dream of doing it but I am a bit of a cunning linguist and have a dirty tongue sometimes. Si Trew (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A redirect would go to the word curse which is a common word that would be overlinked. Having it show as a redlink would have people fix the spelling if they meant the pointy thing on the computer screen. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:28, 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.

Science and technology in Kazakhstan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 22#Science and technology in Kazakhstan

Access to amenities[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 22#Access to amenities

Myopically[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 22#Myopically

The Greatest Game of All[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect, as it is purely a matter of opinion. Safiel (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:25, 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.

The Greatest Game[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) 13:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect, as it is purely a matter of opinion. Safiel (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete there are many individual matches also with similar monikers. Further there is chess and go (weiqi) and The Great Game -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Without directly commenting on the redirect, I'd like to point to The Beautiful Game as a perhaps analogous phrase.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Curses!!! I just lost the Game because of that! 46.103.82.81 (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - While a highly arguable bit of sloganeering, it's still successful sloganeering, at least in terms of multiple reliable sources. I feel like it's worth retaining as being helpful, even if the whole thing is pretty ambiguous. We can add hatnotes to the likes of The Great Game (disambiguation) if need be. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:07, 18 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.

Afon Twrch, Clwyd[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simple naming error (Iwrch not Twrch). There is a Afon Twrch in this catchment but it would not use either of these names, probably Afon Twrch, Foel Jokulhlaup (talk) 09:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a second. If it's a simple naming error (which it does indeed appear to be), how Afon Iwrch got to be named Afon Twrch for the first 5 years of the article's existence. Isn't there any chance this could be an alternative/obsolete name? Uanfala (talk) 02:58, 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.

Khergarh[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, but no prejudice against disambiguation. I'm just not sure what that would look like. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a Khergarh village in Jasrana tehsil of Firozabad district in Uttar Pradesh, but not one in Rajasthan, and this redirect appears to have been created as part of a hoax attempt, cf. User talk:Dangarwa#You disappeared? Sam Sailor Talk! 19:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to dab Khergarh looks like a plausible alternative name for Khed, Rajasthan (according to the article it's spelled खेड़, which is commonly romanised Kher, while गढ -garh is a widespread component in the name of settlements). Of course we'll need sources for that. Things are complicated by the fact that the nearby village of Tilwara (again according to its article) is historically known as Khedgarh (again Khergarh being a plausible alternative spelling). Uanfala (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per Uanfala. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:56, 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.

Cursers[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) 13:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect). I was expecting this to go to people who blaspheme (shall we throw rocks at em!) but actually it is kinda an R from Mispelling but doesn't really make much sense. Curser in singular, the last edit was by Neelix in 2008, to retarget it. I don't want to make RfD more cluttered than it already is by me so take both as one please. Obviously a curser in English is someone who swears a lot a cursor is not that as any editer knows. Si Trew (talk) 08:50, 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.

Meteorical[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. Deryck C. 21:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm not sure on this one (Neelix redirect) is it possible this goes to meteorology? There are quite a few of these with meteor and metro and so on so I am not sure what to do with this one Si Trew (talk) 07:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - This appears to have a validity unlike a lot of standard Neelix redirects, at least in looking at the various books that use the term (such as this one). As a variant of "meteoric", it looks like a fair-and-square redirect over to meteoroid, albeit one you're unlikely to see even in technical conversations. If there's cause for confusion raised, though, I can also see deleting this even if I lean otherwise. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Googling it makes me think that Wicktionary has it right: an obsolete version of meteoric. Since meteoric redirects to meteoroid, meteorical should, too. This is just the kind of search I would do on Wikipedia: "Hm, does this word have to do with weather, or with meteors?" — Gorthian (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This should only be linked if the article plans to use the astronomy definition. It should not be linked if they're just talking about a "meteoric rise" of an athlete or a stock. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 08:46, 15 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.

Obstructionists[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) 18:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tricky one. I am well aware of the obstructionist movement for example suffragettes were to put it in other words obstructionists, but this at target said it may be influenced by recent events. (Neelix redirect). I don't think prohinitionist would be a good target I am not sure at all on this one. Si Trew (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Even if the linkage isn't as precise as I'd like it to be, this seems reasonable enough. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:06, 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.

Abraham Kuijper[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) 13:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) I don't think you can do this. The ij in Dutch language or sometimes just written Y is all right, but this is not this chap's name, I think. I think I have a pack of chocolate sprinnkles made by De Kuijper or something but I think this is round the houses. If kept it needs a dot on the i and the j. Not at target Si Trew (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — Abraham Kuijper is the correct spelling of his name in Dutch, so the redirect is justified. – Editør (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: plausible alternate spelling, considering the era. The di/trigraphs "ui", "uy" and "uij" are/were used interchangeably in Dutch to represent the [œy] sound. By the way, I do not really understand what you mean by "If kept it needs a dot on the i and the j"; the redirect has dots already. - HyperGaruda (talk) 12:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily keep as withdrawn by nominator. You're right I was thinking more of the Turkish dotted dotless I. I was trying to say that in Dutch, as you have put it better than me, the trigraphs and so on. I cocked with the explanation and User:HyperGaruda put it far clearer than I did. Si Trew (talk) 23:53, 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.

Tepre Pacificum[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 second time round. I don§t like to close my own nominations but this is simply a procedural close by (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My CSD was reverted by User Hullaballoo. I cannot see in any way that tepre means sea or ocean and I struggled to find kinda the route got there perhaps like a driver on a taximeter it goes around the houses to make fair shares (:). This is kinda not WP:MADEUP Neelix redirect because neelix never just made things up but it is a struggle to find how he got from Tepre to the Pacific Ocean. The editor marked it as {{R from other language|la}} but if anything it would be marinus pacificum or marina pacifii and it isn't. It is not as if it is tepid or something. Si Trew (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it was based on a vandal edit [1] that staid in the article for a while, discussed as such on the Pacific Ocean talkpage back in 2011. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:41, 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.

Progressiveness[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) Not sure about this one. I would think more it would mean a political movement, a soicio-political party and so forth or even the Sally Ann but I may be wrong Si Trew (talk) 06:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: just about plausible. PamD 08:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily withdrawn by nomnator as weak keep.

Salvation Army, Salvation Army
Stick a nickel in the drum, save another drunken bum
Salvation Army, Salvation Army

I have a great deal of respect for the Sally Ann so I hope my comment was not seen otherwise. I have been putting a nickel in their drum for about thirty years and got a lot of second hand furniture off them so is was just a joke. I remember when I was walking home in Cambridge that the Salvation Army were asking for donations this was around Christmas time but have no idea if the Salvation Army celebrate christmas, everyone is entitled to his own religion, but some stupid pay for this or that charity. I said to the sally ann chap I cannot donated to everything he said to me face to face you can't donate to everything you have to choose. Well I know where my choice was, in the Sally Ann. But I shouldn't bring my personal believes or nonbeliefs to RfD. I'm just an apathist but I help where I can. Si Trew (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And neither should Neelix bring his personal beliefs to Wikipedia which is why I have stacks of things to list at RfD. I don't mind if you're Roman Catholic or Protestant or believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster I really do not mind, I am an apathist not an agnostic or atheist. Some of the Neelix ones are in my opinion a bit overdoing it with the christianity. I listed about a dozen yesterday about church bells which go to the Whitechapel foundry and I think there is a certain tendency in Neelix to say more than he knows, but then I can pack the maximum amount of words into the minimum amount of thought, so who am I to say. Pax vobis, Si Trew (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not likely to help anyone find anything. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with respect to the nominator who already expressed a wish to withdraw this, I'm with DGG. This is modification bloat on an extremely vague political (or maybe not political - it's even vague in that sense) term. It's awful close to WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing. Another of his take a word, add a suffix and another suffix program. Progress+ive+ness Legacypac (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This can refer to several concepts, depending on context, and the redirect is to a page that lists the concepts (as well as other topics) and links to articles about them. 82.132.187.245 (talk) 16:41, 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.

Under writer[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) 18:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect). There are a lots of these but with the space in the middle I am not sure. Underwriter of course is a valid term for someone who um does basicallly reinsurance but I am not sure with the space this makes any sense Si Trew (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Underwriting isn't known as "Under Writing" any more than Christians are known as being a "Chr Istians" or politically active Tories are called "To Ries" etc. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed @CoffeeWithMarkets:. I get told off if I list at RfD or CSD so I am between the devil and the deep blue sea sometimes. I am not personally of the Christian faith (I am not of any faith, I can't make me mind up I'm an apathist)but I do love the words and verse of the king james bible and stuff so I do sometimes know more about it than it may seem. Si Trew (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Del ete as a questionable Neelix redirect (G6). Practically no hits in the last 90 days suggests it's only of use to folks who mass-create redirects with little thought to their actual utility, and it's possible that this could be blocking searches for other things (can't tell from stats). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense like Under taker and Under wear Legacypac (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and the To Ries and Chr Istians examples have nothing to do with this one. These are compound words, and it is entirely reasonable that a person would hear it and think they are two separate words. That is, it's a completely plausible and likely misspelling. Tag as such and keep. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:15, 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.

Jeffrey Pino[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Well, you can't say I didn't warn you. My comments from that close still stand. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deletion - This discussion has been up before, and was closed no consensus with the proviso that the larger question of his mention was not answered. Well, the extent of his mention in the Sikorsky article is still that he died in a plane crash while CEO. That's simply not good enough, especially when the mention was only added as part of the second RfD discussion. This is recentism at work, and it's seriously not even relevant to the history of the company. MSJapan (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - he was president of the company for 6 years, and all the media coverage of his death describes him as such in headlines. It merits a redirect/inclusion in the article. GiantSnowman 07:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'll take this later and see if I can do something at the article to source it better but I agree keep for now. Si Trew (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirecting president to the company is routine. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - except in this case, he never appeared in the Sikorsky article until after his death, and GiantSnowman created the redirect in the first place. Pino's not somebody that's going to figure as a search term for Sikorsky. For example, who was the CEO prior to Pino? Also, he was not CEO of Sikorsky when he died, according to [2]. So I fail to see why this is worthy of inclusion at all; company histories don't list "deaths of former presidents", and you know what? Most former presidents of companies are dead, mainly because a lot of these companies have been around for over a century. There needs to be some lower limit for inclusion, and this is well below it. Should I perhaps add in the names of all the Sikorsky factory workers who have ever lived and died? This is the sort of reductio ad absurdum that this turns into. He's not relevant to the history, and doesn't belong in the article. As a matter of fact, every hit for him is his obituary. MSJapan (talk) 18:29, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_9&oldid=1088108935"