Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 14, 2016.

Wikipedia:X1[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn. --BDD (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's now reported at WT:CSD#X1 that the last of the "Neelix redirects" has been deleted, there is no longer any need for this criterion, thence no need for this redirect. I shall take the page to CSD, but as a stopgap and to let you know, will list the shortcut to it here at RfD. Si Trew (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - even if we're not going to use the criterion any more (and that point is not yet decided btw) there will still be a mess of former redirect pages with "WP:X1" in their deletion logs, which will become broken if we delete this. WP:RFD#K5. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. If this were to be deleted, I'd have thousands of deletion summaries with a red link in it, and that's not helpful for anyone. And besides, X1 isn't even deprecated (yet). -- Tavix (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Shortcut goes where it is supposed to go, and is helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Keep - This is an active CSD criterion, and the redirect should be retained even after it is depricated. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw as nominator and take me hat off to all the gnomes who went through the list. Si Trew (talk) 08:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Moldavian Singles Chart[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 21#Moldavian Singles Chart

Hot oil manicure[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 23#Hot oil manicure

Hedge priest[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The two concepts are almost totally unrelated. Anmccaff (talk) 17:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect: Much more likely to refer to the Catholic persecution during the Penal Laws in Ireland or the Hedge schools because Catholic schools were prohibited. Suggest redirect to one or other, probably the latter. ww2censor (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But it can also refer to a rural preacher, an incompetant, a sham priest, &cet, &cet, ad naus. I think it could actually use an article, maybe, if only for the disambiguation. Anmccaff (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think I've also seen "hedge priest" as referring to covert RC priests in England in early C16 at times when Catholicism was illegal. IMO this needs research, and could be an article. I agree that it has nothing to do with the article itinerant preacher in its present form. Narky Blert (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doing the resarch I might have done earlier. Oxford English Dictionary (the 1928 brute). "Hedge-priest: An illiterate or uneducated priest of inferior status." First reported 1550. Narky Blert (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Long-obsolete expression, with a different meaning to that of the target. One for Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Narky Blert (talk) 10:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
unfortunately hedging -> hedge (disambiguation) where hedge (finance) is mentioned, which I suppose is pretty much the same as hedging one's bets, but of course bookmaking although far more sophisticated than the stock market always gets short shrift. I really must get round to making some sense out of our bookmaking articles some day, they are in a parlous state and have been for years. Si Trew (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: "Hedge a bet" was originally "hedge in (or, off) a bet". Earliest citation in OED is 1670. That's the correct era for the musical vicar, but has a different origin - he hedged his bets, but wasn't a hedge-priest. Narky Blert (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: that's interesting, I only subscribe to the Journal of Alcohol and Alcoholism so I was not aware of that publication. You're probably not aware of that publication. So, False friends, then, but one for Wiktionary not for us at WP. Si Trew (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Shoulder (band)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 21

Previous year snow falling[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a bad translation of the target film's name. I'm not finding sources that use the redirect's title as an English version of the subject's name. Steel1943 (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible. If we had an article about snowfall measurements, then maybe redirect there, but I can't find anything that would be a good fit. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A decent attempt of Romanizing the Russian title would be acceptable though. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, I found one article that uses that title: [1]. I agree that it's a bad translation of the title and isn't widely used, but I guess I figured at the time that a little-used redirect doesn't hurt things. Esn (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This might be okay then as an alias. I also saw this writeup in a book that uses The Last Year's Snow Was Falling and an attempted romanization. [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as attested plausible alternative translation of foreign-language title. (I'm not concerned by the sentence-case title - Wikipedia does the same.) We can think about deleting when something else called "last year snow falling" competes for the title. Interestingly, I've just moved the associated article on Chinese Wikipedia because they translated padal with the perfect tense marker rather than the past imperfect marker... Deryck C. 16:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Short rate cancellation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 23#Short rate cancellation

The Troubles in Whitecross, County Armagh[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, unopposed. -- Tavix (talk) 03:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Anyone wanting to find out about the incident will look for the names or the place, not "The Troubles". Narky Blert (talk) 03:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per nom. Note that Reavey and O'Dowd article should be added to The Troubles in Armagh which covers a large list of incidents. Also the article refers to two incidents, one in Whitecross the other in Ballydugan. No books or news articles that only refer to the event as "The Troubles in Whitecross" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 11:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Draft:ترنا سيستم[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, G7. -- Tavix (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created as a result of renaming a draft to an English title sandgemADDICT yeah? 11:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Taking WP:G6 to Housekeeping to CSD, with WP:G1 patent nonsense as a backup. (The target is not nonsense, but the redirect is.) Si Trew (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is WP:G7, author requests deletion. @Sandgem Addict:, you can request that yourself. Just blank the draft page, and it will go to WP:CSD as "author requests deletion, or author blanked page". Hope that helps. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia (it ain't easy mixing left-to-right script and right-to-left script! I imagine you missed the insertion point changing direction, I always do.) Si Trew (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

RodhamClinton[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid CamelCase redirect. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

DJTJ[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. -- Tavix (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid acronym. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be super popular but it recurs enough that it is useful enough to keep in place. If someone else also called this initialism is discovered.it could be changed to a disambiguation. Ranze (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delete for me. When I searched for this I got to page 10 of results without seeing anything at all about the Trumps. Almost all of the results were about a "DJ TJ" who we don't have an article about, and there were a handful of weird numerology sites. In 90 days prior to this nomination this redirect got a total of 6 hits. If your search results are different from mine, take this as an example of stuff invented on Wikipedia causing external search tools to skew: if DJTJ is a redirect to Donald Trump Jr., the Google assumes that usage is valid and adjusts its search results. Since the page has the RfD banner on it now Google has adapted. We should not have redirects for every thing that could possibly be referred by an initialism, unless the initialism itself is commonly used, and this one is not. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ditto. Few of the websites Ranze links above seem to be notable, The Tab appears to be the only one with an article. The AN/I thread I linked at pussy crushing's RfD shows he has a history of dumping unreliable sources. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you stick to arguing about the actual topic and not engage in ad hominem attacks? There's too much of this, we should have policies enacting consequences for people who engage in this behavior. Reliable sources are needed for supporting controversial claims that people may disagree about. Pointing out that several sources do use the DJTJ initialism for him is not controversial or disputed. The question is only if these sources are notable. How reliable they are in reporting news doesn't matter because this isn't about the content in their articles, just the use of the initialism. Ranze (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Hillary Diane[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 23#Hillary Diane

Michelle H.R. Obama[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IDK what this means. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Invalid initials. Sounds like someone's trying to mix Michelle Obama with Hillary Clinton's initials. Not notable mix. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:G5. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your wish is my command. Since it was created back in 2008 and has not been changed since, I think it will be odd if it goes by G5, though. Si Trew (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've declined the G5 request. Looking through the block log, the creator of this redirect was banned several months after creating this redirect for abusing multiple accounts, but no link was established between this user and any previously banned users the purported sockmaster wasn't banned at the time of the redirect's creation. Therefore the creator should not be deemed banned at the moment this redirect was created. Deryck C. 01:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The user is linked to an account which was blocked prior to this redirect being created, but all of that user's socks were only blocked for 1 week for some reason. Apparently we did things differently back then, or maybe someone screwed up. No matter, it seems Deryck Chan is right. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the accounts were divided into multiple groups that were internally consistent but there was insufficient link between the groups. So the CUs blocked all but one accounts of each group indefinitely as sock, but the oldest account only for 1 week as punishment. And then that person / those people retired from Wikipedia and never came back. Deryck C. 11:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Make America Hate Again[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 23#Make America Hate Again

Donald Trump protests[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 all. Deryck C. 13:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This does not say whether it is a protest for or against Trump, vague. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:RECENTISM likely search term for the protests based on the election results. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Trump protest and Trump protests as potentially vague. Keep Donald Trump protests as a clear variation of the target article's current title. Steel1943 (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The target article is an overview listing all protests against Donald Trump. I haven't seen any notable protests for Donald Trump, nor have I found any significant protests involving other Trump family members but excluding Donald. Without evidence of either case, I'm defaulting to keep here. -- Tavix (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The redirects do not explicitly state whether they are for or against Trump but there is no major counter-protests at the present moment and the word "protest" means "A collective gesture of disapproval: a demonstration." - MarkiPoli (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as plausible search terms related to the target article. No, the titles don't specify opposition to Trump, but "X protests" does usually imply protests against X, there doesn't seem to be any encyclopedic coverage of any counter protects at present, and if any is added in future then it may well be covered in the same article. Hut 8.5 15:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, not usually, they would have to use terms like "anti-X protests" [3] ("democracy protests") i.e. protests in favor of democracy, [4] ("communist protesters") (not "anti-communist"） and the list goes on and on. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Tavix, Hut8.5. No other notable series of protets this can refer to. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all In the absence of pro-Trump protest articles that could be confused with this article, these are plausible search terms and that article is the only sensible redirect for them.LM2000 (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Who hates Donald Trump?[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTFAQ - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, the redirect makes the claim that everyone who hates Donald Trump is exclusive to those who participate in the protests, which is probably not true. Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - target does not answer question posed by the redirect's title. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We don't have We hate donald trump or any caps variant thereof, yet. Si Trew (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We're not Jeopardy. This is a pretty open-and-shut case for deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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_November_14&oldid=1138581220"