Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 3[edit]

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

Johnadams[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 John Adams. Hopefully this is strong enough consensus to satisfy the nominator. As far as hatnotes or disambiguation goes, anyone is free to WP:BOLDLY enact any changes they feel is necessary. -- Tavix (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be redirected to John Adams? Yes, the asteroid was named after the president, but this may still result in WP:R#PLA for readers unaware of this. --Nevé–selbert 20:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am going to ping in our taxonomy expert User:Plantdrew on this one. It would not at all surprise me that there were rosa jonadamsii or somesuch, quite an accolade to have a rose named after you. (and also quite an accolade to have a president award you a rose). Is there at all anything close in the planty line? Probably not, but we can then rule it out as not a viable scientific name. I couldn't find any. Si Trew (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: It can be ruled out as a scientific name for an organism. It'd likely be johnadamsii in a scientific name anyway. A quick check of the most comprehensive database for plant names and two of the more comprehensive databases that include animals showed zero results for johnadams or johnadamsii. Plantdrew (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: I'm reopening and relisting this discussion by request at my talk page. I'd also appreciate discussion if anyone has a preference on what the hatnote and disambiguation should look like. -- Tavix (talk) 23:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's a naming convention that these minor planets are given one word names like Johnadams, Johncleese, Johnchapman, Jonstewart. as one word without the space [1] but do we really need redirects for every minor planet? There are hundreds of thousands of planets with names, leading to WP:NOTCATALOG. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:25, 4 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.

2nd Weather Wing[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 procedural close. An article has been created over the redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the redirect. The USAF's 2d Weather Wing and its 2d Weather Group are two different units with no relation between them. Lineagegeek (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the 2d Weather Wing (active 1954-1991), 2d Weather Group (active 1945-1946, 1952-1965 and 2007-present), and 2d Weather Squadron (active 1937-1944, 1951-1956, 1967-1969, 1975-1991, 1992-2006 and 2007-present) are three different units. The only association of any of them is that the 2d Weather Squadron has been assigned to the 2d Weather Group since 2007 at Offutt AFB. Other than that, none have been stationed together, assigned to another, or succeeded another. A retarget is not appropriate, either. --Lineagegeek (talk) 13:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no longer a redirect. Have established an article based upon what seem reliable sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the keep as a stand alone article. While I have doubts as to this web site qualifying as an RS if this were up for GA nomination, I believe it is generally accurate, and is good enough for a start article. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:36, 4 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.

Former President George W. Bush[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 15#Former President George W. Bush

Zhōnghuá Mín'guó[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. WP:INVOLVED close given the backlog and this case seems straightforward enough. -- Tavix (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are not the correct romanization (中華民國=Zhōnghuá Mínguó) in pinyin. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment for "Zhonghuá Mínguó" I think I had started it because some earlier operating systems/browsers didn't support using macrons but could support acute accents. Since then things have changed so it's not necessary to have that redirect anymore WhisperToMe (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the second. It is useful for those who are able to type acute accents but unable to type macrons. -- Tavix (talk) 06:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as wrong. I hear User:Tavix's point but that should be a job for the search box (which has already become diacritic-fuzzy), not a redirect. Deryck C. 16:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Technically the reasoning behind creating the second one is correct, but I don't see it being used. Also a redirect with diacritics is ultimately hard to type. So I am going with a delete as I don't see the practical use of this redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per Deryck. With next to no hits, we should let search deal with this.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:33, 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.

Unrea'[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 de'ete. -- Tavix (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Google and Google Books search turn up no instances of the abbreviation. Meets point 8 of WP:R#DELETE. Mz7 (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Implausible typo, ' is two keys away from l the intended letter on the qwerty keyboard. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a plausible typo and the pageview stats are negligible. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:57, 11 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.

Army.mil[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) 17:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target (other than the website for various citations) Pppery 23:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:09, 3 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.

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 keep. WJBscribe (talk) 16:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No significant affinity to all caps, searching for "OBAMA" would automatically send a reader to Barack Obama by virtue of the Obama redirect. --Nevé–selbert 19:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This redirect is somewhat well-trafficked (15 hits/day) Tazerdadog (talk) 03:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's affinity to all caps from campaign posters displaying his name in all caps. Obama already redirects to Barack Obama, otherwise I'd probably have a different opinion. -- Tavix (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:01, 3 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.

Wikipedia:NOVANDALS[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, by Anthony Bradbury. -- Tavix (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be an over abundance of shortcuts to the page that most users know as WP:AIV. There's no need for more than two or three. This is the most recently created one and is not being used in any real way. This therefore seems to be an unnecessary bit of clutter. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 3 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.

Religious prejudice(Islam)[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) 03:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whew. The target article also has a lot of bad redirects, but I think I'm done for today. This one is misleading because it seems to suggest the topic of religious prejudice in Islam. Note also the missing space. BDD (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Not clear whether group is doing the prejudging or being prejudged, and the missing space makes it messier. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and AngusWOOF. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:21, 4 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.

Muslimish[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 15#Muslimish

Wikipedia:ANV[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 15#Wikipedia:ANV

Muslimologist[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 Islamic studies. -- Tavix (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be retargeted to Islamic studies. It's a misnomer (I doubt many people study Muslims but not Islam itself), but seems plausible enough. --BDD (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. I didn't know that this term even existed. Looked up Wiktionary Muslimologist and Muslimology, where the latter is defined as (pseudoscience) The study of Muslims. I guess the proposed target is somewhat close to this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:13, 8 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.

Wikipedia:RVAN[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 Wikipedia:Vandalism#How to respond to vandalism (non-admin closure). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 11:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be an over abundance of shortcuts to the page that most users know as WP:AIV. There's no need for more than two or three, and in the eight years this one has been around it has been linked to less than a hundred times. This therefore seems to be an unnecessary bit of clutter. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:01, 12 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.

Mosesism[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) 03:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This began as a stub asserting that this was another name for Muslims ("Muslims has also many others names like Muhammadanism,Jesusism,Noahism,Adamism"). I don't think that's true. --BDD (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not a thesaurus, not a common term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This sounds really weird, like some new revisionist pseudo-religion. Also, no reliable sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:17, 8 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.

Johnnie Muslim[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) 03:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this could be used as a wartime nickname, like Johnny Turk, but it's not at all a common name for Muslims generally, and it's not mentioned at all at the target article. --BDD (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No, just no... Ridiculous made-up phrase. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:49, 3 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.

Alternative paralel timeline theory[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) 03:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target, and "parallel" is misspelled. (Note: This redirect was an article for about 3 minutes before it was redirected.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 3 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.

Time craft[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 13#Time craft

Viajes en el tiempo[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) 03:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED. This topic is not exclusive to Spanish. Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 3 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.

Dred Scott (civil rights activist)[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) 03:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems misleading. I know I was misled when I was looking at Dred Scott (musician) and saw this title suggested in the search box. Perhaps more to the point, calling the original Dred Scott a civil rights activist really stretches the definition, and seems ahistorical. Not to downplay his significance, but it doesn't look like he did much in the civil rights arena outside of his own case. I recommend deleting this as an unlikely search term for the man and misleading in the search box. BDD (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't remember why I moved it at first but it was in response to this. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Primary topic. Musician was named after the person. Unncessary disambiguation, like adding (civil rights activist) to Martin Luther King Jr. Or adding dabs like (United States slave that sued for his freedom). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:13, 4 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.

Bzyb Range ()[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, G6, by Beeblebrox. -- Tavix (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguator with no disambiguator. Steel1943 (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looking at the history, I think this met the definition of WP:CSD#G6 and as such have deleted it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 3 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.

AppIQ[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, by Fred Bauder. -- Tavix (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original article from 2006 is hidden. AppIQ appears to be a small independent company at this time, according to linkedin. There is an old Register article, but not a good source anyway. I'll delete it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:16, 3 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_3&oldid=1088108751"