Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 14[edit]

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

Pizza Hut Bulgaria[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These terms are not mentioned in the target, although the countries are, we have KFC in China, for example, so it seems reasonable to delete per WP:REDLINK. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 23:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not a corporate directory. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR. In this particular case, creating redirects for subsidiaries in every country is simply clutter (unless there is a plausible chance that the subsidiary is independently notable). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Indeed, Wikipedia is not a business directory. I would feel differently if Pizza Hut had some kind of unique history in individual nations that got significant news coverage. However, that's (to my knowledge) not the case. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:19, 18 October 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.

OSx[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 MacOS. (non-admin closure) - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to macOS, which is probably the primary topic of this title, and which other redirects differing only in capitalization redirect to. Pppery 19:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What;s the difference between OSx and OSX? As a casual person searching for it. I can think of the nuances but I am not looking at those dabs on purpose. To me the OSx and the OSX would have significance that it was delibeately an lc x but WOOFster and Pppery haven't really said why. Deliberately I am not looking, I am coming as an ignorant but intelligent reader knowing what "Mac OS X" is and just plugging in something that might fit. Is the distinction necessary? Deliberately I have not looked at the entries on the DABs, just food for your thoughts, — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 04:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Is the capitalization distinction meaningful to those not very familiar with Apple's naming systems? I'm an iPhone user, and it wouldn't occur to me that OSx and OSX might refer to different things. --BDD (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like the capitalization is something that even an informed reader may not consider that important, yes, and a retarget to macOS appears to be the right move. I don't really object to going to the disambiguation page, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Yeah, there are enough case-insensitive ways to query Wikipedia that I really think we should be wary of differing terms by capitalization alone. Let's save that for very clear cases. --BDD (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Other uses of OSx are nowhere near as common as the proposed target. The current hatnote will serve readers who don't want macOS. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:53, 21 October 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.

John (Apostle)[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. (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. WP:RFD#D8, novel or obscure synonym. Very novel, because it was only created today by User:Tavix. It only exists because I mentioned its non-existence when discussing Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_14#John (Baptist). It would not otherwise exist, it would not have been created by anyone except for my mention there that it did not exist as an apposition in my reasoning at that discussion. I was not expecting it then to be created: had I wished that, I would have done that myself. I note that Matthew (Apostle), Mark (Apostle), Luke (Apostle) and even Paul (Apostle) are also red as I write, but I imagine will become blue shortly hereafter. Si Trew (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as obviously helpful for someone isn't sure how Wikipedia is disambiuating the article for the Apostle John. The fact that other redirects are also red is irrelevant because they can just as easily be created. I created this one simply because I didn't want to forget to create it once the other discussion is closed. -- Tavix (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the point Tavix. I said and other editors have agreed, that since "The Baptist" or "The Apostle" are already disambiguators, we don't need Wikipedia's way of disambiguating them, they are already disambiguated. "The Baptist" is so you don't confuse that John with "The Apostle", that John. They already disambiguate. What are you going to do, write "The gospel according to St. John (Apostle)". Of course you're not. To disambiguate things which are already in real life disambiguated is pure nonsense, it is just silly to do that. I have come here with clean hands, I have said who created it, said why I disagree with it. I didn't go round the back and create a redirect while a discussion about the very thing was open. Si Trew (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not everyone knows how this article is disambiguated, so the redirect is useful for those who think it is parenthetically disambiguated. -- Tavix (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No, Tavix, I entirely disagree. I know and you know that we disambiguate things with parentheses. The Bible doesn't. A reader who is searching for John the Baptist is probably going to search for "John the Baptist". Exactly because they don't know that Wikipedia disambiguates Johns in some way that is peculiar to Wikipedia, an intelligent but ignorant reader is not going to think Hmmm, Wikipedia uses parentheses in disambiguations so I'll try "John (Baptist)". No, they won't, they'll seach for John the Baptist. They might search for john the baptist. But they won't search for John (Baptist). Editors know how we disambiguate, but the vast majority of readers are not editors. Si Trew (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Plausible way for people to search, given how we disambiguate (i.e. "common name (job)").---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So Matthew (Apostle), Mark (Apostle), Luke (Apostle) are OK then? People seem to manage fine without those. Lookit I set out my stance fairly clearly time and again: I am not a deletionist by nature, but these do not help but harm a search. I know by listing those three which now I shall have to put in bold because another regular here, User:Tavix has twice in seven days shown his tendency to create the redirects I am arguing are red, trying to queer my pitch, those ARE RED at the moment. What good would come if we created them> Would they help or harm search? That is the question to answer. This is absolutely as I said, nobody was inhibited by searching this way until this very redirect was created by User:Tavix when I specifically said it was red, in an argument about what kind of redirects do we keep. If Tavix is some kind of creeping Neelix, surreptitiously creating redirects any time one is mentioned, I think it should be WP:X1 frankly. Don't create redirects when they are under discussion and exemplified by me for being red as an example of why things are red. That's just downright idiocy. Expect Matthew mark and Luke to go blue soon. Si Trew (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly support creation of all of these. As for their utility (or lack thereof), we won't know until we let these redirects exist for a while and get pageviews data. Before that we simply don't know if their lack of existence inhibited anyone's searches. Anyone is allowed to create redirects in good faith, and anyone is allowed to nominate them for RfD in good faith. Calling someone else's good faith edits "downright idiocy" is a personal attack, especially when it was clear that their motive was to create a redirect that they believed was beneficial to the project.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't support creation for all of those. Mark and Luke weren't Apostles. -- Tavix (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently they are for Eastern Christians (i.e. the Seventy apostles). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This may be improper, but it's still fundamentally helpful. I can certainly imagine some layman readers searching things this way. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:10, 25 October 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.

Hüyük[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 Uncontroversial WP:RMT history swap, not a request for RfD. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit technical really and I would not list it here except I have no other means to do it, as a non-admin, reverse the redirect. We don't need the disambiguation of ", Konya" and the page can be moved over. I know this is technically a move request but I can't even do that, so an admin needs to do it lickety-split, I doubt it is controversial thus to do, so basically asking a favour. I know that is a bit out of form but I think is easier to everyone than laboriously listing as a move request for what I very much doubt is controversial. The Turkish Wikipedia has it just as and most other Interwikis do. One reason to move over is that the Wikidata is a bit off, because of this redirect. I know technically I should do a move request but I don't think there is any doubt it will be just moved over, but I can't do it myself, so I am pleading to a WP:BOLD admin. Si Trew (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonTrew: I think you should request this at WP:RM/TR instead (side note: an admin is not required to make this move, only a page mover) Pppery 23:15, 14 October 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.

Rama IX Bhumibol Adulyadej)[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 Move to Rama IX Bhumibol Adulyadej without leaving a redirect.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure why there is a round bracket at the end. An unlikely search term, also. --Nevé–selbert 20:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete housekeeping. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to the tile without the bracket without leaving a redirect behind: clearly a typo for an otherwise likely search term. – Uanfala (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Rama IX Bhumibol Adulyadej without leaving a redirect. The term is valid, just incorrectly formatted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move as per User:Lemongirl942. It was just a slip in the creation, no need to keep the R once moved. No history to it. The redirect I mean. But it!s tantamount now to someone makeing a bluelink out of it and redirecting it where you wanted it. No names, no pack drill. But to create redirects that are specifically stated as being red, as in the moves and comments above, is just well let us just say not quite Queensberry Rules. Si Trew (talk) 04:45, 21 October 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.

Queen of Falkland Islands[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 04:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No such title. Also grammatically incorrect; Queen of the Falkland Islands would be more appropriate. --Nevé–selbert 20:15, 14 October 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.

Elizabeth II Queen of Great Britain[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) 17:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. No such title; grammatically, a comma should be added after "Elizabeth II" (per Anne, Queen of Great Britain). --Nevé–selbert 20:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. That is an incredibly likely search term. She is not, I know, the Queen of Great Britain, she is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, amongst other things. Still it says so on my passport. She is also fidei defensor, and rules by the grace of God, dei gratia, it says so right here on my pound coin. Well it says ELIZ II D. G. REG. F. D. I suppose they couldn't fit it all in when they made the coins smaller. Her grandad has it in full on the old pennies, they had more space. Si Trew (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So Elizabeth II, Queen of Great Britain would be fine then? Liz has enough redirects, we don't need to encourage their creation. But even mentioning it means someone will probably create it, I tend to expect that and toonight it has indeed happened, that as soon as I say something is red, someone turns it blue, while a discussion about the very thing is open. Si Trew (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are so many titles and related redirects to the Queen, and there is probably an argument for pruning them down greatly, but my instinct is that this particular one is helpful. I can see people searching it. It seems useful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @CoffeeWithMarkets:. That intrigues me. You should follow your instinct, but I see no evidence that this is helpful. I think you need evidence there, really, which is hard to find because patently most of the hits come from this very redirect, and it is very hard to argue that it would be better without it. It is kinda a reverse Hippocratic Oath], first do no harm, that we have a weaker version. Over the years I have become a deletionist, frankly, because the search engine has got better and redirects have got more numerous. Redirects are at seven million while articles are two millionish, and that is just the page count stats of things that are not really articles but "everything in mainspace that are not redirects", essentially. Is it just me that understands that redirects are the first way people get to where they want to go> Is that just me? If you type something into your search bar, you will get something in mainspace. You won't get Category:Queens of England or Portal:Monarchy or Wikipedia:What the Queen is Not (which would be a pretty empty category, I think, without WP:RS for an article on it or all the seven hundred ways we allow readers to search. Do people forget, what it says, the majority of readers are not editors. Do you all forget that? You have to look at every one as an intelligent but ignorant reader. Right, I am intelligent but ignorent, I heard about the queen of great britain, i search that. Now I come to my killer:
Weak delete. No intelligent but ignorant reader is going to search for Elizabeth II Queen of Great Britain. It is not because she is not the Queen of Great Britain, she is, but only as a subset. She is the Queen of Great Britain and Norther Ireland, i.e the Queen of the United Kingdom. She is also the Queen of the Commonwealth and all sorts of other monarchical things. One day some idiot will get her to press a button to make her first Wikipedia edit, like they did to get her to send her first tweet or something. I have never sent a tweet. Perhaps I should apply for King then. What nonsense she must do each day, I know she don't want for money, but sheesh it would be nice to go to bed when you please or have a lie-in or say sod off Phil I really don't want to see anyone today... for sixty years... I admire her. I don't believe in monarchy as an institution, but she has done what she said in 1953, I shall serve my nation to the best of my ability, for all my long days, with the grace of god before me. She has done that. Most people who started in 1953 would have clocked off on a 40/60p pension in 1993, She hasn't. I don't like the institution of monarchy, but our Monarch, our Queen, has served us proud. Technically we are her servants, but practically, she is ours. And she has served every bloody day since she ascended to the throne.
Now to come to the point. the "II" in there is the unlikely search term. Nobody is going to search for "II". I know damned well it is Roman Numerals for two and a tenth (the tithe goes to the Barons) but nobody is actually going to type "II" like that. The only links are from portals, presumably from a transclusion which I shall attempt to hunt down, portals are in reader space but I guess these are on their watchlist or somesuch, well if they are watching it, let them contribute to it. Not a closed shop here. But they won't. The II is well it is borderline. Is it a likely search term? That is the criterion. Stats say it ain't. Si Trew (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I know my personal non-Wikpedia life should not interfere with my editing, but it does occasionally. I cremated my mother Monday last. I miss her a bit, but she would want me to keep going. Please excuse me if I am more angry or pertinent or somehing than I usually am. I try to be level-headed but maybe sometimes I am no and I have no-one else's shoulder to cry on, I have to cook and clean and look after the cat and do all the normal stuff. My mum got a coronation coin I think in 1953 when the Queen was crowned, I think it was a crown five shillings it may have been two and sixpence, half a crown. I am not sure, I am no numismatist. Worth nothing that way because every schoolchild aged 14 or 15 got these coins for the Queen's Coronation, and she was 14 in 1953 when Her Maj ascended to the throne, so she got a coin for it. Do we have Coronation coin?. I can add a pic there if we haven't one, the obverse and reverse of me mum's cos I will have to ask my brothers to take the pic so I can put it on commons. It's worth nothing numismatically, every schoolchild got it. I remember her dad on the coins, they were still in circulation when I was a boy a two bit was a lot of money. I always saved any unusual coin or something for her, you know the kinda scrap you got in your change. I would sya look mum it says Republique do Algerie and that is Muhammad II or whatever, I jut made that up. In short my mother delighted in small things. Just the pleasure of small things. That is our pleasure at Wikipedia, to be content with doing small things. Requiescat in pace, Mum, though you never bloody knew any latin. Your other half pretended to. Quisque custodiet ipsos custodes, eh? Si Trew (talk) 02:56, 21 October 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.

Höyük[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 29#Höyük

John (Baptist)[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) 17:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.The target is already disambiguated, by being called "the Baptist", that is the disambiguator. We don't need to invent another one, there is already one, John the Baptist. We don't have John (Apostle) to DAB John the Apostle. Si Trew (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_13#John in Islam q.v. Si Trew (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect from WP:PARENDIS to WP:NATURALDIS. SSTflyer 15:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SSTflyer. In fact, I think John (Apostle) should be a redirect. I'll go make it right now. -- Tavix (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I will CSD it right now. I think it is rather ungentlemanly to create another redirect exactly for the reason I am proposing to delete the existing one. Bad form, really bad form. Si Trew (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I think a redirect should exist, I'll create it. It's "rather ungentlemanly" to attempt to CSD something using a made up criterion. -- Tavix (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I think a redirect should not exist, I'll list it at RfD. It would have been easier to argue one at a time rather than both. I think it is rather ungentlemanly that when I say "this is red" it suddenly turns blue, because it makes me look like a liar. I can be mistaken, but I am not and was not a liar. It was red before you created it. Had this discussion not been had, had I not said "we don't have John (Apostle)", you would not have thought to create it. It is only because I said that it was red that you made it blue. As for the made up CSD criterion, I can think of nothing better. I can list this as a novel and obscure synonym when it gets refused from CSD, but that is just makework for everyone. Si Trew (talk) 22:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdrew the CSD myself and thus listed at RfD: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_14#John_(Apostle). xreffed to this one. Si Trew (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apostle is a different situation since there are many writings that use "the apostle John", but not "the baptist John" I wouldn't create dabs like "Peter (Great)", or "Ivan (Terrible)". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the best analogy, since Baptist can be looked at as his profession, and that is often what is used when deciding to use parenthetical disambiguation (eg: (politician) or (footballer)). Peter and Ivan's titles are strictly that. Ivan is simply "Terrible" but he was never a "Terrible". -- Tavix (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will concede that professions are acceptable for now as with Joe (plumber). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. Plausible way for people to search, given how we disambiguate (i.e. "common name (job)").---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While not quite proper, I suppose, in terms of Wikipedia guidelines, this appears to be helpful. I prefer to keep it based on the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:22, 18 October 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.

Er Duo Yan Zha Gao[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 keep (#1), withdrawn by nominator (WP:SCLOSE). (non-admin closure) — Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be, User:Champion, but an English-speaking audience is hardly likely to search for it that way. I suppose it could be marked {{R from other language|zh}} and {{R from transliteration}} or something, but Pinyin is not really a transliteration, well, is it perhaps it is, I wouldn't think of it thus, perhaps you would. The R is a result of a page move by User:McGeddon only three days ago. Why was it moved? Shall we move the article back over it? I guess not but an R with no significant history, no hits, no links, I think can be safely deleted. Si Trew (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)See Zhong Guo, Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo, etc, I see no reason to delete this one. It should not be moved back per WP:Use English but it is a valid redirect.- Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 00:07, 15 October 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.

Modern Australia[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) 17:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vague search term, unclear what they are opposed to. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. I presume these are loaded terms to mean Australia when we the British owned it and ran it properly, and the mess it is now (are you listening Clive James, Germaine Greer?), after we gave it back to the Australians. But that needs an article, direcing it simply to Australia helps nobody. Did you know they even stopped manufacturing Ford cars now? We in the mother country managed to do that twenty years ago. Colonial Australia is blue and a redirect to History of Australia so the "Imperial" one could go the same way, but I don't know that "Modern Australia" means anything but just, er, Australia. Si Trew (talk) 09:15, 14 October 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.

Recep tayyip[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) 17:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY and WP:PTM. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Champion, what other Recep tayyips do we have? PTM certainly but I am not sure about XY. Si Trew (talk) 09:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see this as helpful. It's a partial title match situation where he's very much not known by this specific name. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - More PTM of First and Middle name without any evidence that the person goes by this. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Patar knight for digging up the articles. Striking out vote. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The first and last name is more common. Never heard of first and middle name. Unlikely redirect. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has gotten use in some news sources: LA Sentinel [1], Bloomberg [2], KFOR-TV [3], International Business Times [4].---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Patar knight. I had a feeling this name was used by sources, but couldn't prove it myself. Now we have evidence that the name is used, which means it's not a WP:PTM. On top of that, it's unambiguous. -- Tavix (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Well, now I'm not exactly so sure. It's not so clear to me that these uses are intentional shortenings rather than mistakes. However, I'm at least partly persuaded to keep this given the above arguments. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:23, 20 October 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.

Poulet[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 disambiguate. -- Tavix (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity for French. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The redirect Pullet goes to Chicken#Terminology. (This one does not go to a section). Obviously the two terms are cognate, but we don't need this at English Wikipedia. WP:NOTDIC, Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. Si Trew (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
look, you have to pite the pullet, as my ventriloquist partner says. (or should that be pout the poulet? No, ir ahouldn't that is a pun too far) Delete it. Si Trew (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would count prominence of French cuisine, which would use chicken and use "poulet" in the name of dishes, enough of an affinity. Second choice would be to soft redirect to Wiktionary per WP:NOTDIC. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate per Lenticell below, and add a link to chicken and maybe some dishes with poulet in their name somewhere. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:08, 21 October 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.

Twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun[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. Closing this again because of the post-close discussion. WP:G1 was inapplicable in this case, but the end result is the correct one. In the future, it's better to let RfD do it's work, in uncontroversial, non-BLP cases like this one. Original discussion below. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 Deleted by admin User:RHaworth per WP:G1 via my request at CSD by (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 09:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term, http://www.twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun.com/ does not exist as a website. Should we just have Kentuckyfriedchicken or fingerlickingood as redirects, then. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:02, 14 October 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.
  • WP:CSD#G1, "if you can understand it, G1 does not apply", hence it wasn't applicable to this redirect. However, as I highly doubt this would have been retained, I'm not going to pursue restoration and relisting.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:30, 18 October 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.

Microsoft Windows Microsoft Vista[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term for unnecessary redundancy. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 00:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. The products are not called Microsoft Windows Microst Vista, etc. Microsoft Windows Vista etc are fine if incorrect. Microsoft spend a lot of money and thought into branding their products, to come up with marvellously creative names such as Windows 10 (not [[:]], which redirects there). To add one "Microsoft" may be seen as being unfortunate, to add two starts to look like clumsiness. Si Trew (talk) 09:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment I was a Microsoft Most Valuable Professional for a few years. Never worked for them. Without breaking my Non-disclosure agreement, which is well out of date, I think it is fair to say that Microsoft were at that time extremely keen to stop "Microsoft" and "Windows" becoming synonymous. They failed, it seems, but this is the residue of that. (Other residuals are wordprocessors are just called "Word", can you send it to me in Word or Excel etc. i.e. this was an extreme effort on Microsoft's part to stop it becoming a genericized trademark, not that they ever said that, not even to "insiders", how could they? Si Trew (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per delete nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - These don't have any worth. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:49, 16 October 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_October_14&oldid=1088108650"