Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 2, 2016.

Rabbi Wax[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 Wax (surname). JohnCD (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete (Neelix redirect). I've rcatted others (for keeps) such as Rabbi James Wax as {{R to section}}, and put a courtesy note per WP:RSECT at the target, but usually a rabbi's style includes his first name, doesn't it? Honorifics_in_Judaism#Rabbi is silent on the matter, as is Rabbi (as far as I could find). That being said, it does no harm... but without it one would find the chap anyway. No links, three hits in ninety days. Si Trew (talk) 22:20, 2 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.

Ci Ling[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 12#Ci Ling

Volkswagen Beduin[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. JohnCD (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently 'Bedouin' was a rumored name for the Tiguan back in the day. However, there is no mention of 'Bedouin' at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target. I imagine others will say "well, add it to the target, then". That's a solution, but as they stand we're leading people up a blind alley. Si Trew (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - The rumored alternative name is something that I don't know if sufficient reliable source coverage exists to mention it at the article. I also think deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, not a publicized working title. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:22, 4 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.

List of North Korean photographers[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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix redirects) Weak delete all. The target does not distinguish between North Korean and South Korean photographers, even in section List of Korean photographers#the second half of 20th century and thereafter, and in fact only one photographer in the whole article is linked (which is OK for a list although perhaps not very enlightening). I'm tempted to think these are WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:SURPRISE since they imply we have some info about specifically North Korean or South Korean photographers when in reality we don't. I can see that "North Korean" and "South Korean" are search terms perhaps as likely as, or more like than, just plain "Korean", though... but I doubt their absence would make the target harder to find, especially as we also have Korean photographer and Korean photographers to the same target, also by Neelix at the same time which I will keep as {{R from list topic}}, so these are just the usual Neelix combinatorial explosion.

The 30-day stats are 0 for the first four, 2 and 3 for the "list of north" and "list of south" respectively. No incoming links for any of the first four, the last two have links from other lists, via the transclusion of the navbox factory at {{Asian topic|List of|photographers}}. So there's a weak case to keep the last two to keep the navbox happy... but the other four I think can surely go. Si Trew (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if we consider North and South Korea to be synonymous with the DPRK and ROK, then because they claim one another they can both be thought of same both North and South. Also, there doesn't seem to be any reason the distinction can't be added in the text.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep North Korean photographers, South Korean photographers, List of North Korean photographers, List of South Korean photographers. Weak keep North Korean photographer and South Korean photographer. These all seem like perfectly plausible searches to me. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:54, 3 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.

Protein misfolders[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 Protein misfolders and Protein misfolder. Keep Misfolding proteins and Misfolded proteins. No consensus for Misfolds proteins. -- Tavix (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all (neelix redirects): A bit like the ones below, bnut not enough for me to want to make them into one bunch. A protein being being misfolded is not the same as it being incorrectly folded, in the sense meant by biochemists or molecular modellers (I was one) working on protein folding problems. There are more general ones like misfold but they are just WP:SURPRISE and will list separately. Si Trew (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Misfolding proteins and Misfolded proteins as these are sensible phrases and likely search terms (the latter receives 40 hits a month, the former only one, but it's a phrase that turns up in reliable places). Delete the "misfolder" ones as clear nonsense. Unsure about Misfolds proteins as it's somewhat unlikely (only 5 hits on google scholar) and I can't imagine anyone ever typing that into a search box, but that's a conceivable phrase an editor might want to link to within running text – although I' not sure such a thin possibility is worth the cost (no matter how small) of having the redirect. An alternative target could be Proteopathy, but that's already linked in a "main article" note at the current target, and the text at the current target seems a bit more up to the point. Uanfala (talk) 21:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Misfolding proteins and Misfolded proteins since, as stated above, those are bits of terminology that's used by reliable sources often while I would delete the rest as not particularly helpful CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first two at least. Made up words. Softlavender (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first two since they basically get no use; keep last three as ones that get actual use in academic texts (e.g. [1] for "misfolds proteins"). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting so both of these discussions are next to each other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep misfolding proteins and misfolded proteins but retarget to protein folding, for basically the same reasons as I expressed here. Delete the first two as implausible and poor English – no idea what a misfolder is or what it is meant to be. Weak Delete misfolds protein, I note some !votes to keep it above and would not be disturbed to see it kept, but I think it an unlikely link or search term. Unlike the misfolder terms, though, it is not absurd. EdChem (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete protein misfolder(s), and misfolds proteins as above. Keep only the terms as "misfolded proteins" and "misfold proteins" as used in science journals and articles. I don't know enough about whether misfolding is an action done by some scientific process. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's done by the little buggers themselves under the action of enzymes, as any fule kno.Si Trew (talk) 05:20, 6 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.

Misfolded[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 but remove the section anchor. -- Tavix (talk) 03:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. (Neelix redirects). Way too specific a target, WP:RFD#D2 confusing per WP:SURPRISE and WP:XY. None is currently marked as {{R to section}}, neither is there a courtesy comment at the target, per WP:RSECT and MOS:LINK2SECT, for these or the many other Neelix redirects to this section. Si Trew (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep The term "misfold" is almost always used in the context of biochemistry. Wikt:Misfold for example. However, Wiktionary also says that it may also refer to nucleic acids, which aren't proteins I think, if I remember from biology class which could WP:SURPRISE someone. But it is never used in the context of say, blankets. Alerting WP:MCB and WP:CHEMISTRY about this discussion. --Mr. Guye (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never seen this associated with nucleic acids, it always refers to proteins. Also, I've never heard of it being applied to blankets either, although as a science fanboy I am of course more likely to be aware of the biological concept. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To the two above: I accept that "misfold" may always be used in biochemistry and neither blankets nor paper aeroplanes, but it being directed only to neurogenerative disease I think is way too specific and thus misleading. But if kept, they should be marked {{R from verb}}, and "misfolds" perhaps also as {{R from plural}}. Si Trew (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I agree that the current redirect is a bit too specific, but if the section Incorrect protein folding and neurodegenerative disease were renamed to Misfolding and disease then the redirect would make more sense. Misfolding is not only important in the pathogenesis of neurodegenerative diseases but also a wide range of other diseases (see Proteopathy). Boghog (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Boghog: I like the idea of renaming the section (although we should keep an anchor for the current section name because of the many Neelix redirect to this section, not just these ones). But would perhaps Proteopathy make a better target? Protein misfolding is right there in bold in the lede... Si Trew (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Si, my answer would be no, proteopathy is not a better target because it is also directly disease related - see post below.  :) EdChem (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all but retarget: I think all of these redirects are plausible terms to use in biochemistry / protein-related articles &ndsah; for example, here is an issue of Nature insight dedicated to misfolding. I suggest targeting just at protein folding, however, as I can see the intention being something other than disease – though it is true that disease-related contexts are common. As one example, laboratory synthesis of proteins de novo (wow, that is an article that needs a lot of work), for example, is an area where misfolding is a serious difficulty and unconnected (at least directly) to disease. As another example, I recently wrote the biography of Colin Raston and in this section described his work on unboiling an egg, for which he won an Ig Nobel prize. Boiling an egg denatures the protein in the white by disrupting the folding away from the natural form with the individual strands then aggregating. The technology he jointly developed (currently without an article, but it will someday be as vortex fluidic technology) allows the strands to be separated and then re-folded from the misfolded form to the native form. Though I did not use any variant on the word "misfold", the technology allows correction of misfolding under certain circumstances as is nothing to do with disease, and I can easily see using some of the above redirects in the context of such articles. Templates on the redirects as Si Trew suggests would be appropriate. (I came here following a request from comment at WT:CHEMISTRY, FYI.) EdChem (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. Shunt them to the top if you want, I'll just leave them clearly separated for now so I don't put words in others' mouths. Of these, Misfolded protein was created by User:Magnus Manske on 1 May 2008 and refined to section (from plain Protein folding) by Neelix on 23 November 2010; the others are Neelix creations pure and simple, the usual combinatorial explosion, on the same date. Si Trew (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and retarget misfolded protein and incorrect folding, these strike me as plausible search terms, though I would target them to protein folding for the reasons outlined above. Delete misfolders as implausible and weird, maybe this could be a term for an enzyme which was catalysing selectively for misfold outcomes but I don't know of any such enzyme. Weak Delete misfold proteins as I think it is much less plausible than misfolded protein, but it's not absurd. EdChem (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have protein folder or protein folders (and never have had), so if to use "folder" as an agent noun seems unlikely in this context, "misfolders" would seem unlikelier still.
We also have Misfolder which I took to CSD on 23 September but was undone a day later by User:Patar knight with the ES "Valid biochem term":
Si Trew (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC):[reply]
  • Keep all. Both "misfolder" and "misfolders" do get use as seen through Google Books/Scholar searches, so they should redirect where the others do. The same applies to "misfold proteins" [2]. Wouldn't mind retargeting to just the page instead of the section.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:53, 3 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.

List of[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) 18:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Implausible redirect. List of whats? There are many lists on Wikipedia. Pppery 16:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm really tempted to see this redirect as the only redirect worth keeping per WP:SURPRISE. What is a reader typing "list of" really looking for? They can't be expecting to arrive anywhere in particular, they're just playing around with the search engine. I imagine a reader who's already seen the List of helicopter prison escapes and the List of sexually active popes, they might be wondering "Have I seen it all?" and then it occurs to them to try where the bare-bone "list of..." will take them – they are expecting to be surprised. What better list to surprise them with than the mother of all lists? Uanfala (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: This redirect gets over a hundred hits a day. Where are all they coming from? Uanfala (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. List of gets 5x the hits of those two articles combined [3]. I maintain that users are clicking through from the search bar after typing in "List of" and seeing this as the first option in the drop-down list. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Patar knight: Yup, sure enough, the math doesn't add up. Consider part of my previous statement struck out. Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to remove the link from Saint-Germain-Laval, Seine-et-Marne in this edit, but for the life of me could not locate the link to List of in Outline of Alabama. Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While this is an odd situation, yes, I think that the significant number of hits and the connection between what's being searched and the target... it seems worth keeping. I'm not sure. I'd rather not delete it, though. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Uanfala's comment and the high number of hits per day. Evidently users are using this term, and likely by typing "List of" into the search, seeing this pop down and being curious enough to click through.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The redirect leaves the reader with the question "List of what?" Per the list of pages beginning with "List of", the answer to that question on Wikipedia is not exclusive to lists of lists (the current setup for the redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steel1943. This is a partial title match better served by search results. pace Uanfala, I can imagine "a reader" searching in this way to wonder what lists we may have (in which case a WP:XNR to Category:Lists might be appropriate), but I can't imagine one hundred readers a day doing that: more likely they just slip and enter their search too soon, with some form of Autocomplete. (Your guess is as good as mine, though.) Si Trew (talk) 03:30, 4 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.

Jobs and Wozniak[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 History of Apple Inc.#1969–1984: Jobs and Wozniak. -- Tavix (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:XY. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to History of Apple Inc.#1969–1984: Jobs and Wozniak. XY situations can be resolved if there's an authoritative place where both topics are discussed. A better case for deletion might be if a reader was expecting a more detailed look at Jobs and Wozniak's relationship with each other, but I don't really think we'd ever have something like that. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do think that the reader is likely looking for an article discussing the relationship between those different men, akin to the Lennon-McCartney and Tchaikovsky and the Five pages, and such a thing doesn't exist. Until we have it, this redirect should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per BDD. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:16, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:19, 2 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.

The Simpsons (1989 TV series)[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 per criterion G5. Deleted by Vanjagenije. Steel1943 (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created unnecessary disambiguation redirect - no inbounds and extremely unlikely this will ever be used. This was created as part of a hoax campaign that created The Simpsons (2017 TV series). Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:08, 2 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.

The Selena Foundation[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) 11:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article. SSTflyer 11:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Redirect to Q-Productions. Q-Productions is the Quintanilla family company. I am reading online about the mall La Palmera offering Selena-inspired painting classes, with the proceeds going to the Women's Shelter of South Texas on "behalf of the Selena Foundation".[4] In another article, I see that the family hosts an annual painting fundraiser party preceding the event known as "Fiesta de la Flor". They were raising funds for the Selena Foundation and it is mentioned that they do this because Selena was an advocate of domestic violence services.[5] Finally, this was found on the Q-Productions website: [6]. All events occurred in Corpus Christi, Texas. However, independent sources only mentioned the Selena Foundation in passing. --Mr. Guye (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is an organization but why is it not mentioned in Selena's GA-ranked article which has Philantrophy and Legacy sections? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The organization itself may be notable and merit its own page. Alternately, however, the question of what the Foundation's relationship to the Q-Productions group still needs to be sorted out. I think deletion is the right move. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:16, 5 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.

List of Selena concert tours[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) 11:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was a list WP:BLARed to the main article, which does not contain a list of her concert tours. SSTflyer 11:23, 2 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.

List of Lists[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 List of lists of lists. --BDD (talk) 18:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retargetted by IP editor in 2013 without discussion. Is the current target appropriate? I don't think so. SSTflyer 11:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be fine with a retarget to List of lists of lists. If retargeted there, however, List of lists should also be retargeted there. -- Tavix (talk) 17:49, 2 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.

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith[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) 18:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Who would type this? BigGuy88 (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - These are her official titles, unless I'm mistaken, and redirects are cheap. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, salt and close, all with extreme prejudice Despite the nominator being blocked, "Who would type this?" is a valid question. Especially as Wikipedia's autosuggest has gotten so much better in the 11 years I've been here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's a valid question, it's not answered by any of the WP:RFD#DELETE criteria, which perhaps is why nobody has suggested one. (The nearest is probably WP:RFD#D7, "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name"; my emphasis). I assert that I find them useful under WP:RFD#K5. Si Trew (talk) 09:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that, then, and having read Wikipedia:Redirects are costly, I harden my stance against this time-wasting bullcrap.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:17, 11 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.

Leaflesstongue orchids[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) 03:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. (Neelix redirects). See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 29#Largetongue orchid: it is not that this orchid has a leafless tongue, but that this tongue orchid is leafless, so these noun fusions and hyphenations are WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. K listed for WP:X1 but they were removed by User:Tazerdadog with WP:ES "Remove leaflesstongue orchids again - I'd !vote keep on these, and it definitely isn't SNOw. No prejudice to a RFD nom, but it needs RFD." (diff here). Si Trew (talk) 06:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - the common name for this species is the "Leafless Tongue Orchid", which makes the above plausible search terms. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, I forgot to say that "Leafless Tongue Orchid" was the common name. But... really?... that makes "leaflesstongue orchids" a plausible search term? Literally nobody has gone through this link in the last 90 days, according to my stats. "leaflesstongue orchid" got 1 hit in 90 days, "Leafless-tongue orchids" got 1 a couple of days ago (I imagine because of these discussions), otherwise none, and "Leafless-tongue orchid" also a big fat zero. But if these do get kept, they should be {{{R from common name}}, {{R from incorrect capitalization}}, {{R from incorrect punctuation}} or {{R from incorrect spelling}}, and the plurals {{R from plural}}. I am not going to skew the stats by changing them right now. Si Trew (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the "Leafless-tongue ____" redirects as maybe not that helpful but reasonable mistakes while deleting the "Leaflesstongue ____" ones since they use a made-up non-word. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As User:Plantdrew pointed out at the other RfD, the search engine is insensitive to hyphens (treats as spaces), so deleting them will have no downside as far as a search goes: whereas it has the small downside of people potentially linking to an {{R from incorrect name}}. Si Trew (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per nom. "Leaflesstongue" is utter nonsense. Nobody who hears "leafless tongue orchid" in a spoken context would think that the leaflesstongue is a single word (that situation with "largetongue orchid" is a little more plausible; tongues might be large or small, but they are never leaved). These space/hyphen variants don't appear on the web outside of Wikipedia (or in books), and nobody who sees it in a written context is going to search for anything for anything other than how they saw it written. Leafless Tongue-orchid does appear in written contexts, and might be a useful redirect, but anybody searching for that string will get to the article anyway via leafless tongue orchid (Wikipedia search now handles spaces/hyphens and upper/lowercase as equivalent characters, as do most search engines). "Leafless-tongue" doesn't appear outside of Wikipedia, and the hyphen is ignored by searches. "Leaflesstongue" doesn't appear outside of Wikipedia, and is a typo at best. Plantdrew (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Plantdrew. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 12 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.

Scho-Ta-Tola[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) Pppery 00:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Unnecessary redirect: the creator of this redirect has misconceived the old German script "k" printed on old style confectionery tins in Fraktur for being a "t". Nightsturm (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Based on the canister pictured in the article, that would be a perfectly reasonable error for any English-speaker to make, and so it is a useful search term. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A quick Gsearch reveals it is actually used not just by English speakers but by Polish, Dutch and German speakers too. {{R from incorrect spelling}} (done). Si Trew (talk) 07:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be a plausible spelling variant --Lenticel (talk) 00:51, 3 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.

Military of switzerland[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) Pppery 16:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this redirect. There is another, nearly identical redirect, "Military of Switzerland" (notice the capitalization of the "S") that redirects to the same article. Because Wikipedia does not take capitalization into account when searching, this redirect is not needed. Also, the fact that the "s" is lowercase in this redirect is very annoying for me, and presumably others as well. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:42, 2 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_2&oldid=1091453851"