Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 20, 2016.

Dripping dead[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 except for Necropotence, where I find no consensus to delete. There's just enough objection where I don't feel comfortable deleting that one. Instead, it will be retargeted to Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering)#Notable cards. -- Tavix (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For those not familiar with Magic: The Gathering, the Power Nine refers to the nine cards that are probably the most individually notable cards. You'll notice they don't even have individual articles, though. With that in mind, most of these individual cards aren't mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia. Necropotence is mentioned at Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering) as one of that set's most notable cards, which I think I would agree with, though the sole mention is a link to the Wizards of the Coast database entry for the card. The card Shivan Dragon isn't mentioned anywhere, though List of dragons in games includes a Magic dragon who qualifies (Shiv is a region in the game's setting). I recommend deleting all of these, but would not object to retargeting Necropotence. --BDD (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all except Necropotence unless they can show as much notability as those Power Nine cards or Blue-Eyes White Dragon AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seems like a likely typo for dropping dead, but we haven't that, although we have drop dead as a DAB. Necropotence should be deleted as an abominble half-Latin and half-Greek neologism, although potens in latin is kinda derived from the Greek. Si Trew (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I don't believe that any of these are particularly notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all unless the cards are shown to have individual notability like the Power Nine. I do agree Necropotence was a very broken card. --Lenticel (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, shoud WP:NNC should apply to redirects too. Information about the power nine can be added to the article.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These cards aren't Power Nine cards. The reference to the Power Nine was meant to show some of the most famous individual cards do not have articles, but are grouped collectively, to show the unlikeness that content on these cards that we can redirect to exists or will ever exist on Wikipedia. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:01, 24 September 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.

Sentential[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Generic adjective better left to the search engine, no article title containing the word, just a few redirects. Paradoctor (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC) EDIT: Came up with a possible alternative to deletion, see below. Paradoctor (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete obscure variant of a common word. Not likely to be linked or used in articles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, better alternative: Retarget to Sentence (linguistics) as with Phrasal going to Phrase. Most of the PTMs (but more importantly the news and book articles) are referring to its use in that, like "sentential clause" or "sentential adverb" or "non-sentential utterances". You'll notice that "sentence logic" also redirects to the same places as "sentential logic", and there are a bunch of books that use phrases like "sentential form" and "sentential logic" so if a See also/Other uses needs to be added for logic and those variants, they can be added at the bottom of that article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The linguistic meaning is the one I'm most familiar with, but I don't think it's primary. Sentential could be the derived adjective correasponding to any of the first four entries in Sentence. If the redirect is retargeted to Sentence (linguistics) (which I don't think is a good idea), then the other meanings would need to be listed in a hatnote, as they would serve only a disambiugating function and aren't directly related to that article's concept (not even the one in logic). Uanfala (talk) 07:38, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the "linguistic meaning" of "sentential"? What are the other meanings? Is any of them not covered by "of, relating to, or comprised of sentences"? Paradoctor (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your own comment below the next !vote already answers these questions. The meanings of sentential given by the OED [2] correspond to the meanings in linguistics, logic, law and rhetoric, and all of these have entries in the dab page Sentence. Uanfala (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly redirect to Propositional calculus. This might be obscure in normal usage, but it's a common term to describe the logic of entire propositions rather than their components. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sentential logic and sentential calculus already redirect there. "Sentential" is also used to form compound terms in linguistics and in psychology, so one might be tempted to think about disambiguation. But this would consist solely of WP:PTMs, which is what the search function is for. On its own, "sentential" only reaches the level of WP:DICDEF. Paradoctor (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as most of the meanings already seem to be covered at the Sentence dab page, and those that aren't, could be, so I'm not sure a separate disambiguation page would be necessary (not sure though, any thoughts?). Deleting would be bad as it would be difficult to get to the linguistic meaning from the search results. Uanfala (talk) 09:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wouldn't, redirects containing the search term are listed first. They are also in the completion suggestions you get when typing into the search box. What is a hypothetical reader typing "sentential" into the search box looking for? Either a WP:DICDEF or a WP:PTM. The former is the domain of Wiktionary, the latter do not belong into dabs.
Again, why is it useful to have a link to Sentence? That's a common word so that would hardly ever require a link. The use of sentential in those PTMs would not be served by going to sentence as the dab don't talk about sententials and the PTMs would have to be listed in the "See also" or "Other" section at the bottom unless they are commonly used without the rest of the match as with "tangential". Someone typing in "sentential" is better served that it shows the 8 or so PTMs in the search box. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the linguistic meaning, the PTMs that show up in the search results are useless. The dab doesn't talk about sentential for the same reason that Phrase doesn't explicitly talk about phrasal (which it is the target of) – sentential is simply a derived adjective of sentence. Uanfala (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
why is it useful to have a link to Sentence? I'm not sure I get that. Isn't that a different matter altogether? Uanfala (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the primary use of "sentential" pertaining to the linguistics and the logic definitions, I think that would be more useful to go to those pages rather than the generic dab page, which isn't useful. I've updated my vote above. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'm not particularly opposed to a soft redirect, but from what I see there already are relevant wikipedia articles for most of the meanings of sentential so we would ideally want to guide readers there rather than to wiktionary. Uanfala (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are not meanings of "sentential"! Would you disambiguate "green" to green flash or green line? Certainly you would not redirect to one of these? Finding WP:PTMs is what the search function is for: "Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title". PTMs is the only thing we have for "sentential", so neither disambiguation nor redirecting is appropriate in this case. If you prefer not to soft redirect readers to Wiktionary, then deletion is the only choice supported by policy. Paradoctor (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I didn't make myself clear: the relevant wikipedia articles I was referring to are the ones listed at Sentence, not the PTMs in the search results. Uanfala (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can "sentential" be reasonably be expected to be confused with any of the entries presently at sentence? If not, what entries should be added to Sentence to justify the link there? What does a user entering "sentential" into the search box look for? One of the PTMs, one or more of the entries at sentence, or a definition of "sentential", or something else? Paradoctor (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. This is more of a FYI as it's irrelevant to the current discussion (or at least to my position that the redirect should stay targeted to the dab page and that the dab page doesn't need much further tinkering) – there are cases (somewhat similar to sentential) where entries that superficially look like PTM's do turn out to deserve a place on a dab page: as seen in this discussion from last month. Uanfala (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I'm not sure this is necessary but I wouldn't object to the creation of a separate dab page that lists only the relevant meanings from Sentence (still, that's most of them). This could have the advantage of allowing for a more precise wording in the descriptors. Uanfala (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly DAB and link the DABs betwen sentence and sentential. Sentential form goes to Formal grammar, Sentential formula goes to Propositional calculus. Now I would have expected (my own biased experience) that these would be the other way around. So perhaps a DAB listing all titles starting with "Sentential" would be in order, as simply a list from the search engine etc is not necessarily enough quickly to disambiguate; a good one-liner at a DAB might do better than deleting. I think redirecting to the DAB at sentence is acceptable but not great, because it is over-broad for the uses that "sentential" has (for example, nobody ever refers to a sentence (law) as being a "sentential term" even though "terms" are part of a sentence in law (a term of one year and a day etc; althoughterm (law) -> Contractual term in civil law and not a prison term) -> prison; those "terms" have a different sense.
Although I think kinda two DABS are not ideal, I think they are better than what we would have if redirecting without amendment to sentence; we could of course add explicitly the Rs to the DAB at "sentence" (I think), but perhaps they are too specialised that it would be better to have a separate DAB? Neither option is perfect, but a WP:SURPRISEing link from "sentential" to a DAB at "sentence" that only mentions the word sentential in the description of Propositional calculus is a bit too weak as it stands: for example, the R sentential calculus is not linked because the headword is "propositional calculus" and "sentential calculus" is just plaintext in the description.
In short, perhaps have a section at sentence for "sentential" with these technical meanings, and update the lede to say the adjective is "sentential", and then redirect to that DAB – or have two DABs linking each to each; I am not sure which is better. Although I agree with User:Paradoctor that in general a DAB should not just list WP:PTMs, in this case the PTM by itself is not enough to distinguish the meaning as clearly as a DAB (or two) could do, with subtleties like Sentential form and Sentential formula targeting different places. The guiding policy really is WP:NOUN and "sentential" is not a noun, but in that case we might as well delete {{R from adjective}} and everything in Category:Redirects from adjectives. In the end, the decision we have to make is whether we can add value over and above the search engine in this particular case, and I think we can. (If you take, for example, "prison term" above, "prison" there is "functioning as adjective" or a "modifier" or part of a "compound noun" depending on what grammar you prefer, but nobody would suggest that "prison" is nout a noun. Had it happened to be called "sentence calculus" and or sentence logic" nobody would argue against "sentence" any more than they would argue for "prisonal term" or "prisonal reform", that's just how English evolves and is just a manifestation of English surface grammar). Si Trew (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As an (I hope) uncontroversial edit, I've marked sentential calculus and also sentential logic as {{R from other name}}. Both are in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE of the target, propositional calculus. These edits should not make any difference to this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 12:58, 21 September 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.

Lemmium[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) 17:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page is redirecting to Ununpentium which no longer covers anything related to Lemmium. -- Dane2007 talk 23:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lemmy, and add a blurb on Lemmy's page and the Ununpentium page saying how fans of the Motorhead musician petitioned for the 115th element to be named after him. [3] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lemmy as the petition appears to have been a notable enough thing covered by multiple reliable sources such as the aforementioned The Register. Oddly enough, the metal apparently made it into the universe of No Man's Sky (see here). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Lemmium" isn't mentioned at either place. I don't see why it would, it seems awfully trivial. -- Tavix (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. About as trivial as any other of those silly petitions (including the ones that asked for lemmium to be element 113, 117, or 118). Double sharp (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the multiple petitions, the blurb should stay on Lemmy's page, and not on each of the elements. [4] Whether that warrants a redirect link at all depends on how often this term is searched. I assume it was popular during the month that the articles were released that 4 of the elements would be named after their discoverers so that Lemmium wasn't even in consideration despite having online petitions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If content about the element naming is added to the target article or to Lemmy's, is it likely to stay?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As far as I understand it, (and I do understand it), IUPAC will not allow elements to be named after living people; the chances of Lemmy having an element named after him will only increase after he is dead. (There are a couple who were named before they were dead, but that was before those rules came into place). I realise the petitions etc are in a bit of fun, and we should indeed probably, if they are notable, make an article or add a section on Lemmy's page, but since patently this is trying to hit a moving target as Element 118 gets found (if anyone can ever say these transuranic elements can be found in the fact they decay in microseconds, this is hardly the Gold Rush although physicists posit a plateau of stability beyong Element 119 or 120), this is pure WP:SPECULATION that Lemmy would be dead before there was another petition. When I was young, I said my goal in life was either to have an element named after me or a disease named after me. I have never been a very good chemist or doctor, so my last resort is to catch something very unusual disease so that the disease is named after me. Sometimes they are named after the person who reports them, sometimes after the first patient? Brown's disease, Parkinson's disease, Elephantiasis and so forth. So far I haven't even succeeded in anything a bit of Germolene won't cure. I'm a failure even as a failure. Si Trew (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Si, he is dead! Since December! --BDD (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh bugger, that pisses on my particular bonfire. I quite liked him too. Sorry but I am in Hungary, we only get the news about six months later. Oh soddit, he was such a bloody lovely fella too. Most of the soft metal or heavy metal etc people are. It is only the people who dress in suits and ties and stuff and shave every day you have to worry about (people like me, but at least I know how to wear a suit properly, and what a ticket pocket is for. Condoms, obviously.)
Heavy metal people do it on stage and are the nicest people off. I have never met any of the famous ones but was a roadie to a roadie for a while, as a side job because I can do the electrical bits and pieces, and they always have the greatest respect, not my kinda music (I don't mind the tunes or words, it's just too loud, I have a bit of tinnitus which gets worse over the years) so unlike Spinal Tap I have my amp turned down to 1. I used to be the sparks behind the sparks at the old London Astoria. Never saw them of course, always been just the backroom boy, like I am at Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 21:09, 21 September 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.

Charlotte[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. Tavix is correct; this needs to be a move request. See Talk:Charlotte (disambiguation)#Requested move 20 December 2014 for the previous one, and where a new one should go. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request redirect to disambiguation page. Page views don't reflect the real notability of the name "Charlotte" and the members of European notability who have this name Prisencolin (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. The city isn't the primary topic. The given name is the primary, and has lasted longer than the city. Given the multiple topics, the dab article would be suitable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note: per WP:MALPLACED, if there is consensus that there is no primary topic for "Charlotte", the correct action would be a move of Charlotte (disambiguation) over the redirect, not a retarget to the disambiguation. -- Tavix (talk) 18:53, 20 September 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.

Planetary Diameter[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 Angular diameter#Use in astronomy. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A planetary diameter can refer to just about anything. Redirecting to this specific treatise from Indian Astronomy that happened to have calculated planetary diameters seems to be a stretch. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there is a term called equatorial diameter referring to the diameter of the planet at its equator as a ratio to Earth's diameter. But that term doesn't have a redirect, so there's no point in adding one for this term unless Siddhanta was the one who pioneered the concept or the method of measuring it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Angular diameter (or, possibly, the specific section Angular diameter#Use in astronomy) as that's where readers can learn about the general concepts involved. I'm not sure if it exists or not, but if it does, 'planetary diameter' (sans capitalization) should go there as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete'. I think you have hit the nail on the thumb, CWM. "Planetary Diameter" would be the title of a work, a poem or song or whatnot, some arty-farty stuff, whereas presumably "Planetary diameter" would mean something to do with how big a planet is at its occident or orient. As far as I get it, the diameters of various stellar objects are generally measured as units of apparent solid angle in steradians and so on. For example, I was looking at "stupid quiz answers" idling the other day and one of the quizmaster's questions was "what is the largest planet visible in the sky?" and the "stupid" answer was "The moon". Now, this is rather more complicated than it seems. Leaving aside clever-stupid QI answers like "The Earth, which you can see in the sky in a mirage, or when you are in the sky on a flight, you can see the Earth", first you have to accept that a satellite is a planet (for if not, you have to define what a planet is, all in an instant answer): Second, if you look at the sky, the largest extraterrestrial object you see is definitely the moon (and it also has the largest light magnitude, and all kinds of other things). I don't know what the answer is, because I assume it means visible to the naked eye, which would be Jupiter, which is also the largest planetary object in the solar system, and was certainly known to the Romans and so on, obviously. Saturn is smaller and even to the Romans was smaller. The moon, to me, is not a stupid answer, it is, depending on what you mean by "largest visible", is the right answer and not a stupid answer at all. With a telescope? There are probably planets in other solar systems that are visible and larger if you are up Mauna Kea or something with a powerful telescope. The answer is not stupid, the question is stupid. Also spracht Wikipedia. User:Jimp might be able to have ideas of this as the Lord High Immemorial of the {{convert}} templates. Si Trew (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Planetary Diameter does not appear to be a treatise title or chapter title, at least according to Surya_Siddhanta#Astronomy. However, the topic of planetary diameters can be made into a subject given enough secondary sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it can't. All searches I have done do not have "Planetary diameter" in them. Sure, a search will give me diameters of planets in metres and such, which is not what you said as the ratio of the planet's diameter to that of the earth (as, for example, a parsec is a relative unit or a light year is an absolute unit, or perhaps a relative one, because it depends on what you think a "year" is, but since a year is defined in terms of a second and a second is defined in terms of the wavelength of light in vacuum etc etc of a certain isotrope of strontium, and various other measures and so on, all we have as an absolute is the speed of light and the International Standard Kilogram and everything else is derived from those.
What we scientists have not done yet is kinda worked out why things have mass at all, and silly physicists keep trying to introduce things like Higgs bosons and stuff to add mass to things, where it is quite obvious to me that mass is just what happens when light is too tired to go whizzing around and has a rest and becomes a bit dark, thus this is the rest mass odflight when it becomes tired and things get dark and so when light says "it don't matter" it becomes dark matter. If you look in any light bulb, when it burns out and stops being light, it gets full up with "dark", the light bulb becomes "dark", and that is where all the mass goes, to make the light bulb "dark". Pretty obvious, really. Some people say it is the reaction of tungsten in air penetrating the glass and reactions at its nucleation sites, but I tell you, it is the infusion of dark into the light, and dark has all the mass, especially if it is a Dark Mass.
For if my postulates are not correct, this "Planetary diameter" should also be incorrect, Q. E. D., and go likewise as an absolutely nonsense term to look up. Si Trew (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the term is incorrect then replace with the correct one. I'm just saying if there's enough coverage for the terms "diameter of a planet", "planet diameter", "planet's diameter", "equatorial diameter" along with some history of how people have calculated them, as with Axial tilt, then a new article can be considered. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but then someone has to create one. I am not qualified to do so, as you can see from my guide to basic physics above, so who else will? Really what you are stating is that it should be "deleted, to encourage the creation of the article". Replacing it is not on the list, we have keep, redirect, delete. Si Trew (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage creation of the article. Si Trew (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it helps the discussion at all, the redirect was originally created to support this addition of a link to an article title ("Planetary Diameters in the Surya-Siddhantha") used as a citation in the yojana article. Since no articles now link to this redirect (I removed the link in the citation, as creating a title with only part of the title linked seems inappropriate), I think deleting it is a very low-cost solution. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Angular diameter#Use in astronomy where we have coverage of the term. Wouldn't recommend wikilinking the current target at all, since the "planetary diameters" section there is sourced to a fringe journal. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:08, 24 September 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.

Curry Street[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) 10:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the target has never mentioned Curry Street. There are a few other Curry Streets which get trivial mentions in other articles, plus a WP:PTM (J. Curry Street). Search results seem like the best option here. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 09:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree. There's no one location that's a clear primary target, and people can just search. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Searches bring up actual streets from various cities, or businesses, all of which are non-notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague per User:AngusWOOF's findings --Lenticel (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wilmslow Road in Rusholme, Manchester was known to students as the Curry Mile for its huge number of cheap curry houses beloved of students. Brick Lane has been similarly so called when, with no racism just fact, the Jewish diaspora that largely lived there, dispersed as diaspora do, and were filled by the Asian British community that filled their place (I bought my wedding suit on Petticoat Lane Market just off Brick Lane), and that was never known as "Curry Street" as far as I know, but could easily have been especially when all the streets around what were the London Docks were named after the spices and so on taken from the docks, so that there is Ginger Lane, Spice Street, Onion Road and so on, it would not be surprising there were a Curry Street in east London, or in any other city (also because of transliterations of various other languages) so this is so bloody ambiguous that it does more harm than good, hardly anyone will expect CS Route 209. Mr. Curry was the neighbour of Paddington Bear but they didn't live in Curry Street. Si Trew (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Gets no use and isn't mentioned at the target. At one point, SR202 did traverse a short segment on South Curry Street (you can see it on the [very outdated] map on the article: it's the easternmost segment that runs N-S within the city). The route was changed to get rid of that roundabout loop, though, back in 1999. Why the map (AND the KML file) are so seriously out of date is a mystery to me. At least the text description of the route looks right. — Gorthian (talk) 04:57, 23 September 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.

Mairi Sairasu[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) 10:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Cyrus is American and has no affinity with any language except for English. -- Tavix (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Prisencolin: could you explain your rationale then? Is it a nickname? -- Tavix (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I got bored and decided to troll, apologies. It's not even clear that "Mairi Sairasu" even refers to Miley Cyrus at all.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete inappropriate Japanese romanization. Unless there's a notable Japanese TV show called Mairi Sairasu, but I don't think so. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like a clear-cut case of WP:RFOREIGN. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Japanese Wikipedia has ja:マイリー・サイラス, "Ma-i-ri- re- Sa-ra- su-" (but in first sentence Japanese as Miley Ray Cyrus, not linked; in Japanese the last "u" at ends of words is present but very subtle, so that "so desu", "it is" (roughly, can mean "yes, it is" or "yes, that's right" the u is very very subtle to an English ear but present). Since this is not even a faithful back-romanization of the katakana I think it can be safely deleted. It has been a long time since I did Katakana but this does not conform with the Japanese Katakana for the name as a romanization, the '"re-" (Ray) is missing. Were it to link anywhere, it should be to Miley Ray Cyrus, but I guess a double bot wossname took that out. Unfortunately that is the problem with Wikidata, that one cannot link this term to the redirect term etc, I pointed this out many years ago there is not a one-to-one relationship between languages, but was basically told to stuff it. Mairu re sairasu and variants are red. The distinction of L and R for Japanese and Chinese speakers is genuine if stereotypical (I think we have an article about it but I can't find it, it's not at L-R distinction, just as I cannot hear the distinction between ő and ó and ö and o in Hungarian: I can say them and type them and understand them, but I cannot hear the difference, and because I can't hear them I can't repeat them. Si Trew (talk) 20:07, 21 September 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.

David Montano[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. Given that a Google search of this redirect shows that there are numerous real people with this name completely unconnected with the shooting, I'm going to endorse Tavix's reasoning that the person isn't known by this name combination and delete it now given the WP:BLP issues. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to Global Mall at the Crossings#Movie theater attack, where I retargeted a couple other redirects. This one, however, is an implausible search term as there's zero evidence of this person being known by his middle + last name (his full name is "Vincente David Montano"). -- Tavix (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: could you please provide evidence of Vincente Montano being referred to by his middle + last name? Without any evidence of that, it's not a "cheap" redirect, but an obscure "synonym", if you could even call it that. -- Tavix (talk) 06:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I don't need to, the fact that the redirect exists makes it a cheap redirect. Unless there is some higher use for "David Montano", it should be redirected to Vincente Montano. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you do. Without evidence of Vincenete Montano going by David Montano, this redirect is literally nonsense. By the way, WP:CHEAP isn't an argument for keeping redirects, it's a philosophy about redirects. It's analogous to arguing for an article to to be kept because you're an inclusionist. It's also the reason why you won't find WP:CHEAP at WP:RFD#KEEP. Since you can't bother yourself to prove usage for your redirect, can you come up with a purpose for your redirect or perhaps one of the reasons from WP:RFD#KEEP? -- Tavix (talk) 14:35, 20 September 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.

Singer Selena Gomez[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) 10:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a title or a stage name for Selena Gomez, just an occupation. No other Selena Gomez notables to disambiguate. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:03, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do know what you mean. I'm just thinking that even if we always had honorific status titles, 'Singer' would be a particularly silly one. We might as well start going with 'Baker', 'Butcher', 'Guinea Pig Owner', 'Cartoonist', 'Former Juggler', 'Celebrity Impressionist', and God-only-knows what else. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:39, 23 September 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_September_20&oldid=1138581351"