Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 4
May 6 >

May 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 5, 2018.

Fucking anal[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's oddly worded: people may refer to anal sex as "fucking anally" or "anal fucking," but I've never heard the phrase "fucking anal," and we don't have a similar redirect for "fucking oral" to oral sex (not that I believe any of those should be created as redirects). I think the biggest reason to delete is that is is only one letter off from the movie title Fucking Amal, which could cause embarrassment if people were looking up a (non-pornographic) movie and accidentally went to a page on anal sex. Raymond1922 (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2018 (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.

Morechella bispora[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be typo for "Morchella ...", but also no mention of anything "... bispora" at target article. No evidence that this is a useful redirect. PamD 09:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I've made a typo, it should be spelled Morchella. I don't see how to rename a page, can you do this for me? It was for the biography of the first person to discover it in Canada, Alfred Brooker Klugh, https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Klugh-50. I took the term from the book "Essays on the Early History of Plant Pathology and Mycology in Canada", 1994, by Ralph H Estey, page 264, https://books.google.fr/books?id=_tstGOViLLsC&pg=PA264. MycoBank gives it as a synonym for Verpa bohemica, http://www.mycobank.org/BioloMICS.aspx?TableKey=14682616000000067&Rec=232007. PhilipBroughtonMills (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • This typo version should still be deleted: I've moved the redirect to the correct spelling, which does not need to be deleted. Am discussing with PBM above about getting it mentioned in the target article. PamD 10:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this redirect which is now R from move and not required. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: procedural relist, redirect was not tagged for most of the discussion due to a move.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've reverted PamD's move of the redirect because it caused the RfD tag to be moved to Morchella bispora instead of Morechella bispora. The tag is now back at the correct location. Please do not move redirects like this—the proper course of action would be to simply create the correctly titled redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Morchella bispora has already been created per above. --Qetuth (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2018 (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.

Emma Duncan[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. Not opposed to a dab being created, but as there are no actual Emma Duncan articles, the WP:REDLINK wins out. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is not mentioned anywhere in The Economist, misleading given that there are multiple Emma Duncans. czar 22:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine to recreate if/when those exist with enough sourcing, but right now none of them do? czar 10:08, 10 May 2018 (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.

Khangate[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible BLP violation, not mention in either his article or the article on his premiership Doug Weller talk 20:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In January 2017, Canada's Ethics Commissioner, Mary Dawson, began an investigation into Trudeau for a vacation he and his family took to Aga Khan IV's private island in the Bahamas.[185][186] The Ethics Commissioner's report, released in December 2017, found that Trudeau had violated four provisions of the Conflict of Interest Act.[187]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbq430 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google is showing extremely few results, most to the Daily Caller to the phrase. Not enough there to even justify that it has a wide enough usage to be a broad search term that could indirectly reference the above section. --Masem (t) 13:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find evidence that this was more than one journalists failed attempt to come up with a hashtag. My search found just as many (external) hits for an event involving Bush as it did for Trudeau, and slightly more for the Trump Khangate. Doesn't look like the term got wide acceptance or recognition for any of the three Khangates so far. Note though that the term appears in two "lists of scandals" here (both unsourced) making Wikipedia the biggest single user of the term. --Qetuth (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm only seeing not-so-mainstream news sites like The Daily Caller. Otherwise it's about people named Khan gate-crashing events, or physical gates like Ghulam Khan Gate or Amanulla Khan Gate AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it seems like this term simply never caught on.--65.94.254.248 (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2018 (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.

Template:Tpv5-n and others[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirects. Septrillion (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2018 (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.

Cross namespace[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. We should not redirect a page and then nominate it at RfD as if that has been the target. That being said, these do seem made in error-ish, and there is some desire to delete, so taking it as good-faith delete that, even for their original targets, we'd still be here. Happy to undo if there is disagreement. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for these cross-namespace redirects UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've speedily deleted (WP:CSD#G6) the football stubs one as the history shows that was unequivocally created in error in the wrong namespace and the redirect resulted from it being fixed. I'm still thinking about the other two, but they were not clearly created in error and so speedy deletion does not apply. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all 3 (remaining). I can't think of a reason these redirects could be useful. --Qetuth (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2018 (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.

Holcomb C3-R[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Unopposed. C3-R is relevant, but Holcomb was never present in the target. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

brand name, not mentioned in linked article. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 5 May 2018 (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.

Danger opportunity[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 G7 by Fastily. -- Tavix (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase is ambiguous in nature and could describe forms of risk. To redirect it to an article about a foreign language translation could be seen as a WP:SURPRISE and also forces readers to go to a specific article when Wikipedia's search function could provide readers better assistance. Steel1943 (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2018 (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.

Antimaterials[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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscovered antimaterials, not notable. Might as well have these for every material documented on Wikipedia... –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Antiberyllium and all heavier species, as current science doesn't even conceive of a method to synthesize these elements in a stable form (we can't even make positive-matter beryllium). Also delete Antilithium, as it hasn't been synthesized yet. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Created en masse by Nicole Sharp back in 2016 without any justifications except for Antiwater which was created back in March by another editor. Not used in any reliable sources or discussed in the article. They won't be missed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as exceptionally unlikely search terms. As has been stated above, it's just within reach to synthesize antiparticles, but the anti-elements listed here are far off. Richard0612 23:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think we know where this is heading, but none of these were appropriately tagged, so in the interest of procedure, I'm relisting them. I've tagged them all.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Synthesised or not, there appears to be significant sources speculating about the creation and properties of (some of) these antimaterials - A search for Anticarbon for example gets all sorts of interesting articles, and is conceivably something an intersted reader might head to Wikipedia to learn more about. On the other hand, some of these terms are primarily used to mean "absense of -" not "antimatter version of -", particularly Antichlorine, making that particular redirect inappropriate. --Qetuth (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lithium through Nitrogen, plus Water, as currently discussed topics in science media and hence plausible search terms.
Delete or Change target for Oxygen and Chlorine, maybe Sodium and Sulphur also, as antimatter is not the only/primary meaning.
Delete other elements as too soon. --Qetuth (talk) 10:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind sharing some examples of where those forms of antimatter are "currently discussed topics in science media"? My own understanding is that synthesis of antiberyllium (and hence all heavier antimatter elements) is generally considered impossible. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, it seems I messed up my googling on these. On reading closer the articles I'd found, most were primarily about antihydrogen and mentioned others only in passing such as in this Slate article. Several were copies or coverage of Gerald Jacksons work, such as this, which seems more fringy today than it did last night (I think I was fooled by talks he did being hosted at .edu domains?). What remains is many quora / yahoo answers questions and article / forum comments, which show only that these may be plausible search terms by the curious. --Qetuth (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2018 (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.

Kevinism[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 German Kevinism. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:07, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expression is not mentioned in the target article, this page should be deleted. WWGB (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2018 (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.

CCAV[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 15#CCAV

AJ-100[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. Killiondude (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. TheSandDoctor Talk 01:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or mention. This refers to the "Architects' Journal list of 100 best UK practices", and seems to be regarded as a fairly prestigious thing so it would definitely be appropriate to mention it in the article. However the only places I can see a reference currently is at PDP London and Page\Park Architects, two architecture firms that have won the award, but neither is a suitable place to retarget to. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The journal itself appears notable, but I'm wary of getting into minute details of the publication's projects. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2018 (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/2018_May_5&oldid=1138582492"