Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 17

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

November 17

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 17, 2015.

Uruguay frog

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. @BDD: I think this RfD can be cited as justification for deleting the similar itmes you mention from the Neelix list. JohnCD (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the target article were a list of just frogs, these are misleading and unlikely search terms since they're singular. "Uruguay frog" and "Malaysia frog" imply specific species; the "Frog of" and "Frog in" forms sound like broken English, but perhaps suggest a national symbol. --BDD (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please note There are additional redirects created by Neelix of the forms "Foo frog", "Fooian frog", "Frog of Foo", "Frog in Foo", "Foo amphibian", "Fooian amphibian", "Amphibian of Foo", and "Amphibian in Foo", which can be found on this list. Assuming consensus to delete here, I will delete the additional redirects listed there as well. --BDD (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, including all the Foo nonsense. I have not dived into his frog redirects yet but there are around 20 redirect names per frog in each of many cases. Legacypac (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2015 (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.

Wastie Deblois

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) 18:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per either WP:XY or WP:R#D2. There are two people that fit this [middle name], [surname] pattern: George Wastie Deblois and Stephen Wastie Deblois. I don't see any evidence that any of them were known by their middle names and it'd be silly to disambiguate this per WP:PTM, so I think deletion is the only solution here. -- Tavix (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, just to eliminate the thought before someone thinks it: I'm certain this isn't a compound surname. Stephen's parents weren't named [X "Wastie Deblois"] and every biography I found on the two referred to them solely as "Deblois", not "Wastie Deblois." -- Tavix (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and could be combined with my nom of Wastie below. Legacypac (talk) 00:57, 18 November 2015 (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.

Pieingly

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 WP:A11 by Versageek ; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially made-up words, barely attested outside of Wikipedia mirrors. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2015 (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.
  • Note - I can't see the history but someone's been pretending to be a Neelix sockpuppet and creating nonsense redirects over the last couple days, often using other characters from ST:VOY as usernames. If the user who created these matches, should be blocked on sight. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, and disturbing. As for these two, they really shouldn't've been eligible for A-anything deletion, as they weren't articles, but I suppose it was the obvious outcome. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector, these were Neelix creations from 2009. Could you refer me to any of those fake accounts? I'd like to know what to look for. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pathfinder (Command & Conquer)

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) 22:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article. Unclear what this is referring to. BDD (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2015 (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.

Juggernaut (Adept)

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) 22:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target article. Probably too detailed to merit coverage. BDD (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2015 (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.

One-Handed

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) 22:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is only a partial-title match for the target article. Even if searched, it's likely to WP:ASTONISH. BDD (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2015 (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.

Dee dee dee

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 1#Dee dee dee

Isis Pharmaceuticals 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 retarget Hexal to Novartis, Able Laboratories to Able Labs, Catalytica to DSM (company), and Jelfa SA to Sanitas; delete the rest. --BDD (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject isn't listed at the target page. The list is limited to only companies with existing articles, so any redirect from a company page to the list is inappropriate. ChemNerd (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also including the following redirects for the same reason: ChemNerd (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I expanded the listing of these others from just an unformatted list of links. Si Trew (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Si Trew (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We should not be sending people to a page that does not give them info on what they search. As an aside I believe Isis Pharma changed or is changing its name due to unsavoury misappropriation of the name Isis. Legacypac (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed:
  • Oyedele, Akin (17 November 2015). "ISIS Pharmaceuticals is thinking about changing its name". Business Insider. Retrieved 18 November 2015.
  • "ISIS Pharmaceuticals 'may look to change name'". euronews.com. 17 November 2015. Retrieved 18 November 2015.
  • La Monica, Paul R. (17 November 2015). "Isis Pharma considers name change after Paris attacks". cnn.com. Retrieved 18 November 2015.
...and lots of other RS, presumably ultimately the same story from a press release. Some background here:
This would probably be worth a mensch were it an article, although perhaps even then WP:TOOSOON. I might turn it into a stub. Si Trew (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
that is all new coverage I was unaware of. I read about the problems they were having in 2013 or 2014 when ISIS/ISIL took on that name and became famous for crazy stuff. Legacypac (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the target pages do not contain information on the subjects, so the redirects are not appropriate. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally its should have content on the company. But in the interim redirect is most appropriate as it is a legitimate name and its better on the list page.Lihaas (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2015 (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.

Womens Support Network

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 delete, G8. --BDD (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds or thousands of organizations with these (correctly spelled) words in their name. I found Black, Bi, Native WSN so these are not good redirects Legacypac (talk) 09:43, 17 November 2015 (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.

Ticket booth

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 to delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This means a number of similar things, including box office but there is no box office at the zoo or the subway. All box offices are ticket booths but not all ticket booths are box offices. Maybe box office become the redirect and ticket booth the target with some expansion to cover other ticket sales places? Legacypac (talk) 05:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose reversal the article at the destination is about box office, and the physcial ticket booth is treated as a subtopic. It cannot be reversed. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was translating some architecture article on a railway station some time ago – it might have been Casa-Port – and was amazed we don't have ticket hall. I realise a hall and a booth are not the same thing, but we are surprisingly lacking in articles about places that sell tickets, presumably because they're really not very notable in their own right. 'But some ticket halls are notable architecture in their own right, I think, to the extent that they remain (with some other use) after the thing it sold tickets for has gone. I'm not sure the same thing could be said of a ticket booth. Si Trew (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2015 (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.

In which the existence of God and the real distinction of mind and body, are demonstrated

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) 14:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The target book is subtitled " In which the existence of God and the immortality of the soul are demonstrated" which is not what this really long pointless redirect says. Legacypac (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<content warning: librarian/cataloging jargon> In most cases, we don't have to, though we often do. It can especially be important for modern books with a catchy main title and a more descriptive subtitle (example). Typically it would go in a MARC field 246, which with proper coding would have it indexed as an alternative title.
That said, books were very different back then. Since they were often purchased unbound (and later bound, if desired, at the owner's expense), the title page served as a sort of advertisement. Modern books usually rely on dust jackets for this function. So a phrase like this was really telling a reader what to expect. It didn't really function as a title, though subtitles as we know them did exist at this time (e.g., Twelfth Night, or What You Will).
tldr: Right vote, wrong rationale. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see my rare attempt at brevity backfired. They don't primarily index.... I've been wanting a subtitle= attribute in {{cite book}} for a long time. Si Trew (talk) 00:05, 18 November 2015 (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.

Tender mother

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 Latin phrases (P)#pia mater. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pia mater is medieval Latin meaning "tender mother." but no one would think to search for an article about eyes by the latin meaning of the phase. Nothing links to it except the list of Neelix redirects. Can't see how this redirect will help anyone and it will pop up when people search mother or tender both of which have nothing to do with the target here. Legacypac (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Naively I expected it would go to Mary (mother of Jesus), although I can't find a Bible text (not a crib) that uses it. Si Trew (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2015 (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.

F-hyphen-hyphen-hyphen

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 speedily deleted by Anthony Bradbury. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: completely implausible search term. -- Tavix (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do have F***, F**k (but not F**K), F*ck, F*CK. F*ck → Fuck but F*CK → Fuck (film), which I have marked as {{R from stylization}}.
I see Legacypac has taken it to CSD as WP:A11 but I can't see that succeeding since it's not an article. Si Trew (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but since this is the obvious outcome, I don't think it's worth disputing. --BDD (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2015 (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 highest-grossing lollywood films

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) 21:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is implausible per the reason in the deletion log. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Pakistani film industry is also known as Lollywood and this redirect is necessary. Anjana LarkaTalk ✉ 05:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To draw a parallel, we have List of highest-grossing Bollywood films ( → List_of_highest-grossing_Indian_films#Highest_grossing_Hindi_films) but not List of highest-grossing bollywood films. We have neither List of highest-grossing Hollywood films nor List of highest-grossing hollywood films.
Too soon for stats to make any sense, no incoming links outside deletion discussions. Si Trew (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The listing at SCV is for the speedily deleted page that was there before the redirect. Peter James (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2015 (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.

Modern Painter

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 modern artists. JohnCD (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes it is a singular to a plural but the target is a book about modern painters and the redirect could be many things including many people's job. Legacypac (talk) 04:55, 17 November 2015 (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.

Doctor Tom (wrestler)

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 both. JohnCD (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I eliminated a DAB at Dr Tom and targeted Dr Tom and Doctor Tom at the wrestler who used that as his stage name. These were on the DAB to justify it. Neelix creation. Legacypac (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2015 (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.

N-8 School

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) 14:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't describe what an "N-8 school" is, so someone wanting to know what one is will end up disappointed. I wasn't able to find an answer anywhere... -- Tavix (talk) 04:34, 17 November 2015 (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.

Amurka

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) 14:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I see no evidence of a connection between "Amurka" and the United States. Stats are minimal. -- Tavix (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2015 (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.

Republic of Egypt

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) -- Tavix (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convert this redirect page to disambiguation page? There is Republic of Egypt (1953–58) and Arab Republic of Egypt, official name of Egypt. George Ho (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2015 (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.

Gentleman-like

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 the first, delete the others. JohnCD (talk) 14:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just bad english and highly implausible search terms Legacypac (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2015 (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.

Wastie

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) 14:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence this man went by his middle name exclusively Legacypac (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it is a rare surname [1] but used as a second/middle name here. We would not direct Fitzgerald at JFK's article, which is what this is doing. Legacypac (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2015 (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.

Master, of God

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) 14:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The name Gabriel means "God is my strength" but these redirects are too general to be worthwhile. Other names in the Bible also mean God is my Strength and versions of this phrase are used all over the Bible. If someone is looking for info on the angel they might like to know the meaning of his name, but not the other way around. I can't see anything in the target about Master of God - and that implies the angel is over God which is heresy. Legacypac (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2015 (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.

Muff (hair)

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 by Beeblebrox and Drmies respectively. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you know enough about female anatomy to type these search terms complete with brackets you would not use it. No inbound wikilinks. Adds nothing to the topic and the term Muff is not used at the target. If this is useful then a whole raft of informal terms for female genitals should be redirected like this. Not listed at Muff either. Legacypac (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2015 (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.

Boasting (disambiguation)

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) 18:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one boasting entry, and no particular reason to redirect to the rather meager Boast (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2015 (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/2015_November_17&oldid=1138580674"