Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 2

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

December 2

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 2, 2015.

Occasionability

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 keep "occasionalist", "occasionalistic", and "ocassionalists", and retarget "occasionally" to occasion, without prejudice against speedy renomination (ping Tavix). Unanimous consensus is that this is redirect spam created by Neelix but some items were contested. Deryck C. 17:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC. Not all variants of the word "occasion" refer to occasionalism. I've redirected occasions and occasional to occasion, but I believe these are too implausible to be useful or helpful at either target. -- Tavix (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "occasionalist", "occasionalistic", and "ocassionalists" as "[c]losely related words" per WP:RPURPOSE; redirect "occasionally" to occasion; delete the rest as implausible. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all as another block of Neelix junk. (I thought we were going to come up with a way of not having to go through this....) Mangoe (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We did, here. The problem with this set is that some of them could be considered helpful, so I wanted to take them here so people could pick out the ones they wanted to keep (as seen above). The result will probably end up the same or similar, but the extra scrutiny certainly wouldn't hurt. -- Tavix (talk) 20:46, 3 December 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.

Ajared

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 all Beeblebrox (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hinged doors are the only things that can be ajar. Ajar is a disambiguation page with no relation to the word and the variants are just silly. -- Tavix (talk) 22:55, 2 December 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.

Hinges a door

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 all. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Totally implausible redirect—nobody is ever going to search for this, nobody is ever going to link to this, and even in the unlikely event someone does search for it even the stupidest reader will be able to figure out that what they're looking for is at Hinge and Door.  ‑ Iridescent 22:33, 2 December 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.

Let do

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 Beeblebrox (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vague phrase that doesn't refer to "Laissez-faire" in English. It's also poor grammar since it's a literal translation from French. Whatever the case, my searches do not come up with anything related to the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 22:25, 2 December 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.

Con Keegan

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 (including Jon-Leigh Pritchard). Deryck C. 17:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, these are non-notable, local-level, Manchester-area politicians. There's a mention for some of these, but it's not significant enough to support a viable redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 21:51, 2 December 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.

Carpet Book

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. Deryck C. 23:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This make no sense. To me, a carpet book would be a book of carpet samples. -- Tavix (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not only would this primarily refer to a book of carpet samples (for which there is no article completely on point), but Google suggests a different book, The Carpet People, as the novel most closely associated with this phrase. As that's just a partial title match, there's no point in retargeting. I found no information connecting this phrase to Harry Potter. Apparently this is a term used by a few fans to refer to a pirated copy of the book leaked before the official release date. While the leak is covered in the article, this term is so obscure that it doesn't seem worth keeping as a redirect to the current article. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the Carpet People book may be closer it is not a great match and the most likely target books of carpet samples is not an article.--72.0.200.133 (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly speedily (though it's old enough that speedy probably can't apply). This redirect was originally created as the result of a pagemove of content that was later deleted via AfD. The redirect should have been speedy-deleted at the same time rather than being repointed. Rossami (talk) 19:05, 3 December 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.

Trophy Club Municipal Utility District 1

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 as unopposed. @Beeblebrox: I'm not a big fan of permanent protection on anything but wouldn't oppose if you want to salt it yourself. Deryck C. 17:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This term is not mentioned at the target page, which is not surprising as a small-town utility board is generally not going to be a notable subject. As this has also been a sort of magnet for what looks like several years of disruptive editing and potential WP:BLP violations, I propose permanently WP:SALTing it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:38, 2 December 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 G

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 FG. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 11:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FG is not a redirect to Family Guy, no reason this should be Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comment: Actually, I think Lenticel is correct, so I am going to change my vote to retarget to FG as a plausible misspelling/ variant. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:09, 3 December 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.

Σκάκι

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. WP:RFOREIGN is only an essay but it seems to reflect the general sentiment of RfD participants quite well. Deryck C. 17:10, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTDIC and WP:RFOREIGN The Traditionalist (talk) 17:13, 2 December 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.

Aesthete

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) 21:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are mistargeted. Suggestions? Legacypac (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"a person who has or professes to have refined sensitivity toward the beauties of art or nature. 2. a person who affects great love of art, music, poetry, etc., and indifference to practical matters. Also, esthete." Compare to "Aestheticism (also the Aesthetic Movement) is an intellectual and art movement supporting the emphasis of aesthetic values more than social-political themes for literature, fine art, music and other arts.[1][2] It was particularly prominent in Europe during the 19th century, but contemporary critics are also associated with the movement, such as Harold Bloom, who has recently argued against projecting social and political ideology onto literary works, which he believes has been a growing problem in humanities departments over the last century." Legacypac (talk) 17:56, 2 December 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.

Aestheticizations

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. Deryck C. 23:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix redirect for an obscure word. This word (in singular form-thanks) is used in the title of at least two other Wikipedia Articles that are not about the style of art discussed at the target. Legacypac (talk) 03:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have Aestheticisations, Estheticisations and Estheticizations all → Aestheticism too. I'm not sure the largely US (and Canadian?) spelling without the initial "A" should then have the "-isation" form, since the "-ise" form was abolished in preference to "-ize" in the same spelling reform (i.e. Webster's), I think. ("Ae" + "ize" is fine.) Si Trew (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:53, 2 December 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.

13 November 2015

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) 20:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is trying to make this attack have a 9/11 style name. Legacypac (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added the redirect for "13/11" (I didn't make the others) during a time when the title "13/11" was listed on the attack's page as an alternate name. I'm fine if you delete it. --Monochrome_Monitor 22:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac:

Americans would likely search using 11/13 attacks and not 13/11 attacks due to the American date order. -- Tavix (talk) 18:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:50, 2 December 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.

Red aspect

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 Railway signal#Aspects and indications. --BDD (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As best as I can see he invented this term from some of the meanings of the mountain's name. The term seems more closely related to signal lights, but I suggest delete as confusing and let someone recreate if useful. Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have applications in traffic lights too. Legacypac (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we don't have Yellow aspect nor Green aspect nor White aspect. Si Trew (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We could, though, that usage unambiguously refers to railway signalling. And as far as I understand it (not very well) railway signals are never referred to as "red light" "green light" etc, the signal is referred to as displaying a particular aspect, which is often combinations of different coloured lights, so hatnoting from red light isn't quite proper. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we do often put these kind of things in a "see also" section; those outside the railway industry ) may not use that term (from my statisitical sample of 1, I should say "red signal" is more common, but Red signal is, er, red and Red Signal is a stub article about a 1941(?!) Bollywood film. A "green aspect" apparently is sometimes used to mean consideration for the natural environment, but not enough to deserve anything on Wikipedia (or even Wiktionary) about it. I presume the reason for "aspect" is that it's not necessarily a light source (could be a railway semaphore signal). Si Trew (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I believe that's correct, and I see your point about having this in a see-also section. Railway signalling is considerably more complicated than just stop and go, that's my concern, but I guess we're not here to educate users on how to drive a train. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Railway signalling does that more than Railway signal, so perhaps perversely I change my mind:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Which is the most appropriate new target? Deryck C. 15:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 15:45, 2 December 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.

HP&

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. Deryck C. 17:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is more trouble than it's worth. Every Harry Potter title begins "Harry Potter and" so it's a WP:PTM for any title in the series. -- Tavix (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't create redirects based on obscure typos like that, only common misspellings. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:46, 5 December 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.

Bed dancers

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 without prejudice against recreation of "bed dancer" because I don't know how strongly Ivanvector feels about his "keep". Deryck C. 17:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These terms specially mean dancing on a bed, which is NOT lap dancing (a contact dance). The bed is just an alternative to a hard stage. Retarget to ?? Legacypac (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article is wrong. I see bed dancing as closer to pole dancing. Legacypac (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I searched bed dancer and can't verify such a term exists for lap dancing or such an activity as a form of lap dancing. Bed Dance is a film. Urban Dictionary suggests this is just moving around on your bed to music. It could easily be slang for intercourse too. I removed the term bed dance(r)from the target article lead as unsourced. Legacypac (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 14:43, 2 December 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.

Hdph

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. Deryck C. 17:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:R#D2. This acronym does not refer to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. It does, however, refer to a few other things (none of which have articles) and I feel like someone would more than likely be looking for something else and not the book. -- Tavix (talk) 07:28, 2 December 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.

Harry Potter and the Deadly Veil

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. Deryck C. 17:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows#Choice of title, Rowling mentions three possible titles for the book. None of these were considered as possible titles, so they are unsubstantiated guesses at what the title was going to be. As such they should be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." -- Tavix (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. These were legitimate redirects to "Forthcoming seventh Harry Potter book" (or whatever it was called) before the actual title was announced; the names were all registered as trademarks by Bloomsbury shortly after #6 was published, so it was reasonable at the time to assume they were the prospective titles. Nowadays, however, nobody is ever going to search on them. ‑ Iridescent 20:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so Weak delete per Iridescent. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - guesses on what the title could have been; nobody is actually going to search for these, even if looking for alt titles for Deathly Hallows. Any hardcore fan that knows these titles or stumbles across them would easily know the name of the seventh HP book. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:30, 4 December 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_December_2&oldid=1079637891"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy