< April 17
April 19 >

April 18

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 18, 2014.

JonTron

[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 how often these pages have been deleted, I don't know if we really want an article on this guy, but there's definitely consensus that we shouldn't redirect to just one of his projects. Additionally, I believe WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies in spirit, if not precisely by the letter. --BDD (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not redirect to Game Grumps, as it is only a small part of his life and career and Jon has expressed the same thing here. I say that we just delete the page outright and topic ban any article for a year, or until someone can make a properly sourced article. Redirecting him to Game Grumps permanently with the indef full protection will tie him to Game Grumps when he has nothing to do with it anymore, and is only a small part of his career. TheMesquito (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC) –Copied here from Talk:JonTron. 22:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out the text that was here prior to the discussion happening on Talk:JonTron being copied over here. I have done this since the last two comments have not added any new information for the discussion, and it was essentially stating that the RFD tag could not be placed on JonTron, which has now been resolved. TheMesquito, I hope you don't mind. Steel1943 (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind at all, I'll just remove the striked text TheMesquito (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]
I don't think a redirect to Normal Boots will work since the current AFD for that is clearly leaning towards deletion. Based on that it appears the only options are to keep it here or remove entirely.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jon Jafari
[edit]

I retargeted this back to Game Grumps for the time being since Normal Boots was deleted. I have no real opinion on this but if JonTron is deleted this one probably should be too.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)--67.70.140.89 (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2014 (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.

Manmohan Tiwari

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 29#Manmohan Tiwari

360 Pensacola Beach

[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) 19:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was listed, but now removed as it has become apparent that it does not meet the list criterea. No alternative target, which is unlikely to change as the installation no longer exists. 49.230.83.117 (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2014 (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.

Commonism

[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. No clear consensus formed after a month, and doubtful it will become clearer any time soon. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination on behalf of Chricho (talk), who misnominated this at AfD with the following rationale:

Why the page should be deleted“Commonism” is a distinct term not identically with “communism” and frequently used by commons-activists. This is a source explicitly stating that these are distinct concepts. But it should not be my duty to prove that: The word “commonism” is not even mentioned in the article communism, this redirect is an unsourced claim that these two things are identical. Sideways713 (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think they are two separate ideologies. I think it is just a neologism from one professor at one univeristy who has made a nice living out of it but obvously hasn't caught on, and the redirect should stand. We might as well redirect it to Luddite or Socialism or Common land or Commons or House of Commons or anywhere else. As for the typo, if you touch type you shouldn't miss like that because you rest your index fingers on the F and the J (which have indents for the purpose of you finding them without looking) and use different fingers for U (index finger) and O (ring finger) but on small devices that people use these days, it is very easy to miss. Si Trew (talk) 08:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually here's a test. I don't use that awful predictive typing thing on mobile phones, I just make loads of my own mistakes instead, but if you type "commonism" into your mobile phone what do you get? Si Trew (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an appropriate device to test that on, but remember that is not only touch typists but two-finger typists, people with non-qwerty keyboards and non-native speakers as well. I guess it's also a plausible mistake for someone using speech input. Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting that it was implausible: quite the opposite. I was saying if you touch-type on a QWERTY (or AZERTY) it would be hard t miss like that: BDD said the U and the O are are close together, but they are not adjacent and one shouldn't miss in that manner if touch-typing properly. (Incidentally it's hard to touch-type properly for Wikipedia editing because of all the special symbols one has to insert.)
But all the various other input methods make it a plausible typo. Certainly yes with speech input it would seem to be very easy to miss, either that the speaker's dialect makes it "wrong" or the limitations of speech detection software. If either Hoover or his stenographer managed to say or record "communism" as "commonism" then the current redirect seems more likely than an idea by a professor that does not seem to have been widely repeated. Si Trew (talk) 08:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you know of academic books and journal articles that use the term "commonism" to describe variations on communism, why not add them to the Communism article? I see no benefit to making users who have misspelled the word go through the additional step of DYM before arriving at the intended article. Neelix (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be WP:UNDUE to mention Commonism in the Communism article. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2014 (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.

World's Largest Artificial Pysanka

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 15#World's Largest Artificial Pysanka

World's largest port

[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. Involved close given the backlog, length of listing, and staleness of discussion. To quote WP:INVOLVED, I think "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." Contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not simply trucking through proposing deletion of every article, list etc that has "world's largest" in it. That is valuable for a search. But this is misleading, because the largest port and the busiest port are different things. Si Trew (talk) 10:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then where should it go? I started out saying "largest" and "busiest" are not the same thing: but ultimately, we are not here to determine what is the largest port (in some dimension or combination of them), but whether this redirect is a likely search term, and if so, what is the person searching likely to be looking for?. Necessarily that involves some second-guessing, because while a redirect targets somewhere it is hard to get stats on people landing at the target and then immediately clicking away if it was not what they were looking for. Which is why I changed my opinion. Si Trew (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2014 (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.

Conciseness razor

[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. G7 cuts like a knife—but it feels so right. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable mainspace -> projectspace redirect. There is no such real world term, let alone an expectation to find such a thing in mainspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem with the lede there as well in that the title says "Occam's Razor", Occam's Razor is actually a redirect to Ockham's Razor (this is because William of Ockham spelt it both ways as was common at the time) but the title of the article and the lede don't match. I don't know what to do about that. There is of course Occam (programming language) and so on, so I would tend to prefer the OCC spelling but I presume this has been argued about long and hard before: but the lede and title should match. I daredn't touch it. Si Trew (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone's entitled to make a mistake and it is rare that an editor will admit to it. Delete per creator Born2cycle. I don't understand why an article in mainspace would be created for "internal Wikipedia use only", though. Si Trew (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the closed discussion, SimonTrew (talk · contribs)? I explained it there. (speaking of mistakes!). --B2C 01:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Born2cycle: I did, yes. I just actually disagree that it is useless: I think it could be a useful redirect. I meant it as a compliment, by the way, that an editor will state openly "I made a mistake": but I am not sure thaty you did! Si Trew (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2014 (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.

Lista di laghi e dighe della Svizzera

[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. While Wikipedia:Administrators is clear that admins should never use the tools "to gain advantage in a dispute," I trust there will be no objections to my using them to disadvantage myself. I can see when consensus is against my position. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unnescceary, per WP:NOTDIC. TheChampionMan1234 05:48, 18 April 2014 (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.

Nowiki

[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 potential for confusion is noted, but also addressed by the hatnote. With similar redirects such as Enwiki and Dewiki, there isn't a compelling rationale for deletion. (n.b. While there's a "keep per" me vote here, I did not express an opinion as to whether the redirect should be kept or not.) --BDD (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for help on the nowiki syntax, not no.wp. Plus, there is some vandalism right now on the page [1], which I will clean up in a sec. TheChampionMan1234 05:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whose code? At least at WP:PNT, unless I have been mistaken all these years, people just say EN:WP or IT:WP or NO:WP and so on. Since there are two Norwegian Wikipedias, for different variants of the language, that is just misleading (to an English audience) anyway. Si Trew (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it is just two topics then that can go per hatnotes with WP:TWODABS. The thing is, to encourage readers to turn into editors. This, I feel, discourages that, QED nom. Si Trew (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very surprised if there were an article that discussed the nowiki function. However, we could use a ((selfref)), similar to that at AGF, if the redirect is kept: "Nowiki" redirects here. On the English Wikipedia, nowiki is an element of Help:Wiki markup. --BDD (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I think that might serve a better purpose, especially since Parsing currently fails MOS:DABMENTION for the purpose behind my disambiguation page idea. On a related note, I'm changing my vote to "keep". Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @SimonTrew: To use a hatnote means that a primary topic has been established for the term "Nowiki", and I don't see either one of these terms proven to be the primary topic for the term. So thus, the reason I say "Convert to a DAB". Steel1943 (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2014 (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.

Keleti pályaudvar

[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 wrong forum - see WP:RM if you want to move the location of an article. From personal experience I know that discussions about the name of foreign railway stations are sometimes controversial, so it's best to use the correct procedure for them. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be reversed. It simply means "Eastern terminus". We do not have "Gare du Nord" redirecting to Northern station or Station of the North, we have it at what it calls itself. Si Trew (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2014 (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.

Lista de codigos telefonicos

[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) 18:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIC TheChampionMan1234 04:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's cognate with Spanish, yes, but you are out: in Spanish it is es:Anexo:Prefijos telefónicos mundiales here, through the Interwiki links. The English, through the Interwiki, is at List of country calling codes. But we might as well redirect it to Yellow Pages or Telephone directory, the first of which if memory serves me right (it seldom does these days) was published in New York at about the turn of the last century and listed 112 numbers. It is already in Portuguese Wikipedia pt:Lista_de_códigos_telefónicos here Si Trew (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this again, there are a few other oddities here. First, the title of the target "Area codes in Mexico by code" is a bit odd (why not just have "Area codes in Mexico", which redirects there, and is the simpler title?. Make it a list article with a table? but that is probably outside of the remit of RfD but I am happy to do it if consensus is reached for that.) Second, the Interwiki links are to country codes – at least the Spanish and English, is the international dialing codes (+44 for the UK and so on) not the interior codes (what in UK English are called STD codes or elsewhere probably area codes). So the Interwiki links are a bit out of whack, but I am not sure what we can do about that. It should probably be deleted, per John Vandenberg: even a Portuguese speaker stumbling into English Wikipedia will not expect to find a list of Mexican area codes. Si Trew (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2014 (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.

Template:User TFBH2

[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) 18:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This template was never a userbox template which using the 'User x' naming convention required by ((Babel)). John Vandenberg (chat) 04:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC) Delete per John Vandenberg. Si Trew (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2014 (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.

Murica

[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. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is not mentioned on the page. Also, Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. I recommend either delete, or retarget to Murcia and tag it with ((R from misspelling)). Steel1943 (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe another stalwart at RfD used this term the other day about himself, knowing that I was British, but I had never heard the term. I think the term he used was Murica, Florida and I assumed it was an actual placename and tried to look it up but couldn't find it – I knew the editor was joking but didn't quite get the joke, sorry, because I didn't realise the meaning. So this is genuinely misleading. The editor was in entirely good faith and probably assumed I knew the term, but perhaps it is not WP:WORLDWIDE, I have never heard it. Having kinda spoken it in my head I can see how it is formed now, but when written if one has not seen it before one doesn't think automatically that "murica" is a slurring way of saying "America". It's not mentioned at the target. Si Trew (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find with 'Murica. Who is going to type that? Urban Dictionary has it here but (I am not sure but assume) that is not RS. More of the problem is it's not mentioned at the target, and I've looked but can't really find an RS for it, it's all Twitter and Facebook and stuff like that. It's not a meme, it's a word: but perhaps a neologism? That is not in itself a problem, all words have to be invented at some point, but do we have evidence that this one is more than a passing fad? Si Trew (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2014 (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.

!@

[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, with a certain amount of caution. I do find consensus to delete here, and normally I'd salt a title after its sixth (!) deletion. However, I don't want to discount that there could be a legitimate use for this as a redirect to a different title. It's not currently used at At sign#Computer programming, and Steel1943's suggestion may have some merit too. I'll leave it to interested editors to recreate it if desired, at which point we can reassess at RfD if someone else wants. Especially if this continues to attract vandalism or test edits, though, salting may be the best outcome. Apologies for the convolution. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No obvious reason for this to exist. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My cock-up entirely. Si Trew (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When you come to think of it, the history of the at sign is quite interesting. It was used forever in accountancy until computers were invented and tills became automated by National Cash Register and all that, when it became almost redundant. Then someone kinda repurposed it to be used as the separator in email addresses and it got a new lease of life. I remember when there were battles whether email addresses should be big-endian or little-endian (both terms of course from Gulliver's travels and how to write them. The British held out for a while that it should be called e-post instead of email and that in itself is curious since the Americans have the US Postal Service to deliver the mail while the British have the Royal Mail to deliver the post. "NEITHER RAIN NOR HAIL NOR SNOW NOR GLOOM OF NIGHT CAN STAY THE COURIER FROM THE SPEEDY EXECUTION OF HIS APPOINTED ROUNDS". Well, what is it then? Si Trew (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. I did check the section but I got distracted and put in the wrong retarget. There's no specific mention of that symbol in that section either, but it would be valid in various computer languages. Si Trew (talk) 22:57, 19 April 2014 (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.
Category