< May 4
May 6 >

May 5

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 5, 2014.

List of lakes named Fish Lake (disambiguation)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 22#List of lakes named Fish Lake (disambiguation)

Foreign-language redirects from Pokémon names

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. Number 57 13:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And so it begins. From my listing of Otaria (Pokemon), there appears to be consensus to delete redirects from the names of Pokémon in languages other than English and Japanese. I've come up with the first 51, which are listed at User:BDD/Pokémon redirects instead of here for the sake of our sanity. I will still tag them all and notify creators as appropriate.

I suspect that this will prove uncontroversial, so do let me know if you want to unbundle any or otherwise give this further discussion. But if it proves to be a matter of consensus-backed house cleaning, I won't bother bringing future instances of such redirects to discussion. In addition to indicating whether you support deleting this batch, please say whether you're alright with me deleting other foreign-language redirects from Pokémon names as I come across them. --BDD (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a fan of Pokémon, nothing against it but I am a bit too old. However, I think the English names for the characters are entirely unrelated to the Japanese names, so putting it in romaji or katakana would not be helpful since that would be simply a transliteration and would not be the names of the characters in Japanese. (I can read kana but not very good at kanji.) Si Trew (talk) 02:12, 8 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.

Fair majority voting

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. Over two months (!) later, I think any reasonable administrator would call no consensus here. Contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'. Hmmm. The reference is there but not inline. (it's immediately below it as it happens to be the last section before the references, of which that is the only one for the entire article and is not inline referenced). It's not the place for RfD to debate improving references etc but where to target things: I still feel although the journal article is called "Fair Majority Voting (or How to Eliminate Gerrymandering)" that this is far too specific a target. Si Trew (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The paper by the way is available online at the American Methematical SocietyMathematical Association of America, and should be added to the reference: I don't like to do that while things are under discussion. It seems from here, the Mathematical Association of America, that it was awarded the Lester R. Ford Prize, whatever that is, in 2009. I still think it is over-specific. I have written stuff published in learned journals but they are not on Wikipedia because they are far too technical and boring for even this encyclopaedia. Si Trew (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was it not John Milton who said "There are more things in heaven and earth/Than are dreamed of in divine philosophy"? Bertrand Russell then went on to prove, with class theory, that there are actually far fewer things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in divine philosophy. It is still too specific a target. It is better it was just included at the article on gerrymandering, this is a one-trick pony. Si Trew (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Note, I don't exactly understand what happened here, but I'm voting to turn it back into a normal redirect, not to keep it as a separate page.) Homunq (࿓) 10:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME would come into play. The article wouldn't be moved or anything, but it would be appropriate for Strategyproof voting to redirect there. We could explain that specific terminology in the article to help allay confusion, but generally, no, it wouldn't be our place to judge the accuracy of the phrase if it's used in reliable sources. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 10 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) 21:31, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This is a cosmetic relist. This discussion is just awaiting closure, but kicking it down the road superficially shrinks the backlog.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was it not Franklin D. Roosevelt who said "Speak softly, and carry a big stick". Mind that, he had polio as a child I think, and had to carry a big stick, but as an aphorism that still applies. If anything, redirect to psephology. Si Trew (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forbes, Richard (March 1993)). The Creative Problem Solver's Toolbox (1st ed.). Solutions Through Innovation. ISBN 978-0963222107. ((cite book)): Check date values in: |date= (help)
It sells for a penny on amazon.com. Si Trew (talk) 22:20, 6 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.

Pratapgarh (princely state)

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 Pratapgarh, Rajasthan. Initially this redirect was nominated for deletion but, following further research, the nomination was amended to retarget, a solution that has attained consensus. As a separate editorial action Pratapgarh Estate has already been added to the DAB at Pratapgarh. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pratapgarh was never a princely state.. google book result [1] are zero. I have moved page to Pratapgarh Estate as it was a zamindari. So request deletion of this redirect created due to move page Jethwarp (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 14:33, 20 March 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) 21:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That article mentions there that it was a 15-gun salute princely state, in the second or third para. Whereas Pratapgarh Estate is not even in Rajasthan but Uttar Pradesh (in Oudh, now Awadh). This is all from being a bit deliberately ignorant and searching internally on Wikipedia, deliberately trying to put myself as an intelligent but ignorant reader trying to find information. However, Pratapgarh Estate I think should still be on the DAB at Pratapgarh, once we get consensus. Si Trew (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am too coy there, since the target (the estate) is not what is what is under discussion. I'll add it. Si Trew (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This is a cosmetic relist. This discussion is just awaiting closure, but kicking it down the road superficially shrinks the backlog.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:19, 5 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.

Star Wars Episode VII: A New Dawn

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. After over a month of discussion, something needs to happen here. I'm performing an WP:INVOLVED close, and I think "any reasonable administrator" would call no consensus here. Contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term "A New Dawn", which was a title that was rumored for Episode VII, has been revealed to be the name of a separate Star Wars novel. Therefore, this redirect is misleading and irrelevant as of now. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 18:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's going to be calling Episode VII "A New Dawn", either... DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 21:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure it won't be the title of the movie? That would be a good reason to delete. --BDD (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The talk about "A New Dawn" originated when Lucasfilm personnel were referencing it as an upcoming I.P., though many inferred it to be a considered title for the seventh movie. With the announcement of the book, the allocation of the title has been revealed, so there is no reason to assume the film is called that anymore. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we? How many of those topics would be referred to as "Episode VII"? --BDD (talk) 19:05, 28 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) 18:12, 5 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.

Wikipedia:REALLY

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) 17:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be going to Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create TheChampionMan1234 09:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That might be better. Even better would be to delete it, as a redirect that doesn't seem to have any logical connection with the target, and that has been viewed a grand total of four times in the past 30 days. --MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia namespace to Template namespace would be a cross-namespace redirect, wouldn't it? Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think we are at cross purposes. I suggested that a better target would be Template:Really? even though it is a cross-namespace redirect. You suggested another target, which I disagree because it is just WP:ESSAY, but that is in the same namespace from the redirect to the target. The essay isn't particularly interesting or amusing even though it is tagged as being Wikipedia humo(u)r. Si Trew (talk) 21:09, 6 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.
More