< February 22
February 24 >

February 23

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 23, 2015.

template:refl

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) 14:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing as just as likely redirect target would be ((ref label)), which in fact it apparently once was. ((Reflex)) is also reasonable. If the creator of the redirect is so lazy that he can't type 3 additional letters, he can save 2 more keystrokes and use ((RE)). --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:38, 23 February 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.

template:+r

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. --BDD (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way anyone would understand what this redirect means or that it suggests to improve references in an article. Including the actual template, there are 30 redirect options to use in such articles that make much more sense as to what they are and what they mean. Template:Refimprove#Redirects StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Per WP:R#KEEP, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do".
  2. The redirect was created weeks ago with dozens of uses to its name, so IMO the time has passed for changing the redirect without significant confusion. Alleged confusion is not very plausible at all. So absent evidence of any harm there is no reason to delete.
  3. "There seems to be no evidence of confusion, just conjecture on the part of nominator, and no argument grounded in WP:R. Laziness is the exact purpose of redirects, to be perfectly honest, and the creator of a useful redirect that saves one or two characters should be commended. We don't delete redirects based merely on conjecture. Someone obviously found these useful given they were created."
  4. "One of the lowest things one can do is steal another mans tools. So you have no use for it. That it's being used on [talk pages] is good enough, and there is zero reason to take away something that has no higher use. Such Nominators should be required to be the one to hand edit and remove any deleted tags."
  5. "Redirects are not only cheap but this is a redirect from and to template namespace. That would tend to indicate to me that anyone using it is an editor rather than a general reader and they are hardly likely to get it [confused]. There are lots of little abbreviated things pulled up over the years such as ((tlc)) or ((tlx)) or whatever as useful shorthand for editors."
--Jax 0677 (talk) 22:13, 23 February 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.

Scared shitless

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) 14:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic profanity. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D3, "offensive". Defecation doesn't mention fear, there's no Symptoms of fear or Fear#Symptoms, [[Diarrhea would be plain wrong, and I can't find a better target. I note Chicken shit redirects to Cowardice but is not mentioned there. Searching for "shit[ting] oneself" reveals a few WP discussions but nothing fruitful. Si Trew (talk) 03:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is nevertheless a common term, unlike other offensive terms that are uncommon, and we don't censor just for the hell of it. (And I did use the word "hell", which one may wish to censor as well) WP:CODI -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point. The offensive argument would be relevant if this was pointing to an article about a person but this redirects to a grneral article. There may be valid reasons to delete this but I don't think it may be offensive aplies.--69.157.252.152 (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thus WP:RFD#D2 "The redirect may cause confusion". Several editors here are confused by it, and all we could do is provide a WP:DICDEF. Q.E.D. Si Trew (talk) 23:30, 26 February 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.

Mascucide

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 both. JohnCD (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created out of a discussion on Talk:Femicide speculating whether there should be an equivalent masculine-centered word corresponding to Femicide. There is no indication of any significant use of the word mascucide to represent the concept of androcide, but the creation of this article gives legitimacy to a word that really does not exist. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are downplaying real suffering from men and by doing that you are not neutral, see the ethnocide against Bosnian men at Screbenica, your argument has as much valid as me claiming that "femicide" is a made up term only used by trolls in men's fora, Wikipedia is no place for unneutral misandric statements, a more recent example of where this term might apply is the systemic mass murder of men and boys by Boko Haram, but I guess this makes me "a misogynistic troll" in your eyes.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. Certainly men have been killed for being men; this is well documented in history. However I don't see any sources for that act being called "mascucide" - the word is made up, not the concept or the action. Ivanvector (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually since there have been some more comments, it's going to be difficult to merge. I'll just leave the two threads separate. Ivanvector (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But they both could qualift as ((R from incorrect name)) as they are Latin forms for an other wise Greek name so the mistake might more common than "trolls".
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A good example would be the People's Republic of East-Germany, something I've heard literally never in my life but is used under this rule, at-least these 2 terms are used by alleged "trolls", while the P.R.G. is a new invented term made by a random person on Wikipedia.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, you might be right about that. It does clearly refer to androcide and thus may be a proper incorrect name redirect. The difference between this and East Germany is there is some external precedent for Communist states being incorrectly referred to as "People's Republic" even though East Germany is not, while these two terms ("mascucide" and "masculicide") seem to have mostly originated here. We couldn't even decide which was the proper Latin form. I'd like to hear what some editors who weren't involved in the original discussion think about this.
I hope you don't mind I've edited your comment to wrap the rcat template in the tlx template, otherwise this page gets incorrectly categorized. Ivanvector (talk) 20:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
neither is People's Republic of East Germany, but then again I've heard these 2 terms be used on several sites like A Voice for Men and other Men's Rights pages, while as someone with an interest in world history has never heard or read about the supposed "People's Republic of East Germany" while for some reason this term is being preserved while a more commonly used term such as mascucide which is just a latin-form of androcide isn't seen as a plausible confusion.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The target was not a redirect when this discussion opened; that only happened in the last few days. However Guettarda and others did have a relevant discussion on the talk page there which might affect this discussion. I've left a note there about this thread. Ivanvector (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that - I wasn't aware of this discussion when I redir'd the page. Had I known I would have left a note here. Guettarda (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that myself. I had written a whole thing here about the bits of the words coming from Latin caedere plus the nouns they refer to (it's commented out here if you want to read it/are a sadist) but that's overly complicated. Basically, the words Si mentions existed in Latin as whole words. We have matricide, fratricide, sororicide, suicide, and so on, because they are concepts known from classical antiquity. The words femicide and mascu[li]cide were invented in modern times, which suggests that the concepts also date from that time, and frankly mascu[li]cide seems to have been invented only very recently because some men felt the need to have a counterargument to writings about femicide, and means nothing outside of being contrary. My point being that Latin usage arguments are moot here. And don't get me started on the Greek-Latin mashups androcide and gynocide. I do believe that both men and women have been killed throughout history as acts of war, but that doesn't seem to be what any of these articles are referring to. Ivanvector (talk) 15:26, 27 February 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.

Masculicide

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 procedural close - merged with discussion above. Please comment there. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created out of a discussion on Talk:Femicide speculating whether there should be an equivalent masculine-centered word corresponding to Femicide. There is no indication of any significant use of the word masculicide to represent the concept of androcide, but the creation of this article gives legitimacy to a word that really does not exist. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are downplaying real suffering from men and by doing that you are not neutral, see the ethnocide against Bosnian men at Screbenica, your argument has as much valid as me claiming that "femicide" is a made up term only used by trolls in men's fora, Wikipedia is no place for unneutral misandric statements, a more recent example of where this term might apply is the systemic mass murder of men and boys by Boko Haram, but I guess this makes me "a misogynistic troll" in your eyes.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 18:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'd suggest ((R from incorrect name)) as the mistake is plausible as this is a Latin form of an otherwise Greek name, and more people than merely "internet trolls" might confuse the terms.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to do that. Ivanvector (talk) 20:03, 23 February 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.

Witbier

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) 19:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with a byte order mark in page title. GZWDer (talk) 12:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. I updated the nom to show that this is a ((R to section)). Witbier is a particular type of wheat beer. Witbier (without the extra code) also redirects to that section. Ivanvector (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just typed http://en.wikipedia.org?title=%EF%BB%BFWitbier into my browser, and it worked fine. So, yes, it is possible to type it. (That's UTF-8). So, yes, possible, but rather unlikely. But more likely is other user agents (such as things that harvest URLs) "typing" it automatically... Si Trew (talk) 00:21, 27 February 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.

Template:ReedPlaceNames1975

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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Tavix |  Talk  03:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect for someone to be able to input the citation for a particular book (without a way to put the page number in but whatever) based on a typo. I fixed the 4 typos. The odds that someone will (a) know that you can cite this book by this template and (b) make a typo looking for this template are beyond minimal. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well beyond minimal, but not, I think, in the direction you mean. In New Zealand English, "placename" is one word, yet this book uses the more formal UK spelling "Place Name". As such, the redirect is actually at the correctly spelt name, even though it is one that is less likely to be used by a New Zealander. It would, however, be the name more likely to be used by someone who knew that the name of the book was "Reed Place Names Of New Zealand" but was unfamiliar with New Zealand orthography (such as, say, an editor in the US or UK). As such, both variants of the template name are extremely useful. BTW, I would say that I use both the template and its redirect interchangeably and about equally - probably about 30 or 40 times each (usually subst'ing, which is possibly why you only found four transclusions). Grutness...wha? 12:06, 23 February 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.

Rubén Salazar

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 Procedural close. Move protected due to edit-warring. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources for the accent on Salazar's first name. All English-language sources lack the accent. The editor who added the accent has been warned about adding them without sources, at User talk:Comayagua99. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:06, 23 February 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.

East Germany–Iceland relations

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) 19:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unhelpful redirect. East Germany is not mentioned at the targeted article. Tavix |  Talk  01:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice against it eventually being created as a full article or as a redirect to an article (yet to be written) on German-Icelandic relations. Currently, however, it seems pointless. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble. Si Trew (talk) 00:11, 27 February 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.
More