< November 13
November 15 >

November 14

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 14, 2015.

Computer language

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 Turn into a DAB. (non-admin close) Legacypac (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Computer languages are not exclusively programming languages. HTML for example is a computer language but not a programming language, just like PostScript and CSS. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 21:07, 14 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.

Super duper pooper scoopers

Sextraders

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 those that remain. --BDD (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Sex trader" is a term for women sometimes used for women working in the sex industry, so this redirect is random and makes no sense. These were all created as redirects to pimp by a user who I think was a bit confused; at the current target they're still as nonsensical. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I combined listing. Si Trew (talk) 11:00, 14 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.

Gabriel Dante Rossetti

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 30#Gabriel Dante Rossetti

Lord Eddy

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) 14:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Lord Edward is a Dab page, and I seriously doubt anyone ever called these distinguished gentlemen Lord Eddie Legacypac (talk) 06:33, 14 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.

Know'st

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 all. Consensus is that at least some of the redirects listed are useful. To prevent a trainwreck, I am closing this with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 13:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dictionary words that don't mean quite what they are targeted at - standard Neelix. Legacypac (talk) 06:20, 14 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.

Brown Sequard

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 30#Brown Sequard

Disambiguation

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. Nominator has effectively withdrawn this redirect to open a requested move discussion. (non-admin closure)  Paine  19:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse the redirect. Until I changed it a little earlier, this targeted Word-sense disambiguation.

It was used in about a dozen articles, not always correctly. I've fixed those either to point directly at word-sense disambiguation (for linguistics articles), to point at disambiguation (metadata) (for seach engine kinda articles) or simply to unlink it.

If word-sense disambiguation were WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it would be at disambiguation itself. Patently it is not, so put the DAB there. Si Trew (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background comments. I came to this by way of (disambiguation) which it seems is always used wrongly, in hatnotes etc, by users unfamiliar with it. Similarly, disambiguation seems sometimes to be used in an innocent attempt to link to a disambiguation page. It doesn't help that it ends up at the technical article word-sense disambiguation (even though that did have a hatnote to WP:Disambiguation, I've removed that now since the disambiguation doesn't go there).
I've also boldly retargeted disambiguate, but nothing linked there. "(disambiguation)" was discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 September 1#(disambiguation), the result was delete, but I guess either it was never actually deleted, or was restored. Si Trew (talk) 05:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "Disambiguation" page was moved by User:Dekimasu on 15 May 2007 with the ec "per Wikipedia:Malplaced disambiguation pages". There have been requested moves before (at Talk:Disambiguation_(disambiguation). This is a requested move, then, I guess, but since everything points to this discussion it might as well stay here for reference. Si Trew (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation (disambiguation) didn't even link to Word-sense disambiguation until I changed it; it went via the disambiguation redirect (against WP:DABPIPE, although this is not a pipe that covers redirects too). Si Trew (talk) 06:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Several comments. First there have been several discussions in the past. It had initially been deleted in 2005 when there were no existing articles and it only pointed to the Policy page and wiktionary. A Talk:Disambiguation (disambiguation)#Requested move requested move for a then two-entry disambiguation page with result of take it to AFD. The outcome was speedy keep after some other entries were added. After the AFD, another requested move resulted in no consensus. Disambiguation was left as a redirect to word-sense disambiguation as the primary topic. Second, your edit here was incorrect. MOS:DABPRIMARY clearly states that such use of a redirect is allowed When the ambiguous term has a primary topic but that article has a different title (so that the term is the title of a redirect), the primary topic line normally uses the redirect to link to that article. Third, as to the merits of this particular request, I'll need to consider whether the situation has changed since the last discussion. older ≠ wiser 10:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem we partly had, or have, is that people then put "disambiguation" into an article and because it comes up blue they think all is well. Because word-sense disambiguation is quite a technical article, I do not think it is a primary topic for "disambiguation". It is the primary topic for word-sense disambiguation, that's all (for if not, we might need word-sense disambiguation (disambiguation)). To change the phrase "word sense disambiguation" to "word-sense disambiguation" is not "wrong"; that's WP:LINKCLARITY, (and I considered but rejected going via the R at word sense disambiguation). As I say, really this is a move request but thank you for replying here. Si Trew (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Determining whether word-sense disambiguation is the primary topic for disambiguation should be discussed on one of the relevant talk pages, not in a relatively low profile redirect for discussion page. You didn't only change the phrase "word sense disambiguation" to "word-sense disambiguation", you unilaterally decided you didn't agree with the previous consensus and changed the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 12:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"By "unilaterally decided" you mean, I was WP:BOLD? Guilty as charged. I already said I think this should go to RM and I'm happy for this discussion to be closed as wrong forum, but I think it best that someone uninvolved does that, and then I'll open the RM. Si Trew (talk) 14:14, 14 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.

René Nicolas

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 by @Drmies:except the one that is her first and last name (procedural close) Legacypac (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

so many variations of this person's name with no credible reason. I did not nominate the 4 most reasonable. Legacypac (talk) 04:58, 14 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.

Island apparitions

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 deleted by Drmies; procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More Neelix redirects that make no sense. These all suggest real land, but I can't quickly think of a use for these redirects. Not to the current target anyway. The target deals with islands that appeared on maps or reports in the past. Some redirects suggest to me Marian apparitions or something a delusional or thirsty person might see. Others suggest what actual islands look like, "That island looks green", or perhaps how islands are formed from a volcanic eruption in the ocean. Legacypac (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We do have tidal island. Volcanic island → high island. Si Trew (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look up apparition in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
I considered making a very weak case for a retarget to Plate tectonics or Volcanic arc (and we have High island and Low island for how islands are formed), but none seems close enough in meaning; WP:XY – "appearance" means something a bit wider than "creation". I could boldly make a DAB for those at Island creation, but even then I'm not sure any these should R to it. Foster's rule (← Island rule) discusses the evolution (and thus appearance) of insular species, and has a "see also" section for Island giantism and Island dwarfism, which could also go at such a DAB. Si Trew (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (edit conflict) With 70.51's and Legacypac's consent I have combined these into one listing. (I've put anchors for the deleted section headings.) I hope in doing so I haven't accidentally changed the meanings of their comments (the timestamps are a little off, but these were "batched" listings/responses by both). Si Trew (talk) 10:51, 14 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.

Sobbingly

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) 17:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unusual construction Legacypac (talk) 03:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree there since "sobbing" is a verb/noun, just like crying. Steel1943 (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adjectives can redirect to nouns, or to the same targets as the related nouns, even if the meaning is not identical (for example, Slanderous redirects to Defamation); I assume it's the same for adverbs. Peter James (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment views are less then 1 per day (bot noise) except for attention drawn to is as a Neelix redirect. It's not helping anyone. Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 22 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.

Acceptable (disambiguation)

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 Acceptance (disambiguation). (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 02:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_13#Appropriateness. We might want to combine these discussions.)

Probably Retarget to Acceptance (disambiguation), but I can foresee that might depend on consensus for the "Appropriateness" redirects. It is bizarre to retarget an ((R to dab)) to something other than a DAB page. Si Trew (talk) 03:21, 14 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.
More