< November 6
November 8 >

November 7

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 7, 2015.

Template:WikiProject United Nations

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) 15:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is problematic to create redirects for WikiProject templates like this as the workgroup parameter doesn't pass through. Using it as currently implemented doesn't include the pages into the UN workgroup itself (which would be the goal based on the name), so it has to be manually done. The only way to use it properly would be with UN=yes which makes this redundant in a sense. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, it would make more sense to fork the target rather than wrap it. But it's easier simply to replace it in its six uses, which I'm happy to do if we have consensus. Si Trew (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added Template:WPUN, which is unused. Si Trew (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since not all topics about the UN are about international relations per se, a separate template would be a good idea. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 14:04, 8 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.

Re-energisations

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 User:The Anome: Highly unlikely redirects with minimal search traffic

Delete per WP:NOTDIC, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it's silly to have a redirect of every single form of a word imaginable. Commonly used forms, such as energize is okay, but all of these are implausible for a general subject such as "energy." This is also a follow-up to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_27#Reenergizational, where I echo BDD's concerns. -- Tavix (talk) 21:26, 7 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.

China japan war

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 Sino-Japanese War. --BDD (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does this refer to Second Sino-Japanese War or the First Sino-Japanese War? Ambiguous search term. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 21:16, 7 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.

Preceptory

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 and refine per Si Trew. Thanks to him for clarifying the issue. Additionally, I note that the former article at this title was apparently merged to the target article. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-target to Commandry (feudalism), which is a more appropriate article describing this type of place, as opposed to the person in charge of the place. Kelly hi! 12:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:39, 7 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.

Abrian

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 16#Abrian

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion and philosophy

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 deprecate then delete. Deryck C. 18:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a textbook WP:XY. This could equally refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philosophy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion so it makes no sense to redirect to just one of them. -- Tavix (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except we already have precedent of deleting deprecated delsort processes. One was deleted last year without incident or harm to Wikipedia and this one is just like it, but worse because it has the WP:XY problem. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Zoroastrianism. -- Tavix (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This actually reminds me of another harm that could come about if we keep this. Back when I used to delsort frequently (2010??), I used a tool that basically took the WP:Prefix index of delsorting, and created a list of options based on that. I don't delsort anymore and have no knowledge of the current delsort tools, but if this sort of technique was resurrected, it could cause someone to think there was a specific delsort for "religion and philosophy" when there's not. A redlink would verify that there isn't one. -- Tavix (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it were the case, the fault would be in the tool, and the fix should be in the tool. Tools serve people, not the other way around. Bad workmen and all that. Si Trew (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The moral of the story that I told is that as long as that link is blue, there can be an illusion that it's a real delsort when it's not. (after all, that tool is probably depreciated by now) -- Tavix (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter whether the tool is deprecated or hypothetical. If a tool can't deal with content properly, the problem is in the tool, not the content. Si Trew (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely missing my point. -- Tavix (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not on purpose, I assure you. Si Trew (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The entire function of the deletion sorting process (the tool you refer to) is to categorize and list current deletion discussions. It has no historical usage at all. Deleting a delsort category that hasn't been used in six years harms nothing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. Delete it then (restored my !vote above). Si Trew (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:44, 7 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.

Portar Rico

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) 14:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RTYPO, too many typos to be helpful. Stats are at noise level. -- Tavix (talk) 01:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it would seem unlikely as typos, more likely just misspelling/misunderstanding. I am torn both ways with it, really; changing mine from "weak delete" to "very weak delete". Asking myself the question where else could it go/be confused for? tends to yield the answer "nowhere, so keep as harmless and just vaguely useful"... it's not as if we have Port Arico or anything similar (that I could find). On the other hand, we don't have Portar on its own as an R to Port or Puerto (a DAB), which weakens the case for thinking it could be a realistic misspelling. Si Trew (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honor is not a misspelling but an alternative spelling, or an ((R from other language|en-us)). That's just muddying the waters, to put it politely. Or shit-stirring, to put it less politely :). But gratis for the exempli gratia, we have Honer → Hœnir and Honar as a very bad article about a quango in Belarus, which I shall PROD.
But nah, they could mishear it simply as "Portar Rico", and not require the jump through mishearing it as "Porter Rico" thence misspelling. -ar/-er/-or in some accents (such as mine) are indistinguishable, which is why we get for example mortar (but murder), bursar (but barter), castor (and caster), but not Morter nor Burser. And R dropping ( → Rhoticity in English) adds to the confusion.
Written, these variations sometimes come from the Latin or Greek spelling (for example actor – Latin and sometime English feminine actrix – not acter, funicular not funiculer) but sometimes it is just how spelling settled down in the English Renaissance with no great etymological rigour. It is why, for example, we get burglar and not burgler (I've just rccatted that as ((R from misspelling))), and the back formation "burgle" ( → burglary as do the others). We need to use [Occam's Razor]] here soon.
The stats show, as we both stated, that this isn't likely as a search term. I'm inclined to unweaken my delete !vote. Si Trew (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:42, 7 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.

Microsoft Cortana

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) 04:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose retargeting this to Cortana, the disambiguation page. Cortana (Halo) is a plausible search target for "Microsoft Cortana", since the Halo video game series is published by Microsoft. Therefore, "Microsoft Cortana" can equally refer to the software or the video game character. sst✈discuss 15:11, 7 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.

NSYC

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 deleted WP:G8 by GB fan. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Not at target, and its expansion, Newfoundland Symphony Youth Choir, is itself red (that is mentioned at the target). If the full name doesn't need a redirect, the initialism doesn't. Hits at noise level, no internal links. Si Trew (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alright, I'm convinced that was a typo and I've removed the N from Sayville Yacht Club. My attention turns to to Shallaway (shouldn't the title be "Shallaway Youth Choir"?), and I'm not sure how notable that subject is. I've had a hard time finding any information on it besides the fact that they won the Llangollen festival in 2015. Is that enough to confer notability? -- Tavix (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds doubtful to me. Of course, if the topic is non-notable, the redirects would be deleted along with it. bd2412 T 00:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
...and succeeded, so now I've taken the two R's to CSD per WP:G8 (I thought that would be done as part of the deletion, but at least this time it wasn't.) Si Trew (talk) 11:38, 8 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.

Socio-economistic

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 speedily deleted by User:The Anome as WP:R3. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Made-up. I hesitate to combine this with #Social-economistic, below, because they have different targets (but have no objection if someone else does.) Hits average one every three days; no internal links outside of this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 12:04, 7 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.

Atheistic evangelists

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 Evangelical atheism. --BDD (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to an anchor that has been removed from Antitheism. There's a slight POV here issue here in suggesting that (a) atheist evangelist actually exist, and (b) that if they do exist, they are actually antitheistic. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @BD2412: It's not that we're missing an article on the concept, it's just that it was "merged to oblivion." What would you think about restoring this version? -- Tavix (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • With a few more sources - and perhaps some commentary from atheists on what they think of the phrase - that would be useful to have. bd2412 T 01:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep -- a useful redirect, and yes, there should be a target for it. -- The Anome (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Close as Retarget as everyone seems happy Legacypac (talk) 14:48, 11 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.

Biblicistically

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 User:The Anome. (mass deletion of implausible Neelix redirects) Lenticel (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect with minimal search traffic. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:10, 7 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.

Despectacularizations

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 User:The Anome. (mass deletion of implausible Neelix redirects) Lenticel (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible "just made this up" redirect with minimal search traffic. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:07, 7 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.

Noncatholicism

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 Speedily deleted by User:The Anome (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


WP:POV redirect. Not being a Catholic is not the same thing as being anti-Catholic. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:51, 7 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.

Para-militaristically

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 User:The Anome. (mass deletion of implausible Neelix redirects) Lenticel (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible "word I just made up" redirect with minimal search traffic. (These may be a recurring theme at WP:RFD for a while...) —Tom Morris (talk) 08:45, 7 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.

Social-economistic

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 User:The Anome. (mass deletion of implausible Neelix redirects) Lenticel (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another implausible "word I just made up" redirect. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:41, 7 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.

Dehumanisational

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 User:The Anome. (mass deletion of implausible Neelix redirects) Lenticel (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect based on words the creator just dreamt up. Minimal traffic. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:40, 7 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.

Judgmentalistically

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 User:The Anome. (mass deletion of implausible Neelix redirects) Lenticel (talk) 04:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirects from words that don't even really exist. Minimal traffic. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:35, 7 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.

Popularistically

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 User:The Anome. (mass deletion of implausible Neelix redirects) Lenticel (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect with minimal search traffic. Created as a neologism—I greatly doubt anyone actually uses "popularistically" as a term. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:27, 7 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.

Straight outta Compton, crazy motherfucker named Ice Cube

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 deleted WP:R3, by The Anome. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTLYRICS. -- Tavix (talk) 04:14, 7 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.

Energy(Earth Sciences)

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) 14:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, these redirects are of questionable utility. The disambiguation is unnecessary, but on top of that, there is a spacing error and caps error. -- Tavix (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Caps forms for these are absent – e.g. Energy (Chemistry) – so I suspect these may have been created in error, with the space missed. I've no intention of creating them. Si Trew (talk) 04:34, 7 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.

Hit Me Baby One More Time

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 16#Hit Me Baby One More Time

More