< October 15
October 17 >

October 16

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 16, 2015.

Jumbo jet

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 Jumbo Jet to Wide-body aircraft and keep Jumbo jet. This wasn't the easiest discussion to wade through, but consensus is quite clear despite it all. The lede of wide-body aircraft explains the "jumbo jet" term well enough and links to Boeing 747, which should clear up confusion. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just as likely to refer to one or the other, eg. [1] note the "Jet" not "jet", and reference to the 787 as well as 747 and also see this article for comparison [2]. - TheChampionMan1234 05:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this. Jumbo jet means only a boeing 747, and was named after Jumbo an elephant in Barnum circus; there is absolutely no confusion here. Si Trew (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It originally meant the 747, but since then, it has been used to mean widebodies. DC-10 ([3][4][5][6][7][8]) / L-1011 ([9][10][11][12]) / A380 ([13][14][15]) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm does it? I mean the DC-10 for example predates the Boeing 747. I would say it exclusively meant the Boeing 747, but obviously zou have references sazing otherwise. I also apparently am on a QWERTZ kezboard. All zour references are from Canada Google books, which I imagine is just how zou happen to get there, so zou have far more references than me and I think that is basically the trump, otherwise I am just playing WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I think you are right, we have to go with what is in the literature, however much I dislike it. It would be kinda useful if we could add those references to the redirect itself rather than at the target, but I don't think we can, can we? (Without breaking the redeirect for someone flying through.) Si Trew (talk) 07:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: I am not especially an aviation enthusiast and I rarely see one in real life (mostly A320s on short haul come over me or a B787 which is not wide-bodied). I can't see why the two go to different places, because essentially I am arguing that WP:DIFFCAPS is inapplicable these days since the search engine does not differentiate on caps, so that is WP:HARMFUL. I realise I am making a fist of this argument . Gosh it is October already, where did summer go? Si Trew (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I agree they shouldn't go to different places. You're saying they should both go to the 747, though? --BDD (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I note that there are only two keep votes to date. The justifications are not particularly strong and one of those editors even describes their vote as "weak". This needn't have been relisted this second time. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not hard to believe if you remember that Wikipedia is written for general readers, who may know little to nothing about the specifics of aviation. I'm fairly intelligent, but I couldn't tell you what model a plane was by looking at it. Regardless, readers could be misled by "sloppy journalism", such as can be found in the Washington Post (777), Mother Jones (A380), and Forbes (A380). Finally, consider this: readers knowledgeable about aviation know enough to search for "Boeing 747" if that's what they want. Others may not be aware of this convention. --BDD (talk) 15:23, 23 October 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.

 comment The usage of "jumbo jet" is under discussion, see talk:jumbo jet (disambiguation) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trinidad and Tobago national under-20 football team

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. Thanks to GiantSnowman for that. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The target article has no coverage of the under-20 team (and shouldn't, as it is about the men's senior team). In the future this should be an independent article about the u-20 team, so a redirect is inappropriate (applying reason #10 at WP:R#DELETE) --  R45  talk! 17:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 14:42, 17 October 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.

Wikipedia:List of pages protected against re-creation

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 Special:ProtectedTitles. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 02:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, the target of the redirect is not a list of protected pages. I was thinking the resolution is to retarget to Special:ProtectedTitles, but is that appropriate? Otherwise, I'd say delete. Steel1943 (talk) 14:23, 16 October 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.

Duncan, Tim (and many, many, many more)

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. Rough consensus below is that we want to keep directory-style redirects to people's names. (Procedural comment: WP:CSD#G5 becomes invalid as soon as the first "keep" comment is made in a deletion discussion.) Deryck C. 18:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GF nomination: Delete, on the grounds that we don't list names in directory format. Further, Redirect creator seems to have created many implausable redirects, possibly as a sockpuppet - which the user is currently indef blocked for. Similar redirects exist for Bryant, Kobe, Iverson, Allen, O'Neal, Shaquille, and undoubtedly various other well-known NBA stars, all created by Bossanoven on or around 8 June 2014. These formats don't seem to exist with any other sport.

A full list seems to begin here, and an even more extensive list outside of basketball is here. My goodness... Twirly Pen (Speak up) 08:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alternately, Tavix solution may work if they are deleted then immediately recreated. But, in that case, every since redirect should really be listed in this nomination since it will be clearer to the closer what is going on in this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I would agree with that. Personally, I haven't messed with these yet because it could be seen as either a waste of time or a way to "game" the system and claim someone else's work as your own, due to the fact that the only thing that will end up changing in the end is the name of the "author." I really don't care that much and would be content either way, it just depends if an admin wants put in that effort. -- Tavix (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, delete and recreate does not result in the same outcome, it disattributes the banned user's contribution. Since their contribution is in violation of our terms of service, they have foregone their right to attribution. We need to do far more on this site to discourage sockpuppetry, and I assert (again) that any banned user's contribution should be reverted on sight, regardless of any other site policies, unless and only unless doing so would be unduly disruptive. It would not be unduly disruptive to delete any of these pages. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 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.

Vordt

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) 14:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, "Vordt" is an implausible corruption of "Borat." -- Tavix (talk) 18:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • How does that correlate with "Vordt"? -- Tavix (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Gorobay's findings, that is a viable pronunciation of В-О-R-Д-Т "vor(d)t" (from the image in the film's infobox) -- if it were ВОЯДТ! / В-О-Я-Д-Т then "voydt" , but they use the Latin-R in the title and not the Cyrillic-Я -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but how is someone going to look at that and think "This film is called 'vordt.'" This is a completely synthetic connection and I'm questioning how it's plausible that someone could think this film is called "Vordt." All this does is makes "BORДT" seem plausible but Vordt is a huge stretch to make. -- Tavix (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:19, 16 October 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.

Kotla Waterfall Bagh AjK

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) 05:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect name. User has his name post fixed to the article. Lakun.patra (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "AJK" is Azad Jammu and Kashmir. "Kotla Waterfall, Bagh District" or "Kotla Waterfall, Bagh, Azad Kashmir" would be better disambiguation, but the existing redirect isn't implausible or misleading. Peter James (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake. Thanks for pointing that out. Presumably that's just where the user is from. --BDD (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:18, 16 October 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.

Monster Radio

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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the target page is not the primary topic, considering that there are stations using the name "Monster Radio" such as DXBT, DYBT, and WGGH. 121.54.54.171 (talk) 13:56, 16 October 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:@

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) sst✈ 02:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SURPRISE. This is a punctuation symbol not a policy. Si Trew (talk) 06:32, 16 October 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.

了

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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT translation dictionary, I am not totally opposed to Wiktionary redirects from English terms, but this isn't, and no other target can be found. Also, this is not a term particularly language related. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:49, 16 October 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