< October 19
October 21 >

October 20

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 20, 2015.

Jesuo Kristo

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) 13:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to Espseranto. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:53, 20 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.

QB Bills

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. Deryck C. 20:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While Jim Kelly is probably the best known Bills quarterback, "QB Bills" seems like an extremely unlikely search term for him, or anything, really. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 20 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.

Wave 2

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 Second wave. --BDD (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many titles on Wikipedia that have a "Wave 2" with equal merit to the current subject of the article, including:

Also the page view stats for this page is very poor. Codename Lisa (talk) 18:09, 20 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.

Fiftieth 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 no consensus. There's genuine disagreement as to the usefulness or ambiguity of these as a group. Any may be discussed individually, though I'd advise any interested editors to proceed only with those terms for which there's demonstrable ambiguity. I don't find the general argument that, say, anything with twelve states could have a "12th state". If such terminology isn't commonly used, that's not really important to us here. --BDD (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fiftieth State (Arbitrary break)[edit]

Delete as vague. The way these redirects are set up now is promoting an American WP:BIAS. The United States isn't the only country to have "states," several other countries have them as well, and there are several ways to rank those states. In addition, a "state" can mean a "sovereign state," and there are ~200 of those, which can be ranked in a myriad of different ways as well. To illustrate my point, I will attempt to make a list of things that could be referred to as "sixth state." Within the United States, it may refer to Massachusetts (sixth state to enter the Union), but (just using the infobox data) it may also refer to Pennsylvania (sixth state in population), Arizona (sixth state in area), Delaware (sixth state in density), etc. Looking at other country's states, we can do the same thing with Mexico, where (using the same order as before), "sixth state" may refer to San Luis Potosí, Chiapas, and Tamaulipas. We can do the same for any other country that uses "states" as its sub-national unit: Australia, Austria, Brazil, Germany, India, Malaysia, Nigeria, Sudan, South Sudan, and Venezuela. In addition, using "state" to mean "sovereign states" (which is the target of List of states), we can do the same exercise on the national level: the "sixth state" would be Pakistan by population and Australia by area, for example. We can rank states using any metric we want, so choosing to do American states by order of statehood is completely arbitrary. And I'm just looking at political definitions of "state." It's confusing for our readers to be forced into an article about an American state when search results would serve them better and it's harmful to promote an WP:AMERICENTRIC worldview when the audience of Wikipedia is WP:GLOBAL. -- Tavix (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I provided links in each of my examples. Each link has a list of U.S. states, RANKED, in a certain order. Look at List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population for example, and in that list, Pennsylvania is listed as the sixth state. When referring to states in this manner, you would just use "Sixth State." Can you imagine how unwieldy of a disambiguation that would be? Search results would be BY FAR the best way to handle this, as you could use "sixth state" to refer to just about anything you want it to refer to. -- Tavix (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've totally missed the point. Once again, Americans never use these terms unqualified except in the sense that they're used here. Yes, "sixth state in area", "tenth state in density", etc., but this is not Sixth State by area: it's merely Sixth State, a concept that always and unambiguously means Massachusetts when used by Americans. You need to find examples in which "Nth state", by itself, is routinely used in reference to a non-US country or a non-US subnational state. This is no different from the 51st state article and its related disambiguation page, which doesn't list anything except the main article and a couple of pop-culture works entitled "51st state". Expanding the disambiguation page with Angola and Spain because their population and area, respectively, are 51st largest worldwide, would be absolutely ludicrous. Likewise ludicrous is the idea of demanding that this be deleted or disambiguated on the basis of other states being Nth in rankings such as population, area, population density, etc. Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a look at the lede for the Massachusetts article. There it says it is the "14th most populous" and the "3rd most densely populated" of the 50 States, for example. Right there in the lede, it's using "14th state" and "3rd state." -- Tavix (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's using "14th most populous" and "3rd most densely populated". Not even close. Let's look at another type of example. Run a Google search for <idaho "forty-third state"> and you get tons of results referring to Idaho as the Forty-Third State, whether webpages for children or print sources. Rhode Island is the forty-third most populous state, but search for <"rhode island" "forty-third state"> and you get a mix of pages talking about RI's Forty-Third State House of Representatives District, Betty Davis Wallace's services as the forty-third State Regent, and similar false positives; the only results I found that use merely "Forty-third State" are pages like this one, which uses "Forty-third State" to refer to...Idaho. Even Randy in Boise knows that "Forty-Third State" is always Idaho when used by Americans. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And yet all of those examples are American WP:BIAS because we aren't looking at other types of states. -- Tavix (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New Jersey, Oklahoma, Hawaii, Piauí (Brazil) and Ohio. Just some examples from a cursory search. I can find more examples if you'd like. -- Tavix (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Singapore, too (and occasionally Brunei when people float the idea of it joining Malaysia). 210.6.254.106 (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
210.6.254.106 (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any common and sensible way to order them? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. If we want to continue the theme that "xth state" refers to an admission order, Member states of the United Nations can be sorted by date of admission. For example, South Sudan would naturally be the "193rd state" (source). -- Tavix (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure we could, but it's extremely unusual for UN member states to be referred to by an ordinal. There's also the issue of succession - South Sudan is the 193rd current member state, but does that mean they are the 193rd state to have been admitted, or the 193rd out of states that are currently members, and how many of the 193 are represented by Czechoslovakian and Yugoslavian successor states? The prominence of order of admission seems to be a uniquely American thing, and that seems to be the only thing that an ordinal without a qualifier commonly refers to. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— Duplicate vote: Ivanvector (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. -- Tavix (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I thought I hadn't actually !voted yet. Fixed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I figured as much. I probably should have just messaged you... -- Tavix (talk) 20:25, 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.
More