< May 22
May 24 >

May 23

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 23, 2016.

Alacris

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 (even though nobody wrote "delete" in bold text below) Deryck C. 23:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear why redirecting Alacris to Active Directory - the only link between the two terms is that in 2005, Microsoft acquired a company called Alacris which worked on directories and used Microsoft's Active Directory solution. Redirecting from a company name to a different company's product name may actually be misleading. — kashmiri TALK 23:01, 23 May 2016 (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.

Wild honeys

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 ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm can we pluralise this? I mean well er just can we? Need I explain (neelix) Si Trew (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary says this is "usually uncountable", but it does have a plural, and the plural form is indeed "honeys". For an example of a non-colloquial usage of that, consider a cheese platter with a selection of wild honeys—i.e., different varietals of honey. The plural is also common at Honey. --BDD (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, besides Wiktionary saying this is only "usually" uncountable, the OED gives a 2012 citation of the San Francisco Chronicle using "honeys". Merriam-Webster Unabridged says "plural honeys or honies". You seem to have an extremely narrow definition of "real word". --BDD (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SSTflyer, did you see CoffeeWithMarkets's sources above? Do you consider them unreliable? --BDD (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, didn't notice that. I would be fine with a retarget. SSTflyer 15:06, 31 May 2016 (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.

The Masonic

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 31#The Masonic

Black Stone (shrine)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 1#Black Stone (shrine)

Seamer (bowler)

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 ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Neelix) Not sure on this. I do know a bit about cricket but usually I am the bloke at the back doing the scoring cos I am bloody useless on the field. I think the terms "in-seamer" and "out-seamer" are ok essentially for spin bowling whether you are doing it clockwise or anticlockwise from the point of view of the bowler (obviously opposite point of view for the batsman) but we don't have those. Pinging WP:CRICKET if that exists. Is this a valid term or not? The target is fine I am just not sure about whether a bowler would ever be called a "seamer". Si Trew (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for help at WP:CRICKET. I note it is listed on the DAB at Seamer. It is probably OK I just probably didn't hear it ever omn Test Match Special and so forth and what with Neelix' tendency to make things up I doubt myself sometimes. It's not over yet. Since Neelix I believe is North American and that is not a game widely played there it adds to my doubt that this was created from any knowledge but from just sticking words together in arbitrary ways. We can take it out the DAB easily enough if it makes no sense. I mean, what is a seamer if not a male seamstress? It just seemed a bit kinda odd to me but is probably OK in the end. Si Trew (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to do Seamer (cricket) instead of bowler since bowler is ambiguous. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken this out at the DAB after discussion with User:Blue Square Thing at WT:CRICKET all in good faith. as AngusWOOF suggests, there is no need for this disambiguation now. Of course it can go ((R from unnecessary disambiguation)) but this is just clutter now. I've asked for WP:CSD on it. Cross your fingers. (Especially if you're a cricket umpire trying to signal to a scorer namely me in a game of village cricket 50 yards (46 m) over at the boundary how many bowling balls are left in an oeuvre that is a really helpful bit of semaphore to a man who could be mistaken for Mr Magoo and is trying to do double entry bookkeeping to keep track of both sides on one book while having a pint and trying to light a cigarette). Si Trew (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, if you've never done it, have a go at running a cricket book. You have to keep track of the overs, the insman, the outsman , the stupid umpire who signals to you from fifty yards away that it was four or six or two wides while you are writing it down and they love in village cricket to make their signals oh so subtle it is not as if they are a traffic policeman or anything waving their hands around no they love it to signal you four wides with a little waggle of their finger from fifty yards away and if you score two runs when they signalled one run oh you're the problem. Try it you'll love it. Really bloody difficult job. The rest of them just bash a ball about and run about a bit. If you call "Over (cricket)" when they have had six goes the umpire will tell you they have had five or they have had seven even though your book clearly shows that they have had six and has markings on it to mark off each time a bowl is made exactly for that purpose. As usual you become as I am here with the Neelix redirects the stool pigeon for everything that went wrong in the game and so on. I am used to it, I can take it. Si Trew (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One thing and there is probably someone who has a lot more money than me probably said this better than I that the less power you have the more you will exercise it and village cricket umpires are like that. It's their one chance of power each weekend and you are always wrong. Barak Obama or David Cameron do not go around issuing parking tickets even though I imagine technically it is in their power to do so. The people with the least power execute it mercilessly. That is why security guards stop me in shops when I have paid for goods (I don't steal) because it is the one tiny little bit of power they have. Trew's inverse law of power to control ratio. I could probably write a PhD about that but the people who award the PhD theses have a lots of power but no control. Si Trew (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2016 (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.

Chanced

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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch (neelix). The target is a DAB but "to chance" as a verb means usually to gamble (chanced one's arm and so forth) so now I am doubting when I boldly made chancing just R to verb rather than list it whether I should have done. I know in English there is no noun that cannot be verbed but is it the right place to put it? We can soon fix chancing if I were too hasty there. Si Trew (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2016 (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.

Estlin Cummings

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. --BDD (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure on this one. e. e. cummings always wrote his name that way in lowercase but I appreciate that we cannot do that here on Wikipedia. (We can) but this listing as a middle name is probably a bit out of order. (Neelix redirect) Si Trew (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

e. e. cummings
was mostly hummings
about things scatalogical
not anatomical
So this Clerihew
I give it to you
So that you can decide
Whether we can divide

Si Trew (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2016 (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.

Quatrameter

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. -- Tavix (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope nope you cannot have this (Neelix redirect). Tetra is Greek for four and Quatra is Latin. Nobody in his right mind says Quatrameter this is rather nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It could go to Quartermaster as ((R from mispelling)). Not sure. Si Trew (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There were legs, legs, going around like pegs in the Stores, in the Stores
There were legs, legs, going around like pegs in the Quartermaster's stores
My eyes are dim I cannot see I have not got my specs with me
I have not got my specs with me
There were legs, legs, going around like pegs in the Storehouse in the stores
Therw were legs, legs going around like pegs in the Quartermaster's Stores

Si Trew (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nah I was a cub scout for about six weeks but that's all. I learned it from me Dad, he liked doing silly songs like that. I was in the Boy's Brigade. Si Trew (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then again I am something rather of a prescriptive grammarian so I maybe am being a bit too narrow minded. Si Trew (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But if a user were to make the (apparently common) mistake of blending Greek and Latin in this way, this is pretty likely to be the subject they're looking for, no? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:12, 24 May 2016 (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.

Shahistan

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 ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect) not sure on this one. It is in the article in its history but might these days seem a bit pejorative as meaning "king town" or "king city". Probably perfectly OK but not 100% sure. Closing admin R to section please. Si Trew (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Deryck C. below. Uanfala (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Technically I imagine this would be done as withdrawn by nominator or I can take WP:CSD with WP:A7 referring to this discussion and I imagine it would be deleted because admins at CSD tend to be more averse to the "neelix redirects" than I am but I think we need WP:CONSENSUS first hence my !vote. I didn't !vote the first time round I merely offered it for comment. Since I am daily being accused of taking Neelix redirects too hastily to CSD I should like this to stand that in fact I do not take every Neelix redirect to CSD wandering around with a blunderbuss taking potshots at every redirect. If I am in doubt I ask. What do you do? Si Trew (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2016 (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.

2b1ask1

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. This is a marginal one. The main arguments are that this redirect comes from a Freemasonry meme, but it's a single publicity campaign and there's just about a majority who think it shouldn't refer to the overall article about freemasonry. Deryck C. 22:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meme Lodge No. Over 9000. The Traditionalist (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PeRshGo: This is not regular Masonic terminology and it does not strictly refer only to Freemasonry. I simply browsed the list of redirects to Freemsonry and nominated the ones I thought that deserved discussion.--The Traditionalist (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Traditionalist: Are you using the term regular in the Masonic sense, to claim that the phrase is irregular? PeRshGo (talk) 13:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PeRshGo: Yes.--The Traditionalist (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Traditionalist: Ah, well that certainly isn't the case in the US. Some grand lodges even have entire sections dedicated to the acronym. 2B1Ask1 - Grand Lodge of Ancient Free Masons of South Carolina PeRshGo (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it makes no sense here with this combination of characters but that's all even if that is the name of the lodge that is a private matter for them and not encylopaeidic. But if you are going to start bashing Freemasons, try start bashing Jews, Gypsies, refugees, and anyone else you don't like first. Everyone's entitled to my own opinion. That line of argument really gets my goat. Si Trew (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MSJapan: are you a Freemason? are you the expert? Any Freemasons here? as it happens
I can call spirits from the briny deep
And so can I, and so can any man
But will they come when you do call them?
That would be fine to have a WP:EXPERT but it is not obligatory for a Freemason to turn up at RfD to sort it out. As it happens, I have spent most of my evening over at a discussion on something else where patently there is an "expert" in your words who put me right and sorted it out and I am cleaning up the mess left by a stack of Neelix redirects. You call it laughable, I call it frankly abominable. To create redirects that you know nothing about is just well backwards run sentences until reels the mind. You try doing it, @MSJapan:, you try taking stacks and stacks off of User:Anomie list/Neelix list/2 and trying to make head or tail of them. Try doing it for just about two hours and see if your head spins. Not because they were created in bad faith but just technically to list them, to sort them, to put them in good order for a CSD or an RfD or a keep, you try doing it then come back here and tell me it is laughable. Only the second personal insult I have had today so I am doing pretty well today. Si Trew (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens I probably have a new "expert" that will help out at RfD because of the intelligent and kind conversation we had this evening over one of the Neelix redirects which was only one and I have asked that expert whether I can call on his advice if I need it. (I think he his a he, but if not, I shall call on her advice, I didn't look at the user's page). What did you do? Si Trew (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you have an issue somewhere else on WP doesn't entitle you to hurl abuse at an editor in an unrelated discussion. What you took as a personal insult wasn't even a reply to you, so I'd suggest you dial your attitude back. MSJapan (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're thinking of Internet memes. This certainly looks like it would qualify as a meme. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained above that this is not a meme. MSJapan (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2016 (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.

Oreille de souris

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 all. The general consensus is that the French name of this plant isn't used in English much. Deryck C. 23:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? "Oreille De Souris" and "Oreille de Souris" were briefly the title of the article now at Faujasiopsis reticulata. This is a French common name that applies to several plants. The first Google hit I get for "oreille de souris" is a disambiguation page on the French Wikipedia (fr:Oreille de souris). Do we need to make a disambiguation page for a French language term on en.wikipedia, or can we just delete these? Plantdrew (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh bugger that's a tricky one. Mouse's eye literally. I don't speak botanic but I speak French. I think we can delete em, User:Plantdrew unless there is an equivalent WP:COMMONNAME in English. I give you a bonus: in Hungarian the common name for the daffodil and that lot of stuff is narcis (Narcissus). They have just about finished now around here we had a load of really nice ones this year and put them down to bed down ready for next year, in an old cast-iron bathtub that all the bulbs are in, tulips and whatnot. I know they have the botanic name in English but in Hungarian that is the common name. I think it derives or some books say from asphodel but I am not sure the etymology seems uncertain on that (in English/Welsh). Delete all. It makes no sense in English unless there is a WP:COMMONNAME in English for "Mouse Eye" and if there is it might refer to a completely different flower but I don't think there is. Si Trew (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To complicate the story further, some more searching reveals that there is Myosotis (the forget-me-not, the genus name is "mouse ear" in Greek); Cerastium (mouse-ear and mouse ear redirect there); the genus of mouse-eared bats (mouse-eared redirects there); the greater mouse-eared bat (a specific family within that genus, sometimes just called the "mouse eared bat"); mouse-ear cress; the redirect mouse-ear fungus to the dab page wood ear (based off of a translation of the Chinese common name, it appears); mouse-eared combretum; a dab page for mouse-ear tickseed.
We have, then, at minimum nine or ten other articles which might justly be redirects for "oreille de souris"; I suspect the best bets are mouse-ear hawkweed and Myosotis (the former having the common name "mouse ear" in both French and English; the latter meaning "mouse ear" and having that common name in French). There are so many plausible options, though, that I would just delete and have done with it... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hehehehe I dunno who just dropped a word in my shell-like but of course oreille is ear not eye. I cocked up sorry. mes yeux ne sont tres bien. Si Trew (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right so we have lots of mouse eared things. I think best to delete them all as WP:RFOREIGN. Onh the backs of seed packets it will have the botanical name in latin/greek (that is kinda the point) then in your local language and stuff, it will not, unless you live in France or buy very cheap seeds that are out of date and shipped all over europe, have them in French. This is no help to an English-speaking audiences. Sorrry for cocking up saying eye not ear. mes oreillles et barbes my ears and whiskers as the dormouse said in Alice in Wonderland at the tea party. Of course a dormouse is not a mouse but well never mind. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh in British English it is usually fleur-de-lys – I don't really know why the I/Y variation, I guess just imported at an earlier date (the word I mean not the flower). Isn't the Prince of Wales' um three feathers technically a fleur-de-lys? Orwell grumbles somewhere in his Diaries that nice english names like snapdragon were being replaced by Latin names like Antirrhinum (I can never spell that one – that was my third attempt) and forget-me-not with myositos (I think he actually spells it myosotis but I would need to really rack my memory to check) and that kind of thing. I can't think of too many more in French, oh hang on girasol um sunflower comes via French in an odd way because it "revolves around the sun" but I am not sure if we have that in English. Si Trew (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We do but it goes to a kind of crystal not to the flower. Narcis (that is Narcissus means daffodil, asphodel in Hungarian). again, I don't really why they are so narcissistic but that is what it is. Again we do have Narcissus (plant) but they are not the little small ones but the well just normal ones. So these WP:COMMONNAMEs are rather um culture-specific which is exactly why not just on Wikipedia but in real life we have the Latin/Greek so we can be sure we aren't picking up a load of paradise fruit when we wanted paradicom (tomatoes). Si Trew (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2016 (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.

All Night, Alone.

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 ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a highly unlikely ((R from erroneous name)). Steel1943 (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2016 (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.

The Wrestlers (painting)

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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Wrestlers (painting) went red but this one remains. It was declined at WP:CSD in good faith by User:Iridescent. It was Neelix who did the page move on 1 August 2015 which must have been like just one of his very last before the "discovery" of the Neelix redirects. Iridescent says essentially keep because it is linked from a lot of pages. I can see the logic in that but as it's ((R from move)) (the page move being done by Neelix after creating the other one) I guess a bot will have moved a lot of links over to avoid double redirects, however, is it right? If it's wrong, regardless of the number of redlinks it might leave in its wake, it should go. I am not sure. I can see the sweeping up afterwards, were we to delete it, being a struggle but we should not have incorrect information either. We can probably somehow fix the links to the target I am aware of WP:NOTBROKEN but if this is broken that is what we have to do. I can do it. Si Trew (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see Iridescent's page view stats, but I'd like to see evidence that they aren't merely a function of the one article being an FA and the other being relatively new. And to be clear, the Etty article is excellent, but article quality isn't really a primary topic criterion. --BDD (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting "relatively new" from? They were created less than two months apart (Etty, Luks), when Neelix was in his "following me about being generally annoying" phase. To be clear, I don't have any strong objection to this being re-retargeted back to the dab page provided it isn't redlinked, but I find it vanishingly unlikely many readers are looking for the Luks—an average of four pageviews per day is little more than one would expect from search engine bots alone, and given the dubious nature of the sourcing on it I'm not even sure it would survive AFD. ‑ Iridescent 21:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, honestly, I just assumed the Etty article was much older since it's in such good shape. All the more impressive as an FA, then. Still somewhat on the fence in terms of keep vs. retarget. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2016 (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.

Canna orientalis f. flava

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 Rmhermen. --BDD (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our botanical experts User:Plantdrew and User:Peter coxhead will call this one. I have already rcatted many it is the f. in the middle here that is bothersome. I realise the f. is used often in botanical as an abbreviation of the genus name but is this OK kinda in the middle I don't think it is. Si Trew (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've taken it speedy. I didn't know in the middle that it meant that. I know what it means but didn't know the abbreviation meant that. (sings) Show me the way to Amaryllis. Thanks for helping, as always. Si Trew (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2016 (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.

Bigend

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. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not what a big end or bigend means a big end is the major cylinder on a four-stroke engine as far as I know. WP:NOTDIC. This is a bit nonsense. (Neelix redirect) Big end is a redirect to Crankpin. Si Trew (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:18, 23 May 2016 (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.

Star Wars: Bloodlines

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 ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deletion of this unused redirect, which may create confusion with Star Wars: Bloodline. The destination of this redirect is Bloodlines (Star Wars novel), and the two novel articles have hatnotes to navigate between them. — TAnthonyTalk 15:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My issue us just that typing Star Wars: Blood... brings up both Star Wars: Bloodline and Star Wars: Bloodlines, with nothing to differentiate and guide a reader to the novel they are looking for. As the plural (Star Wars: Bloodlines) is not the proper name of the 2006 novel anyway and so is the less likely search destination, it seemed best to me to point the searcher to the 2016 novel, where there is a hatnote in the less likely case they are actually looking for the 2006 novel.— TAnthonyTalk 17:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:13, 23 May 2016 (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.

~*~ StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs ~*~

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. Well, consensus can change. Deryck C. 23:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Just because Randall Munroe made a joke doesn't mean this is a plausible search term.  ONR  (talk)  23:04, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It doesn't hurt to spend more time to gauge the sentiments of the community, especially for a discussion with an inflamed precedent...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I did search for this a few days before the nom, and it went exactly where I expected, so I wasn't disappointed. Are you saying you think a reader would be disappointed because they'd be looking for content on XKCD, or the naming dispute? --BDD (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: If they wanted to go to Star Trek Into Darkness they would type “Star Trek Into Darkness”. If they bothered to type “~*~ StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs ~*~” they would be expecting to go somewhere different from Star Trek Into Darkness (XKCD, for example).--The Traditionalist (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying. That wasn't my expectation when I searched it. I'm not a typical reader, but editors are readers too. --BDD (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2016 (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.

Complete works of Plato

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 1#Complete works of Plato

Regular Grand Lodge of England

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 31#Regular Grand Lodge of England

The second us president

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. -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The capitalisation is rather bad. Especially when there is no redirect called The second U.S. President. The Traditionalist (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, it goes to this redirect in question. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now Lydia, say Lydia now have you heard Lydia
Lydia the tattooed lady
She's got eyes that folks adore so
And a torso even moreso
Lydia say lydia well have you met lydia
Lydia the queen of tattoo
On the back is the Battle of Waterloo
Beside it a Wreck of the Hesperus too
And proudly above waves the Red White and Blue
You can learn a lot from Lydia
SHuffle up and see her her with her big diamond
Over on the left side we have Treasure Island
There's Nijinski a-doing a rumba
There's her social security number
When her robe is unfurled she will show you the world
If you step up and tell her where
For a dime you can see Kankakee or Pareeee
or Washington crossing the Delaware
Here is Grover Walin unveilin' the Trilon
Over on the right we may have the new Skylon
Here is Captain Spalding exploring the Amazon
Here's Godiva but with her pajamas on
Now Lydia say Lydia now have you met Lydia Lydia the champ of them all
For two bits she will do a Muzerka in Jazz
With a view of Niagra that nobody has
And right on the back you can see Alcatraz
You can learn a lot from Lydia
She once swept an Admiral clear off his feet
The ships on her hips made his heart miss a beat
For now the old boy's in command of the fleet
As he went and married Lydia.

You can learn a lot from Lydia, la la, la la. Si Trew (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Use format "2nd President of the United States" instead of creating new ways of searching. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC) updated 20:17, 23 May 2016 (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.

Grows glaciers

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 ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of these (Neelix redirect). I've taken many to CSD and obvious I can ((R from verb)) this but not sure it makes sense to do so.

Admittedly I'm feeling cold to
Neelix R's lo and behold
you look at User:Anomie/Neelix_list/4#Ice
and then gainsay me. This suffice
to set what we should do with all.
I'm done now
I have set my stall. Si Trew (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially I think our WP:CONSENSUS on this one will cover many of the others and we can mass delete them then. THere are many that are sensible but there are loads of verb forms and all kinds of things which are not at the target at all and essentially the usual combinatorial explosion. Si Trew (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, sure, I could ((R from verb)) them as I said in the nom but I am not sure with a lot of them it makes sense to do so. Some it does and I have thus kept and rcatted quite a few but some are a bit kinda too wacky I think like accumulates glacial ice is technically, syntatically correct but nobody is ever going to search that way unless they have a very old refrigerator. (edit conflict) with AngusWOOF I don't know which is going to take so apols if I have accidentally taken someone else's out. Si Trew (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well also just ice crystals or indeed any crystal "grows" so a glacier technically grows by one ice crystal at a time, often in a bit of a hurry, but still one at a time. I just think it is a bit nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2016 (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.

Be As You Are

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 Be as You Are (Songs from an Old Blue Chair) and hatnote. Deryck C. 23:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be as You Are (Songs from an Old Blue Chair) peaked at #1 on the Billboard 200, and is clearly more significant than a non-single song only mentioned in the Track listing section of an album article. SSTflyer 10:28, 23 May 2016 (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.

White blue

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 all speedy deleted criterion WP:G6 by Sphilbrick. SimonTrew mentioned another redirect but the one he posted is also redlinked, so I take it as having also been deleted. If not, it would be prudent to list any further additions as a new discussion. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anomie/Neelix_list/3 entris 63-72. Although usually yes colours are kinda associative so if you say something is "red and white" or "white and red" it doesn't really matter beyond a bit of emphasis on which is more prominent, I am not sure with technical terms like this target it makes sense does it? (Neelix) Si Trew (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2016 (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.

Blue-coat

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 Bluecoat (disambiguation). -- Tavix (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix) Tricky with the hyphen. Do we leave this where it is or do we take it to Bluecoat (disambiguation) which is hatnoted at the target? Not sure. Si Trew (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2016 (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.

Triameter

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 June 1#Triameter

Omini

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 31#Omini

La Primaudaye

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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 10:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix) User:Oiyarbepsy reverted my CSD on this one (which is fine) but I don't think this makes sense. The surname of this person is not La Primaudaye but de La Primaudaye. That would be a bit like calling say Des O'Connor "Des Connor". I don't think we can do that, the "de" is not some kinda disposable fragment. Si Trew (talk) 06:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I am a liar there because the French has it just as La Primaudaye so with this particular one it looks like you can separate it. Many surnames, you see my reasoning, you can't just knock off a Mac off of MacDonald and call them Donald so on, so I think I made the right call in bringing it here, Oiyarbepysy made the right call in declining the CSD, on this one I am wrong and you are right. Si Trew (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2016 (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.

Whippet (car)

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 ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this is a separate brand built by Willys and it should have its own article, like Buick does. I'll ask Wikiproject Cars to weigh in. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's redirected to an article that uses Whippet as a model name. But yes, if there's enough independent notability and sourcing to create an article, go for it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:55, 23 May 2016 (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.

Alec Wulff

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. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY: Creator's (and sole editor's) support can also be seen as a CSD G7.—Bagumba (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #1: "The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine." These redirects are for a player on the team, with no other mention in the article of them besides a sparse entry in a roster listing. Moreover, these college players are likely to appear on four different articles, one for each sports season they will be in college. The players do not meet WP:GNG. With limited information of them in each article, it makes more sense to have the term go through Wikipedia's search engine, showing all the mentions of the player to the reader, instead of redirecting to one arbitrary article.—Bagumba (talk) 05:52, 23 May 2016 (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.

Chicanery O'Hare International Airport

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) 13:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be a likely and useful redirect (but not so bad as to be R3?). Feinoha Talk 04:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh absolutely WP:RNEUTRAL but this backs into WP:NONSENSE WP:RFD#D5. Delete. I would have combined with the one below but User:The Anome was so quick to delete that, I didn't really have a chance neither did User:RA0808 nor User:Feinoha to kinda agree to that combining. I ain't complaining I'm just saying I probably would have done if it weren't that the one below were speedied, but if that one goes this one must surely go. I think I actually nominated this for CSD on those grounds has that been declined or is it "stacking"? Si Trew (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope as I write it's still "stacking" at CSD. I referred it back to the conversation below in my CSD nomination. Oddly the DAB there don't we have stacking (aviation) or something not listed there, used in aviation slang when air traffic controllers "stack" aircraft to be clear for landing? No big deal but do we have anything we can add at that DAB for that? (Totally separate from this of course I was just punning it). Si Trew (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should've done it in this case but I decided to use Twinkle and as far as I know it doesn't let users combine RfDs. Anyway thanks for the note for the future. Feinoha Talk 12:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, gone. The first one went so quickly really nobody had a chance to combine them in any way I just didn't want the second one as an orphan so I nominated it at CSD as WP:SNOW.
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.

Chicanery, Illinois

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 and salted as WP:R3 by admin User:The Anome. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be a likely and useful redirect (but not so bad as to be R3?). Feinoha Talk 04:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am never good for searching for these things but consensus was some time ago, I would say about eighteen months ago, that we don't keep kinda pejorative expressions for places unless they are very WP:RS. I listed one I think it was New York Shitty (and gave others examples on a similar vein like Filthadelphia and so on) that did have at least kinda marginal RS, used in a newspaper and so on, and those went even though I had RS for it. I'll try to find the previous discussion. I agree Delete that is I believe the consensus established at that conversastion. Si Trew (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm it can't be those two exactly because they've never been created (so I can't try to pin the R conversation from the deletion history) but it was similar things in that line. Si Trew (talk) 10:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have managed to block my own search now because all the WP search results (of which I get five results) all lead me back to this discussion today because I've mentioned them! I am sure some other editor will be able to find it. Maybe it was Philthadelphia (and I'll just compound the felony if I mentioned anyway you get the idea I am pretty sure we have consensus, the conversastion included List of disparaging place names and whether we should have those at all, you can imagine WP:NOTCENSORED and so forth but that if I remember we need a Pretty strong RS to keep them).
Incidentally I think we can safely combine this with the one above but since another editor has !voted on that @RA0808: would you mind if we do that? Si Trew (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted, and salted, per CSD:R3. -- The Anome (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2016 (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.
Comments after discussion closed
  • @Si Trew: see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 17#Filthydelphia, which closed as retarget to List of city nicknames in Pennsylvania#Philadelphia where it is discussed with sources. (A new editor later removed it; I just restored the mention there.) Anyway, like that one, if this name Chicanery can be sourced, it should be retargeted somewhere which discusses the name; pointing it to the city isn't useful, since it provides the reader with no information about the name itself. Being inflammatory isn't a reason for deletion in and of itself, unless it's a WP:BLP violation or just a totally WP:MADEUP nickname that's never used in the real world; see WP:RNEUTRAL. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 10:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That redirect clearly wasn't a typo nor intended as one. This should have been left to a full discussion to determine whether it could be sourced and whether there was an appropriate target where the nickname could be discussed. 210.6.254.106 (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks 210.6 that was the one I was thinking of (and I weren't far off saying "About eighteen months ago!). I am going to remove my redlinks in the closed discussion above so I don't compound the felony was using them to try to search for things (I'll leave the text but just unlink them). I think that's a useful cross-ref to have here anyway. Si Trew (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B.C. Cossonay

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 per CSD R3 -- The Anome (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nutcracker100 (talk · contribs) has been creating a large number of redirects, some of which are of non-notable figures like Kerins and Pierce to very general articles. If articles exist for the leagues of the teams, it would make more sense to retarget those, but others like Kerins and Pierce might not be notable enough as standalone articles or reasonable redirects. Zappa24Mati 04:05, 23 May 2016 (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.

Idolises

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. No prejudice against publishing the draft, or recreating any of these as redirects to the finished article, when the time comes. --BDD (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Target is a disambiguation, with none of the items on that disambiguation page being idolize or any similar form. The disambiguation page is clearly an improper target, but I'm not sure what the target should be, or if there should be one at all. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that makes sense. I don't know where you would start with Idolization because it would now I guess be kinda a back formation what with pop idol, teen idol and so on. I believe it is a real word and I deliberately do not check these things because I like to come with a certain naivety as if I were an intelligent but ignorant reader trying to find information, what should I expect to find? Not Idolatry probably. Yes Delete the whole lot and start again. Either that or I start going and coveting my neighbour's wife (she's a cutie). Si Trew (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's easy to say User:BD2412. When you create the article I shall support you. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged, says it right on the RFD instructions, absolutely nothing stopping you turning idolization into an article and it would disappear from RfD in two shakes of a lamb's tail. Or you want someone else to create the article? That must be WP:RS of course and so on. Si Trew (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a start: Draft:Idolization. bd2412 T 03:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Cracking, sorry User:BD2412 with going through the you-know-who redirects I sometimes have a short temper, I apologise. Thanks for making the draft, I think we should 'Move that over into main (I'm not worried about -ise or -ize) and then redirect whatever is sensible to that. Thanks for making the draft. Si Trew (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2016 (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