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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
Comment I am very surprised that we don't have a List of loudest sounds article, particularly given a search on the Guiness Book of Records finds at least 30 different "loudest" records, although there is no single record really equivalent to this search therm. I'm equally surprise that none of the obviously related articles such as decibel or loudness give any examples of things of varying typical volumes. I recall seeing such comparison diagrams in books I had as a kid, so it's clearly something that people will be interested in and something we should probably have if it can be sourced. I'll leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/Acoustics and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional sound production as they're likely to have some relevant ideas. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lochnagar mine - "The sound of the blast was considered the loudest man-made noise in history up to that point, with reports suggesting it was heard in London. They would be surpassed a year later by the mines in the Battle of Messines."
Pickett's Charge - "It may well have been the loudest man-made sound on the North American continent until the detonation of the first atomic bomb at Alamogordo, New Mexico." [appears only in a footnote as a quote from a source used to reference a different claim]
Rocket engine test facility - "The sound pressure level of large rocket engines has been measured at greater than 200 decibels — one of the loudest man-made sounds on earth." [unsourced]
Cwm y Glo - "The explosion was at the time believed to be the loudest manmade explosion ever".
This NASA document about notes that "the largest sound power levels ever experienced at NASA Stennis was approximately 204dB, which corresponded to the Saturn S‐IC stage on the B‐2 test stand." but this is not mentioned in our article about the Saturn V. Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
This was created as a joke redirect to Billy Mays. The current target is problematic as well, as it doesn't say who the "loudest man in history" is. Either way, I doubt its plausibility as a search term. --Tavix(talk)19:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I actually think this is a plausible search term, but the closest thing to a suitable target we have that I can find is Alan Myatt who holds the world record for the loudest cry by a town crier (112.8dB). However, a search for "Loudest" on the Guinness Book of Records website finds three record holders who have produced louder sounds Jill Drake (Loudest Scream, individual - 129dB)[1], Luca Zocchi (Loudest whistle - 125dB)[2] and Alpaslan Durmuş (Loudest vocal bass note - 117dB)[3]. We don't have articles on any of these people, and at I think it unlikely they are notable. Dan Harris (coach) (article currently at AfD) has a sourced statement that he has been called "the loudest man on the planet", but that's not measured. Given the lack of a good target, I'm left with deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting purely on technical grounds because of the excessive size of the logs currently transcluded on the main page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Uanfala (talk)20:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
Where should this point? Most sources say that the loudest sound ever was the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa, including our article, however some sources do say it was the Tunguska event. The loudness of the latter is not mentioned in our article. Based on the preponderance of sources I'd suggest retargetting to the eruption but I wouldn't be opposed to a page that discusses the issue of loudest sounds if one is created (see also #Loudest man-made sound on Earth). Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm thinking this should point to a "list of loudest noises" or related article. I'm wary of it redirecting to a single event since the answer is not definitive. Deletion might help that list get created. --Tavix(talk)20:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
Keep as with Mike Jackson and Ron Reagan. Even though Michael Jordan has the "Be Like Mike" campaign slogan, he has not gone by Mike Jordan in the preponderance of his news articles and books. His coverage under the name Mike Jordan would be comparable to the others on the dab page. Although he did go by Mike Jordan in college, the question then becomes whether his notability as Mike Jordan in college would be enough to claim primary topic of that version of the name. [4][5] And having gone by Michael Jordan, the others listed have likely changed to Mike Jordan or added middle names/initials to distinguish themselves. The searcher for Mike Jordan would best be served going to that list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The name "Michael Jordan", with no context, automatically means the basketball player to me, but if I hear "Mike Jordan", I imagine you're talking about someone else. I can't remember ever hearing of the basketball player being referred to as "Mike Jordan" in items published since my earliest memories, the 1990s. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
It is unclear what this redirected meant to refer. At the present time, the redirect's target section doesn't exist, but either way, the redirect itself is quite vague. Steel1943 (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
This phrase is not mentioned in the target article. For this reason, unless this term refers to a specific honorific title of some sort, the word "Additional" is vague and confusing. Steel1943 (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
Delete. The "other countries" are the ones without their own lists, but there's no need for an "other" redirect that doesn't even have the proper apostrophe in countries'. This is basically the same thing (just in a different namespace) as the miscellaneous categories mentioned at WP:OCMISC. Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
List of other characters in Transformers: Animated
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
List of alternate history United States Presidents
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
This redirect may have had a purpose redirecting where it does back during the previous RfD, but at this point, the redirect is a circular reference to itself since any "other" list is at its target, confusing readers who may be at the redirect's target, then try to find "other fictional presidents...". Steel1943 (talk) 06:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
Delete I see a Saga#Other but not sure what that means for the titles that are placed there. Is "Other" a classification of a Norse Saga? I don't see this being useful. 18:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngusWOOF (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
Besides the vague use of the word "other", there doesn't even seem to be a list of characters at the target article, nor does it seem that such a list exists. Steel1943 (talk) 06:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
disambiguate? Not sure what else to include in a dab page besides Roman naming conventions. Search engines (checked Google and Bing) turn up a lot of pages that aren't related to scientific names of organisms (most of the first page of results is about names for people). "Latin name" is sloppy and unencylopedic as a synonym for "scientific name" and shouldn't be linked; scientific names aren't necessarily derived from Latin and those that are Latin derived wouldn't be recognized by somebody speaking classical Latin.
Keep – There is already a hatnote for Roman naming conventions on binomial nomenclature. If there’s only basically two candidates for a dab page, I don’t see why not leave it as is.
"Latin name" is sloppy and unencylopedic as a synonym for "scientific name"
That may well be, but that’s how it’s often used.
Search engines (checked Google and Bing) turn up a lot of pages that aren't related to scientific names of organisms (most of the first page of results is about names for people).
Yes, but I think that’s due to sites listing baby names and their derivations. (It seems to me science pages are less likely to employ heavy-duty SEO.) Get past that first page; it quickly tilts in favour of plants, birds and bugs. —Wiki Wikardo08:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate or Retarget if a suitable target is found. While binomial nomenclature is latin, may things have latin names, and I don't think that is the primary topic of all that we cover that could go by this name.— Godsy (TALKCONT)16:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep It's a common colloquialism, and nobody has presented a plausible other target, so there's nothing to disambiguate with. Mangoe (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
Redirect is useless and potentially misleading because no such subway station exists, unlikely a plausible search term since there are no blueprints or maps for a potential station at Secaucus. Since the extension proposals were rejected, very unlikely a new station will be built there for the foreseeable future 173.3.76.153 (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The redirect's creator was not notified of this discussion. I'm doing so now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Tavix(talk)04:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
There's zero mention of a "Carter Proft" anywhere on Wikipedia. The connection between the redirect and the target is unclear. --Tavix(talk)02:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Completely aside from this being a implausible redirect, the subject being an obscure journeyman in the German minor-leagues, this is absolutely a WP:XY deal. What makes his playing for the Chiefs a more likely redirect target than, say, the Kassel Huskies, the team he's been playing for for three seasons, or any of the other amateur and professional teams for which he has played to date? Like a number of other hockey redirects recently XfDed, this is the creation of an editor who was community banned from new redirects after creating hundreds like this to plump up his article creation count. Ravenswing 04:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
Keep there's a book that connects it to the pop punk bands like Green Day, Fall Out Boy, Bad Religion, which the article has lots of. [6] Other news articles show usage. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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.
Seems like a made-up term since per the article, the subject of the article seems to be a mix of Punk rock and Pop music. Either way, "punk pop rock" is not mentioned in the target article, and for that reason, these redirects could have a WP:XY issue. Steel1943 (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not a likely search term but the logic is very simple, since "punk" is short "punk rock" then "pop punk" could be referred to "pop punk rock". Also this term is indirectly included in the article in the title of one of the sources.--MASHAUNIX23:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
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. There's no clear direction to where these redirects would point if kept, and there's a majority in favor of deletion. --Tavix(talk)23:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.