(Go: >> BACK << -|- >> HOME <<)
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 15

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion‎ | Log

February 15

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 15, 2016.

Her Majesty Queen Alexandra

edit
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. This conforms to the existing primary topic. No prejudice against an RM to change that. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix redirect - this search string applies equally to Alexandra of Yugoslavia so it's an XY or two page DAb. Search results are better. Legacypac (talk) 20:02, 15 February 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.

Double stuffed

edit
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 Oreo#Varieties. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no Puritan, and I respect WP:NOTCENSORED, but I really dislike the idea of some kid looking for information on Oreos running across this. While the Oreos are called "Double Stuf" or "Double Stuff" depending on where they're sold, "double stuffed" remains a very common phrase associated with Oreos in the wild, and thus seems a likely search term. I propose retargeting to Oreo#Varieties, but would not oppose deletion. BDD (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stats are <1/day on average, so we don't seem to be corrupting the kiddies (or the adults for that matter); nevertheless, deleting it would be a neutral solution; redirecting to Oreos would be a mild act of censorship in making it harder for people to find out about double stuffing (via the search results).
Perhaps surprisingly, I can't find any sources that call them "Double stuffed". It seems to refer more to stuffing potatoes or pizzas. Keebler make double stuffed cookies under the E. L. Fudge brand: here; so without evidence it would be hard to say that it refers to Oreo cookies (or anything else). Others' search results may differ, of course. Si Trew (talk) 10:25, 20 February 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.

Lioyd Banks

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 23#Lioyd Banks

Wobbly H

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 25#Wobbly H

Reader-responses

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 23#Reader-responses

Methyl aldehydes

edit
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. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These seem to be different from the target enough that they should be redlinked or redirected. My high school chemistry is fuzzy though, so input sought. Legacypac (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, formic acid is HCOOH, and that derives into various formates but I don't think that's what you're thinking of. I recall from either high school or university chem that the hydroxide ion OH is always considered separately, so HCOOH isn't a dioxide technically, but then again I'm no chemist. According to formaldehyde (see ref 19) "methylene dioxide" is an erroneous name for formaldehyde based on its discoverer originally giving it an incorrect formula. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:21, 17 February 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.

Artificial objects

edit
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 Lists of artificial objects. (non-admin closure) sst✈(conjugate) 05:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a series of articles about artificial objects in various places outside earth making this a partial title match. I'm not sure this is the best target, Neelix redirect Legacypac (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hm? What does earth have to do with it? And if you've found something that's artificial but not man-made, even if it's in space, alert SETI! I suppose this phrase is meant to distinguish artificial objects from natural ones. I don't know if that's correct, or if it's a concept we really discuss anywhere. --BDD (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know the title of the target may be a bit surprising for some readers, but I think this is the best target available at the moment. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, WP:RFD#D2 confusing; lots of things are artificial objects (real or conceptual) that are not covered by this rather short article. Let the search engine do it. Si Trew (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but the target article doesn't say anything about space. Is your argument that the phrases usually refer to something in space? --BDD (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There sure seams to be a very strong affinity between the term artificial objects and space topics - on and off wikipedia. It is a very weird term if you think about it. Is the opposite 'real objects' or 'natural objects' (the opposite of 'man made' ). Can anyone find a wider meaning then 'stuff made on earth now in space'? Legacypac (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should convert this into a List of Lists. Something like "Artificial objects is a term use in space research to refer to man-made objects beyond the atmosphere. Here are some lists of such artificial objects... List of artificial objects in heliocentric orbit List of artificial objects on Mars List of artificial objects on Venus List of artificial objects on the Moon List of artificial objects leaving the Solar System List of artificial objects on extra-terrestrial surfaces ... Legacypac (talk) 16:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"List of artificial objects" is essentially a partial title match for all the lists that User:Legacypac has enumerated (and others), so I am not sure there is much value in creating a list of lists. (How did LP find those topics if not through a WP search?) Si Trew (talk) 06:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I googled Artificial objects and the first 6 hits were Wikipedia articles, followed by other space oriented articles down to result #17 [1] Also some of the related search suggestions are space oriented, either stuff in space or man-made objects that can be seen from space. Legacypac (talk) 07:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So is there any value in creating a list of lists if a search does just as well? What would it have that search results don't? Do you think it would make it easier than separating the wheat from the chaff of the search results?
I was tempted to create the list of lists, and if you (or anyone else) did then I'd very probably support a retarget to it. I'm just wondering whether deleting these, and letting the search engine do it, would be just as good for less effort. Si Trew (talk) 07:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking bollox. These redirects are not for "list of", and I wasn't searching without the "list of"; they're not PTMs. I think the list is worthwhile; I'll make a start. Si Trew (talk) 07:16, 20 February 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.

Sun lounges

edit
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) 16:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sun lounges are furniture not rooms. Not sure how the term made it into the "also known as" section but I've removed it. Legacypac (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is correct, there's a hatnote for the furniture, which is more commonly called a sun lounger: "For the outdoor furniture, see Sunlounger." Sun lounge is used, but not often, to refer to the furniture, but it's unclear whether this is an accepted name in some varieties of English or just a mistake or confusion with similar terms - for this the hatnote is still suitable. There's at least one book that distinguishes between conservatories and sun lounges, but both would be types of sunroom. Peter James (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would suggest we retarget to Sunlounger Legacypac (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem in that is that we define deck chair (which is where "sunlounger" redirects) to be something different. I'm not particularly convinced by the distinctions we draw but... Mangoe (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No it wouldn't - it still primarily refers to a sunroom: "but both would be types of sunroom". Peter James (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the least convinced that it primarily refers to a sunroom. Indeed, while it seems to refer in advertizing more commonly to the chair, I see for instance on the Target website that at a search for "sun lounge" produces both a hit for a greenhouse affair to tack on your house and for a number of chairs.
A great deal of the problem seems to be that nobody is bothering to be particularly consistent about the name of the chair. They get called sun lounges, sunlounges, sun loungers, sunloungers, and sun beds, often all on the same page. OTOH if "sun lounge" refers to a room, it's either probably on a boat or in the British Isles. I'm beginning to thing that disambiguation is a better solution. Mangoe (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no good comes of changing them. I can't see how a 'lounger' (furniture) would be referred to as a 'lounge', so there's no point targeting that. But can one "sunlounge" as a {{R from verb}} "You and I sunlounge, he sunlounges" and thus have 'sunlounger' as an agent noun for someone who uses a deckchair? Wouldn't that be a sunbather, sun tanner or suntanner (all -> sun tanning)?
Incidentally, Sun lounge was missed from this nom, but has the same target. Anyway, it's a ludicrous notion that the British or Irish have need of either a sunroom or a sunlounger. Si Trew (talk) 08:30, 20 February 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.

Rewilding (Carnivores)

edit
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. Deryck C. 16:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

SURPRISE! There's nothing about carnivores as a class at the target article, while "predators" are mentioned once. Individual predators and carnivores are listed, but these titles suggest content specifically about the reintroduction of carnivores or predators, which is an actual subtopic that's not covered here. Let's not mislead our readers otherwise. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rewilding (Carnivores). --BDD (talk) 16:03, 15 February 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.

Irish Messi

edit
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) 16:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick online search, I'm seeing a lot of players that seem to use this name, including Zak Gilsenan and Alan Judge. Perhaps a disambiguation page is in order, or maybe retarget to an appropriate section for Lionel Messi since so many players are called the next Messi. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this before creating the redirect. Zak Gilsenan isn't notable enough for Wikipedia - he fails WP:BLP1E, being only known for signing for a football club.
Thus, there are 2 players that use the title, so hatnotes are preferred (I meant to add them, but didn't).
Of the 2, I think Hoolahan is given the nickname more often in reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I note that being referred to as the "Irish Messi" is apparently so significant for Wes Hoolahan that it isn't even mentioned anywhere in his article. Unless reliable sources have talked about him in these terms (I haven't checked) I say we just delete the redirect altogether.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. And I'm sure I've seen Sky Sports use it before. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 15:52, 15 February 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.

Gragina

edit
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. JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete implausible misspellings. Gragina appears to be an actual given name (judging from the LinkedIn/Facebook entries), but there's no Wikipedia article about anyone by this name. Possibly intended as disparagement, since they were both created at the same time (in November 2014 by user now indef-blocked) and given what Urban Dictionary claims this string of letters means. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:36, 15 February 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.

Kian Maiorana

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend deletion. Redirect phrase not in current version of article; search using WikiBlame of past versions suggests the redirect phrase has not been a part of the article in the past. Working on Maiorana surname page content and wish to remove this personal name to avoid inclusion of a content free redirect. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:14, 15 February 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.

Draft:Keith L. Magee

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted because of lack of notability of its subject. It creates a bluelink on List of Kappa Alpha Psi brothers, giving the impression that there is an article about the person, and legitimizing his inclusion on the list. However, I haven't been able to find much in the way of reliable independent sources about him, so his name should be removed from the list, which would leave the redirect targetless. Perhaps another editor will find some justification for including information about this person and keeping the redirect. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:11, 15 February 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.

Brevolution

edit
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 both. JohnCD (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone was trying to figure out what Beyonce's 4th album was going to be called (answer: 4). No mention of "B Revolution" at 4 nor Beyonce now and when this was created. My search revealed a consulting firm by the name though. -- Tavix (talk) 01:21, 15 February 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.

MAKO by Beyoncé

edit
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. JohnCD (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like there were some 2011 rumors connecting Beyonce to a video game named "MAKO." I couldn't find any verification of this, so I'm assuming this game never happened. It's another reminder why we have WP:CRYSTAL. -- Tavix (talk) 01:11, 15 February 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.

Miss Bee

edit
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. JohnCD (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague, could plausibly refer to any unmarried female with a name beginning with "B," or maybe even a female spelling bee winner? I don't see it significantly referring to Beyonce, at least not more than any other possible use. The nickname isn't mentioned at the article. -- Tavix (talk) 01:03, 15 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_15&oldid=1142901898"