< May 18
May 20 >

May 19

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 19, 2014.

List of top-grossing movies in the Philippines

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 List of highest-grossing films in the Philippines. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a country page from this title is clearly not directing users to content they wish to find LukeSurl t c 23:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. Obviously not a list. Per Lenticel. Were it to be deleted, old bean, it would be a redlink. Si Trew (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2014 (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.

Συλλαβή

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) 18:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop listing these individual if you can bring them together as a group.
Si Trew (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was the preferred format. Frequenters of RfD: should I nominate in batches instead? Gorobay (talk) 00:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I have been told (as I said below) they must all be discussed individually. But it is tiresome when they are obviously of the same kind, and when I said you pick out the ones you think are in any doubt that was a compliment. Obviously if you are in doubt you do so, and I thank you for it. I think it would save time after your trouble to list theocm in groups: the ones you have any doubt on, list them separately. I am generally in agreement with your verdict but you are right to be cautious, and I pick 'em out occasionally.

I tell the tale that I heard told
Mithridates he died old

— A. E. Houseman, A Shropshire Lad

Si Trew (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't express myself clearly: my talent is to pack the maximum number of words into the minimum amount of thought. You bring 'em, I check em (I always check all of 'em) but bring em as grouped as you like. Sheep dip. Baaah! Baaah! Si Trew (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2014 (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.

Φλoιὀς

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) 18:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek, and the morpheme phloiós does not refer to phlobaphene. C.f. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 15#Βαφή. Gorobay (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2014 (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.

Φάρυγξ

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) 18:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2014 (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.

Φαινόμενoν

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 27#Φαινόμενoν

Μίμησις

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) 18:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2014 (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.

Χλωρος

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 26#Χλωρος

Φλόξ

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) 18:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2014 (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.

Υπόκεντρον

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) 18:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2014 (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.

Κυανoῦς

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) 18:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was odd. Are you claiming all Greeks are not colourblind? All Cretans are liars is the axiom isn't it? The search engine at the back end fell. Si Trew (talk) 12:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some Greeks have Daltonism, other Greeks do not, but colour vision exists outside of Greece. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2014 (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.

Εμβιομηχανική

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) 18:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, but Retarget. This takes homework to look up. People should come to RFD having done theirs. I shouldn't have to do it for them. Embryomechanics is the transliteration. I had presumed Gorobay could read Greek. Si Trew (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you see, we haven't Embryomechanics. We have Embryonics, which I suggested first before replacin my own. What to do? Si Trew (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. “Εμβιομηχανική” means “biomechanics”.
  2. The transliteration is emviomichanikí. Note that this has nothing to do with embryos; that would presumably be emvryomichanikí.
  3. Neither biomechanics nor “embryomechanics” is especially Greek, so it doesn’t make any difference. Gorobay (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Come off it. "Εμβιο" patently is "Embryo" epsilon micro beta iota and whatever O is I forget, and "ηχανική" is "mechanics" nu chi alpha chi ips kappa sigma lowercase. I can read Greek. Can't say a word of it but can read it. Can you? I assumed you could. Yes or no: there is need to prevaricate around the bush. If you can I will be with you through these; if you can't there's no shame in that. Hungarian for Greek is Gorog, by the way! Si Trew (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you ask, yes, I can read the Greek alphabet. You, however, need to review it; there are many mistakes in your attempt above. Gorobay (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Gorobay: yeah, there are many mistakes in almost everything I do. I have the humility to accept them. I don't mean you: but people whacking on about "I am right, I am right, I am right" when they might or might not be are the kinda people I hate. Sorry for the mistakes, I did say I am no good at Greek: and said I can read it (literally) but cannot speak it. Si Trew (talk) 12:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Έμβρυο" is embryo. you need a ro(right?) between the beta and the iota. Fram (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lowercase rho is in there, after the beta. Si Trew (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a liar. It isn't. It is in one of the suggestions somewhere but not in the redirect itself: well spotted. Perhaps we should import a few from rho de island? Si Trew (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2014 (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.

Χαρακτήρ

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) 18:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 'nuff said. Si Trew (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now, alphabets are something I know about Might as well redirect to Hieroglyph or Linear B or Rosetta Stone: harmful redirect. Si Trew (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2014 (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.

Στέρνον

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) 18:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All humans are members of Animalia, thus animals -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Ah, but do they have sterna or sternums?
It is pretty obvious then that all these plurals for the NFL teams go by the same token. Si Trew (talk) 12:28, 20 May 2014 (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.

Τζάουμε Ντουχ Γκιλότ

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) 18:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not Greek. Gorobay (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not Greek. Per Gorobay. And the next customer? Si Trew (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Especially delete because el:Τζάουμε Ντουχ Γκιλότ is on the bloody Interwiki links. Who is making these things into EN:WP? Si Trew (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Patriot8790 (talk · contribs) created this redirect with the comment "Το όνομα του άρθρου στα ελληνικά" and the Greek article on el.wiki was built by el:user:Enikolaidou -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow you are Catalonian/Catalan. Most speak those languages, yes, indeed I had a good friend Maria who was Catalan and she could speak the first four and we learned Japanese together. It's impressive to English but natural to someone who lives in a small state just to have to learn three or four to get by. Si Trew (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant "Jaume Duch Guillot" as "this" (ie, the subject of the redirect; which makes more sense, considering "not Greek") -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My fault. I learned a little Catalan. Well she was a little Catalan. Everyone assumed we were an item but weren't but good friends. I hope she is well. Si Trew (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2014 (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.

Ουρανού τόξο

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) 18:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per G. It is closer to meaning "Sunrise", anyway. Si Trew (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2014 (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.

Olga Kireef de Novikoff

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) 17:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect and implausible name for this author, only used by one utterly unreliable Spanish websource. No need to document the mistakes other people make on their website... Fram (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are not documentation. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC).
There are discussions at WP:RFD about adding documentation to the redirect to indicate the reason they exist. Those have not reached consensus yet. Bung in if you have any idea about it. Si Trew (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No kidding. They are not a tool to reproduce every mistake anyone has ever made on the internet either. Fram (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram:} Quite right, that is why I spend the rdark hours stalking lonely women in dark streets of Budapestediting Wikipedia. My point was more ironic: that a certain editor is happy to bung in to any XfD without any research, does it all over the place, never comes back, is an editor, runs a bot, thinks he is God, never replies when you ask him what you are up to. To put it plainly it might as well be RichPedia and we are his slaves. Si Trew (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rich Farmrbough added a source for this redirect[1], which I reverted. The source given[2] does, as far as Google reveals, not have "Olga Kireef de Novikoff", but "Novikoff, Olga de Kiréef" (other word order, and with an accent). Fram (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source please. The translation, by the way, would be roughly "Under suspicion, but I cannot offer even the least explanation: doing so would implicate my family". Si Trew (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK I shall do Farmbrough's homework for him:
  • Sinnett, A. P. (1913). Incidents in the life of Madame Blavatsky (PDF). London: theosophice.ca. Retrieved 15 May 2014. ((cite book)): |work= ignored (help)
And that term is not mentioned in that work. Si Trew (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2014 (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.

Ombre (hairstyle)

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 Hair coloring#Application techniques. Number 57 10:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, the current article has a redirect to Umber on an article about a hairstyle, the Umber article is completely extraneous to the Ombre hairstyle and therefore the redirect should be removed. ShawntheGod (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoist with my own petard. Add to DAB at Umber (disambiguation) as the English word for it, and add the cognates there. Si Trew (talk)
We should also have Burnt umber at that DAB, and several other entries, if I get consensus. And if I don't I am going to hunt you all down and stab you with a pencil, to make a mark, probably roughly circular and then colour bleed and perhaps fill in with a nice bit of watercolour. Si Trew (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Ultimately the style could be a corruption of henna in the sense of that, esp. cos it seems to mean to dye your hair darker rather than to make yourself more man-like, but I would need to find RS for that and I am sleepy. Si Trew (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find it not just on WP but on a wider search, but my search (Google or whatever) second-guesses that I am in Hungary and Hungarian is not Latinate so I might fail where you succeed: Spanish: Hombre exists of course, and is often mispronounced that way, long time since I have done Spanish but I think in Mexican Spanish (living in Texas and learning a bit) the H is silent whereas in Spanish Spanish it is a front labial sibillant; in French the H is often completely silent in speech although slightly modifies the nasality of the following O.
Completely unconnected to "man".
However Cosmopolitan has it here with a Google search:
Simplify the DABs because:
  1. I am a balding man with a salt-and-pepper beard , so I don't care
  2. Sometimes it has a false accent at the back (it ain't French and it ain't Spanish to do it that way)
  3. I don't know which of the editions of Cosmo as a stub it is because I get British ads for (I think) the American version of the mag in Hungary... I can check Cosmo Hungarian version today very thoroughly when I wake up later (Monday) but I don't really need to go to the go to the dentists
Now I might have my tongue in my cheek, especially if I have to go to the dentists, but since it does not exist, I should say DAB to encourage the creation of the article.
Ombre is not dabbed or hatnoted; Ombré does not exist; even though it is cognate with homme, homo (as in from Latin homo sapiens 'thinking man' and so on, I imagine, not as a Greek prefix for "same" e.g. homosexual, "of the same sex", nor more to the point homonym, "word sounding the same").
Popular brand of suntan lotion in the UK (and elsewhere in Europe) Ambre Solaire doesn't, neither Ambré Solaire. Oh it's probably doing an update on my computer it is 3am. Made by Laboratoires Garnier (which is how it is added in the UK, probably just Garnier at WP) and here.
Ambre goes to (Arrufiac), which goes to a French grape variety without any DAB.
Ambre (disambiguation) does not exist.
This probably comes from Umber, and hence Penumbra, and hence Umbrella, which originally meant "shadower" or roughly that, and of course the tanning lotion gives you a glow, a shadow, by extension: but neither parasol nor parapluie (French: umbrella) reflect that etymology, as doesn't umbrage.
Amber has a DAB at Amber (disambiguation) but Ambre is not listed there.
ambergris is at the page at Amber in the lede but not at the DAB; the fixative used for many perfumes: even though the etymology for ambergris gives it (amongst other languages of which only Latin is made explicit as from French ambre grisse 'grey amber' so they are patently cognate on WP's terms, and are indeed in fact.
Patently if Dalston Junction were like this then Central line tube to Chancery Lane would end up in East Kilbride.
I think the two "man" and "amber" are etymologically distinct, but even so this vermicelli should be sorted out to a couple of DABS and properly hatnoted, not going all over the place. Especially, to send "Ambre" off to a French grape variety without a hatnote; but the two letters "E" and "R" are adjacent on both French and English keyboards (and many others, but we are on EN:WP and the article is about a French subject; that is why those two are relevant, and it was pointed out to me by three people that they can't touch type: two the respondents to some other comment I made the other day, and me to myself tonight as my cat doesn't like the bright light and as you see I am all over the place trying to do it in the dark on a stupid laptop keyboard instead of a full sized one) is stupid. Whether "amber" and "umber" are distinct... that is a tricky one, I don't have books here to check and my Internet is really crawling so forgive all the typos etc. Si Trew (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, fine with me. ShawntheGod (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2014 (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.

Roman imperial coinage

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 6#Roman imperial coinage

Talk:Taiwan (country)

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 Talk:Taiwan. Given that the retarget is rather technical in nature, this discussion doesn't need to run it's recommended seven-day course. Might as well close the discussion, and get the retarget implemented. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not useful TheChampionMan1234 05:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is it 'not useful'? Redirects are cheap, it does no harm, it doesn't mislead. It was created during this discussion: Talk:Taiwan/Archive_22#Split, when the proposal was to move the article, or part of it after splitting, to Taiwan (country). I created the redirect to address the concerns of the proposer that the article about the state of Taiwan should be there; a redirect would do the job for anyone looking for it there. Someone e.g. thinking that 'Taiwan' refers to the island so there must be a separate article about the country. The redirect gets them to the right article.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 06:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not just "not useful" – it's positively harmful – because:
  1. It is a Cross-namespace redirect masquerading as a talk page whiich goes to the article Taiwan. That is misleading.
  2. As can be seen from Taiwan (disambiguation) and as JB implied the very term "Taiwan" is contentious and having "Talk:Taiwan (country)", just makes it more so &ndash it fails WP:NPOV on whether Taiwan is, or is not, part of China.
  3. Not WP:RNEUTRAL, but R3 doesn't quite fit the bill.
  4. The stats show it has been viewed exactly 0 times in the last ninety days.
I checked the history: User:JohnBlackburne created it on 28 December 2012 and it has stayed since.
I checked the stats: D-Da, which doesn't exist, gets at least a couple of hits a month; this has had none. (My reason for getting the stats in for D-Da it is I checked a few common pages such as the main page, and so on, and mistyped D-Day): so stats.grok.se seems to be up: I'm not proposing we should do anything about its nonexistence).
Si Trew (talk) 10:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's no good. Why should it go to that particular talk page when obviously Taiwan is a contentious search term. It is better off deleted. I am sure JB was in good faith and this is just a vestige of the discussions he mentioned. It's exceedingly misleading to redirect through to a talk page from article space; though I am sure it was not intented when the split was made. Si Trew (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan (country) already redirects to Taiwan are you proposing a change to that redirect also? All my suggestion above does is change the redirect of the talk page Talk:Taiwan (country) to Talk:Taiwan the same as the article already does rather that redirecting the talk page to an article page. GB fan 11:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GB fan: Retarget to Talk:Taiwan per GB. Ah: that is why I thought it was contentious. Probably just a mix up: splits are hard to do. Yeah, no problem with retargeting it to the talk page. No wonder it doesn't get viewed much. Si Trew (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did read back just now, but unless I am mistaken (I frequently am) you didn't suggest anything about what to do with it, as far as I can see: either someone else removed your comment, or you just assumed it would be deleted (which is far from the case but is the base case if there are no other comments), or my search is appalling (which it is). I am sorry to jump to the wrong conclusion but that is why I did my homework: it helps others decide. Si Trew (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused. I started off my comments with my suggestion on what to do with this redirect, Retarget to Talk:Taiwan. The comment is still there and you just agreed with that suggestion. The nomination for this by TheChampionMan1234 was to delete the redirect from Talk:Taiwan (country) to Taiwan. I did my research, found out that it appears that a typing mistake was made on initial creation and I suggested (above) to fix that mistake. GB fan 12:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the plot thins. When you said "above" I thought you meant kinda on the opening comments or very soon after. No, I am with you all the way (and I imagine @JohnBlackburne: would be too ,but maybe not hence the ping. I know in writing this sounds trite but thank you both for making the encyclopaedia better: Have a pint each on me. Si Trew (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GB fan: I was brought up to learn when someone helps you out you say thank you, when you are wrong you say sorry. I'm sorry to get your meaning wrong, and thank you for the stuff you do. Most of the rest of the world neither apologises nor thanks. We are human behind these screens, aren't we? Si Trew (talk) 12:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, just was confused. I think everything is cleared up between us. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. And thankyou for everything you do. GB fan 13:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, yes, retarget. I hadn't even noticed on creation or now that it was a redirect from a talk page to a main page. Relatively harmless but the wrong target.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So we are all agreed then, take the talk page to the talk page of the article. When an admin comes ere, I think we are all agreed, so this can go speedily. Si Trew (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2014 (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.

About:wikipedia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 26#About:wikipedia

Niners

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) 18:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change to San Francisco 49ers. I live in Arizona and I hear the 49ers get called the Niners commonly, even when not football season. The Ultimate New England Patriots Guy (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commment and bit risqué joke This is getting a bit silly, are we to have every team listed here? Clearly there are templates for ((R from plural)) and clearly teams are nicknamed after all kinds of things. There was (and this is apocryphal) a public toilet (restroom, WC) where someone had divided the cubicle divider intoo three colums with a bit of graffiti: "Sport", "Politics" and "Sex". Underneath, someone wrote "Up the Reds, "Up The Reds" and "Up The Reds".
Patently words have more than one meaning – that is what redirects and DABS are for – and it is preposterous for User:UsefulWikipedia, that is to say "New England Patriot Guy", to suggest what is a the most likely search term without bringing any evidence. Si Trew (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2014 (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.

Pats

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) 18:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change to New England Patriots. In Massachusetts and most of New England, the Patriots are commonly called the Pats. The Ultimate New England Patriots Guy (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It's a little secret I rarely reveal, but the world revolves around me. Si Trew (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wittgenstein once asked his pupils "Why is it useful to say that the morning star is the same as the evening star, but not useful to say that the morning star is the same as the morning star?" That rhetorical tautology is essentially what we do at RfD. Si Trew (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2014 (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.

Colts

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) 18:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Indianapolis Colts. All across the U.S., they're called the Colts. The Ultimate New England Patriots Guy (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody hell who let the Yanks in? I thought it was British. You mean Jimmy Wales does not actually come from Wales? I am shocked. *faints* Si Trew (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that in this case even a US-Centric Wikipedia would have supported this request since the revolver and the horse would both likely win out.--70.49.80.26 (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2014 (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.

HEAT

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 26#HEAT

Eagles

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. If users are still interested in making this a dab, start an WP:RM at Eagles (disambiguation). Per WP:MALPLACED, this should not redirect to Eagles (disambiguation). To answer IIO's question, singulars and plurals usually go on the same page, but separate pages may be advisable if they're long. Both of these are fairly long for dabs, so I think the status quo is acceptable, though I don't think a merge would be especially harmful. --BDD (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone typing in Eagles wants to see an eagle, they probably mean the band or the Philadelphia Eagles. The Ultimate New England Patriots Guy (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment Some years ago I took the expedient of creating a list article Countries that are not the United States by taking Countries of the World or some such and just removing United States, so that I could refer to it. It went WP:SPEEDY within a couple of hours, if I remember correctly. Si Trew (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If the primary topic is "Plural of Eagle" , then the redirect should go to Eagle as it currently does (and where I've added a "redirect" hatnote to point readers to Eagles (disambiguation)).
  2. If there is no Primary Topic, then the dab page currently at Eagles (disambiguation) should be moved to Eagles - by a formal Move Request on Talk:Eagles (disambiguation).
  3. If anything else is the Primary Topic ... then the redirect would need to be retargeted, but I see no evidence that anything else is the Primary Topic. PamD 19:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Good reasoning. But I tend slightly to disagree for this reason: the Wikipedia search engine used to be bloody useless and now it is, let's say, slightly better (ahem). If you look at other Wikipedias (French, Portuguese, Hungarian) for example and type in a title you just get the equivalent of "I dunno, try again". They have the same technology but not this rampant hoard (about five of us generally) tidying up redirects and so forth – so redirects are good.
But redirects from all kinds of misspellings, plurals, and so on were A Good Thing when the search engine was useless because it helped people to find what they were looking for. And I was all for that and am an inclusionist by nature. But, the search engine improvement thanks to our friends who do the back end at Wikimedia has got slightly better and so a lot of these plural redirects are not necessary any more.
It's just a bit of pruning, it is not in any way that I want the articles deleted or anything, but by judiciously pruning the search tree, it will flourish all the more and help our readers gather the fruits of editors' labours. Si Trew (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2014 (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.

Bengals

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. Note that this was retargeted to Bengal (disambiguation), which I think is wise, because Bengal wouldn't really be referred to in the plural. I'm going to let it stand. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the plural of Bengal. Change to Cincinnati Bengals, what most people would refer to when typing Bengals. At least during the NFL preseason (August) to end of the Super Bowl (February). The Ultimate New England Patriots Guy (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2014 (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.

Raiders

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) 18:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Bengals, but the Oakland Raiders version. The Ultimate New England Patriots Guy (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What;s the point of people contributing to RfD if you go ahead and change it without consensus? I give up with this, I have argued it time and time again. First achieve consensus, then change it. Otherwise it is trying to hit a moving target. This kind of thing is as the Red Queen in Alice Through The Looking-Glass, and What She Found There (Okay, Lewis Caroll) said, "Sentence first, vertict afterwards." Si Trew (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew:: I haven't changed the target of the redirect, only tagged it in its existing state while I was passing by. What's your problem with that? PamD 21:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
{@PamD: because it changes what is under discussion. For all we might have decided it should go to Raider (Chocolate bar) or Raiders of the Lost Ark or Ryvita or wherever. Opinions might have differed on whether you should have done that. WP:BOLD is good, but once something is under discussion, let it be discussed and reaching WP:CONSENSUS rather than just changing it willy-nilly because you feel like it's the right thing to do. Lots of WP:AGF editors feel like that is the right thing to do. And that is why we discuss it and achieve consensus.
I seem to be in a minority but pulling the rug from under one's feet does not help. Si Trew (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Si Trew and I have discussed this on my talk page, but for other eyes: I don't consider my adding of classification templates to be "pulling the rug from under [anyone's] feet", more like cleaning up the rug around those feet without moving it. And within the spirit of the AfD template message which says "Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed." Adding those tags to a RD is analogous to editing an article, not blanking it. PamD 06:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I want publicly to apologise to PamD. The argument on that talk page, accidentally I made a comment this user found mildly offensive (I worded it badly: it wasn't obscene or anything just a bit harsh). It was only in the way of a vigorous argument, but I am not out to offend. So, sorry, PamD. I have left an apology on PamD's talk page too, but I am not in the business of offending others. Sorry. Si Trew (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2014 (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.

Buccaneers

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. Note that someone had retargeted to Buccaneer (disambiguation), which I've reversed. The plural form is actually used in the lede of Buccaneer. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Raiders. The Ultimate New England Patriots Guy (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2014 (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.

Bruins

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) 18:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most people would want to get a shortcut to the NHL team. The Ultimate New England Patriots Guy (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it is used frequently in rhyming poetry (a bit of an escape hatch really when you can't find a rhyme for "ruin" or "chewing" or whatever): I don't have many books on me right now to RS this with a quote: it is all over nursery rhymes and so on. It's an obvious synonym for a bear. You are, like with many others you list here, putting the cart before the horse: the teams are named after a symbol and now you want the symbol named after the team; (arguing premises from conclusions: A form of modus tolens tolens but obviously faulty logic, in predicate calculus). Si Trew (talk) 12:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or we can send it to Boston Bruins. Seems equally likely. Si Trew (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I should like to ask the proposer, what is meant by "most people". Stats please. Si Trew (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2014 (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.

Canadiens

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) 18:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote this, the Montreal Canadiens were in the conference finals of the Stanley Cup Playoffs. If they lose or win a series, people who type in this don't want an irrelevant topic. The Ultimate New England Patriots Guy (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rambling comment. DABs and redirects are a bit Tweedledum and Tweedledee; there's not I think much interaction between regulars at one XfD and the other. There should be more: it would make some discussions a lot easier to both sides. I am not saying compete it would just reduce the load on both, I think. Si Trew (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And most people outside of North America would not think of hockey as ice hockey but grass hockey. These sports (and baseball as well) have hardly any recognition in Europe, or this sounds rather patronising but any country that was part of the old British Empire (except 1 that decided to split in 1789): it would be like teaching a North American how to play cricket. Si Trew (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When the dust settles on this RfD I may well create Canadien (disambiguation) for Canadien(nne)(s), to provide links to various sports teams, Canadienne cattle, Le Canadien newspaper etc. But I'll wait to see how it goes. PamD 17:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No no, that cannot be right. Are you suggesting the women's team should be called Montréal Canadiennes? Si Trew (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the case either to an English Canadian. They could mean the Habs, but in Canadian English the Habs are also spelled as "Canadians". And "Canadiens" does mean the French Canadians as a group (ie. the ethnic Group as opposed to a person) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2014 (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.

Red wings

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) 18:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The disambig page shows nothing with this plural, and most mean the Detroit team. The Ultimate New England Patriots Guy (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then we make it ((R from plural)). Simple as that. I thought it was a guiding principle that titles should be singular, [[. If the redirect were called The Red Wings, that's a different matter: the name then would be singular (and the team can be singular or plural depending on context, "the team gave its statement" or "the team all thank [not thanks] the fans") but that's not what we're discussing. Si Trew (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And for one of the other we need ((R from alternate capitalization)), unless you really think there are distinct topics. Si Trew (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2014 (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.

Red Wings

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. And as a former Rochesterian, I wouldn't even think of the hockey team first. --BDD (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above. The Ultimate New England Patriots Guy (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Neelix: Oppose as usual ad nauseam. Just ((R from plural)) it. But see the ongoing discussion here (a couple of das ago) on WP:RFD#Spot-winged, User:Neelix suggested there Animal colouration as a better target, and this might be of interest to that discussion. Si Trew (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2014 (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.

Orioles

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) 18:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orioles, when plural, means the baseball team. The Ultimate New England Patriots Guy (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as usual ad nauseam. Just ((R from plural)) it. Si Trew (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Messieurs et dames, I give you the Oriole test; this is in apposition to the duck test. Are orioles solitary birds or do you see them in flocks? Messieurs et dames, faites vos jeux. Si Trew (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose it should point to the animal.--Lenticel (talk) 04:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Giants

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 delete G7. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete, or redirect to the WikiProject New York Giants. Funniest mistake I have ever done. The Ultimate New England Patriots Guy (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2014 (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