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 all - rough consensus below is that these are plausible disambiguation terms and redirects are cheap. I've tagged them all as "from incorrect name" + "from alternative disambiguation". Deryck C. 18:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Salem's First Unitarian Church → First Church in Salem  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Salems First Unitarian Church → First Church in Salem  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Salem First Unitarian Church → First Church in Salem  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• First Unitarian Church in Salem → First Church in Salem  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• First Unitarian Church of Salem → First Church in Salem  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The two furthest off of many invented name redirects for a Neelix authored article. I took out unsubstantiated and trivial stuff from the article, but leaving it as it is a historic building. Legacypac (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both, WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. "Church In Salem" is part of the church's name and can't be recast. Si Trew (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found more. Legacypac (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I batched these in with the ones already mentioned. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twice, apparently. I removed the duplicates. Si Trew (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Thanks. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

two of us were consolidating the posts at the same time, so its not Ivanvector's fault. Legacypac (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three, actually, since I got an (edit conflict). I meant my remark light-heartedly. I wasn't "blaming" anyone. Si Trew (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all per WP:CHEAP. These all point at the right target, aren't totally implausible modifications, and are not ambiguous. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)][reply]
• Keep--these aren't so bad. Drmies (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "First Church" is almost always ambiguous and these seem like plausible colloquial terms. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Self aggrandizing, Self aggrandize, Self-aggrandizing, Self-aggrandize, Self aggrandising, Self aggrandise, Self-aggrandising, and Self-aggrandise. Delete the remainder. --BDD (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for Selfaggrandizement[edit]

117 redirects to one article. Can someone post them as a list, maybe segregate them into groups? Some might be ok but many are invented words. https://tools.wmflabs.org/earwig-dev/neelix/targets.html#target9 Legacypac (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close and list target at AfD. Boasting is a three-sentence dictionary definition. There are more words in hatnotes than in the article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - target listed at AfD now, thanks Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oiyarbepsy and others, please reconsider. If the target article were deleted, these would be G8'd anyway, but at a glance, that seems very unlikely. Unless all of these redirects are considered legitimate on their own, I don't think this is a good case for an early close. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I just unclosed the discussion. The target is not going to be deleted so let's deal with the redirects. Legacypac (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --BDD (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Keep I think its important to have a redirect for Self-aggrandising (or some derivation). Also, possibly, Vaunt. - Wiki-psyc (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep vaunt, vaunting, "self*aggrandizing" and "self*aggrandize"; retarget swaggers to swagger; delete the other implausible and/or confusing constructions. Note that bragger has already been retargeted to brag and ostentation has already been retargeted to conspicuous consumption, both of which I support. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I support Ivanvector's solution. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted vaunt, vaunting, swaggers, bragger, and ostentation from the list. That leaves self aggrandizing and self aggrandize - which variations do you want to keep exactly? The rest of them should be deleted. Legacypac (talk) 05:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You probably shouldn't have done that, since they were open to discussion and nothing had been closed, but whatever, enough bureaucracy has been spent on this issue. Above, I support keeping the hyphenated and spaced versions of those two, but others have pointed out that hyphens are redundant to the search engine anyway so they're probably not necessary. But they're also harmless. The variations with no separation (selfaggrandizing, eg) are not correct and not particularly useful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Consensus is to delete per WP:REDLINK. Deryck C. 18:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Campbell-Taggart → Sara Lee Corporation  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This doesn't make sense. Presumably a company, Campbell-Taggart isn't mentioned at the target article. The redirect was created in September 2013 with the edit summary "created", without specifying who created whom. The Sara Lee Corporation is defunct as of 2012. Perhaps Cambell-Taggart acquired the brand name? It looks like the company could be notable, and we have other articles on companies it's owned. BDD (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDLINK. Potentially notable, but doesn't seem to have any info on Wikipedia currently. At one time they created the Earthgrains brand which later was sold to Grupo Bimbo, which also acquired Sara Lee Corporation recently. Campbell-Taggart itself became a property of Anheuser-Busch in the 1980s. There's some history at this link, but it's about Earthgrains which split off to a separate entity in the 1990s, so I have no idea where Campbell-Taggart is today. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least in Hungary, the Sara Lee brand is owned by Douwe Egberts, but I haven't yet chased up who owns them yet. (I wonder if the brand name is owned by different concerns in different regions.) Oddly enough, I walked past their HQ in Budapest yesterday. I could have asked. Si Trew (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Things are a bit of a mess. Campbell-Taggart became Earthgrains per this article and this SEC filing. There's more info on Earthgrains at Bimbo Bakeries USA and Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers' International Union. Earthgrains currently redirects to Bimbo Bakeries USA but is currently owned by Flowers Foods, as is the Sara Lee division from info here. Note that Sara Lee is the page for the defunct corporation (which split into Hillshire_Brands and D.E Master Blenders 1753 (aka Douwe Egberts). Many pages, however, appear to use this link to the corporation article to refer to the brand, which doesn't appear to have an article of its own. Hydronium Hydroxide (talk) 06:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDLINK. Per Hydronium Hydroxide's findings, they might have an interesting and notable history --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 deleted by The Anome. --BDD (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• One who brings food → Horae  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

far to vague, can't see anything in the article about this string of words. Makes me think of a waiter, not a god. Legacypac (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article does in fact identify the Hora Carpo as the "one who brings food", but it's still an implausible search term; usage is minimal, and the term "one who brings food" is not strongly associated with Carpo. On the other hand, the redirect is neither harmful or recently created, WP:CHEAP applies, and I don't see "one who brings food" as a likely search term for any other topic either (if it were, it would be getting more page views); not sure deleting would be a good idea. Sideways713 (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 16:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Men Who Stare At Goatse → The Men Who Stare at Goats  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Joke redirect (cf. goatse). McGeddon (talk) 08:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unlikely synonym. I think this may be considered as a misspelling but I think that would be pushing it. --Lenticel ^(talk) 14:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - 25 hits in 60 days = not a plausible misspelling. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this particular misspelling refers to an internet parody from several years ago, and to give you an idea of why we don't have an article about that, "GOATSE" stands for "guy opens ass to show everyone". And yeah, it's been around long enough to have propagated to Wikipedia mirrors which now link this to incorrect information. 25 hits in 60 days is more likely a result of some users coming here to search for that parody, rather than genuine misspellings. Of course there's no way to know for sure, but the internet won't be sad if we delete this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nonsense redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• 25 hits in 60 days is surprisingly many. It's quite possible that something on the web links there. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  

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

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 all. Some were speedy deleted prior to the conclusion of this discussion: There is no prejudice in recreating the deleted redirects. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion for Domotor-Kolompar organization[edit]

Nominating 86 redirects to this group. They were in the news a few years back, with occasional mentions as the Canadian government takes action against them. A Google search of Domotor-Kolompar brings About 2,870 results, with Wikipedia in first place. Link to list [1] Legacypac (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• None of these really look harmful or misleading. Frankly, I doubt they would've ended up here if anyone else had created them. I supported his topic ban, and his creations should be looked upon skeptically, but we shouldn't be creating more work for ourselves that is necessary. And speaking of work, I encourage you to create a list of these redirects with RfD formatting if you wish to proceed; this will be enough work for a closer even with convenient links to delete each one. --BDD (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The linked HTML page is also hard work for humble non-admins who wish to check stats, history, and links, and it's definitely not a permanent record (I know since it now has &redirect=no on the links, wot I requested and I think User:The Earwig did.) The list is very useful but has its limits. [User:SimonTrew|Si Trew]] (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been assuming that Legacypac or Tavix (not sure who) will eventually get to these and format them; I think Tavix has a script. @Tavix and Legacypac: if you are using a script, can you adjust it to include the number of redirects listed in the collapse header text? I would like to see if any are Numberwang I've had to count these a few times already. If that's difficult, don't bother, no big deal. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I've been the one reformatting all of them. Legacypac has been including the number of redirects in their rationale, and I don't think there's any that don't have a number. For example, this one has 86 redirects. Is that all the information you need? -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, he has, but some are missing. Just suggesting that the information is useful, but of course the way it's presented isn't terribly important. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting the redirect count off this list: https://tools.wmflabs.org/earwig-dev/neelix/targets.html sorted by target in decending order of redirects. Been working roughly from the most to the least thinking that 399 redirects is likely worse then 10 redirects. I'm not just nominating every batch, I been screening out the stuff that makes sense to keep. Trying to check and clean up the targets he created. I am using Twinkle to nom an example and I don't have an easy way or the skills to create the lovely hidden lists that someone else is so helpfully doing. Thank-you to whoever is doing that, I hope they have an automated tool. Legacypac (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm just using Excel's concatenate function, but it works wonderfully well for this sort of thing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I agree these are all probably fine, at least none individually meet any criteria for deletion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The topic is of fleeting importance since the group is broken up. If it had zero redirects people would quickly find it. Legacypac (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but they aren't obstructing searches for a different topic with a similar name. Unless they are, in which case I didn't know that, but the name is pretty unique. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as harmless and unambiguous. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Some of the more questionable ones have already been deleted, but the redirects that are left are fine. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 16:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Anheuser Busch & Campbell Taggart → Insider trading  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I'm not seeing anywhere that these companies are discussed together. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete weird combo. Legacypac (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Violates NPOV. If there were a section on those two companies in the target article, that would be a different matter. Softlavender (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Absent a place that they're discussed together, this is a true WP:XY. I've nominated #Campbell-Taggart above. --BDD (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete WP:G10, WP:RFD#D3. This redirect is effectively alleging a crime. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as offensive or abusive redirect. This redirect implies that such and such company is engaging in questionable activities --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per article history, it was originally a longer but unreferenced (and awfully-named) article. AFD was raised on 4 Dec 2008 at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anheuser_Busch_&_Campbell_Taggart but was a Keep on 10 Dec 2008. User:PhilKnight replaced contents the next day with the redirect, possibly WP:BOLD. Redirect is out of context, however, given that Insider trading doesn't explicitly mention this case, but it's not abusive; the case in question was this one.Hydronium Hydroxide (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. — Earwig ^talk 23:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]