View text source at Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 15

< December 14
December 16 >

December 15

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 15, 2015.

Vino-hibirā

[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. Thanks, Gorobay—I should've noticed that and deleted it too. --BDD (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 7#Gwenhwy the Great. Gorobay (talk) 21:03, 15 December 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.

Kwartelkoning

[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) 15:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This bird has no particularly affinity for Dutch. Gorobay (talk) 20:57, 15 December 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.

Sid Briskin

[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. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 05:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Briskin is listed as one of the founders but why should he have a redirect and not the others? Nescio vos (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:38, 15 December 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.

Greeneberry

[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 Greenberry. --BDD (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from his middle name only. There are places called Greenberry and several companies called Greeneberry. Neelix creation. Legacypac (talk) 08:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:20, 15 December 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.

Puggree

[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) 14:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These three redirects and their target are not the same. Compare Wikt:pagri and Wikt:puggree: a "pagri" is a type of turban, whereas a "puggree" is a type of scarf-like band that can be wrapped around a hat. So, delete since the target is not the same as the redirects, and per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 19:38, 15 December 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.

Template:Revdel

[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) 14:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are other reasons for revision deletion besides what the target provides. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:34, 15 December 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.

Centralized bell system

[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. The majority consensus is to delete. Alternative targets have been proposed but those did not gain consensus. Deryck C. 20:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion indicated that these phrases refer to something besides a doorbell. A doorbell doesn't use anything like a "centralized bell system", which seems like it could refer to all sorts of things involving bells. --BDD (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

or maybe this other link Bell_pull#Central_bell_panel fully coherent as well..--Mcapdevila (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here you have an old reference that I've searched some time ago..--Mcapdevila (talk) 20:57, 15 December 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.

External ear protection

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 22#External ear protection

Various school

[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) 14:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since these terms do not seem to be an official name that correlates with its target (a term describing a specific set of schools in South Korea), the terms could be seen as misleading due to being ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 15 December 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.

Miscellaneous wool

[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) 14:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The use of "miscellaneous" in this redirect is confusing, especially since the redirect targets Wool currently. Steel1943 (talk) 19:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, I'm fine with whatever the outcome of this decision is - don't remember creating it, but suspect it was part of a concerted effort to tackle a TON of requested article redlinks. I sort of have a vague idea that at the time, I saw enough to suggest miscellaneous wool WAS a legit term, but go ahead and delete. Mabalu (talk) 01:08, 16 December 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.

Miscellany topics of Texas

[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) 14:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects are blatantly incorrect due to being overly ambiguous. If no alternative target can be found, delete. Steel1943 (talk) 18:56, 15 December 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.

Upcoming new Top-Level-Domains

[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) 14:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No such list exists at target. That, and the use of the words "upcoming" and "new" in the same title is seemingly unnecessary confusion via redundancy. Steel1943 (talk) 16:17, 15 December 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.

Christph Büchel

[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 - discussion below has shown that this redirect was an honest mistake. Deryck C. 10:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Christph" is not a likely misspelling (the person thinks the word is actually spelled that way) but it is a likely mistyping, for (the beginning of) either "Christopher" or "Christoph". But the person who types "Christph" is probably not especially looking for Mr. Büchel, and having him come up up in the search box is anti-helpful. If desired, create a redirect "Christph" pointing to the article "Christopher" (or maybe "Christoph") but in any case delete this one. Herostratus (talk) 15:30, 15 December 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.

Christpher reeves

[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. Deryck C. 10:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Christpher" is not a likely misspelling (the person thinks the word is actually spelled that way) but it is a likely mistyping, for "Christopher". But the person who types "Christpher" is probably not especially looking for Christopher B. Reeves (not the Superman actor BTW), and having him come up in the search box is anti-helpful. If desired, create a redirect "Christpher" pointing to the article "Christopher", but in any case delete this one. Herostratus (talk) 15:27, 15 December 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.

Christpoher M. Still

[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. From the discussion below, this redirect was created because of an honest page-title mistake rather than an intentional redirect. Deryck C. 10:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Christpoher" is not a likely misspelling (the person thinks the word is actually spelled that way) but it is a likely mistyping, for "Christopher". But the person who types "Christpoher" is probably not especially looking for Mr. Still, and having him come in the search box is anti-helpful. If desired, create a redirect "Christpoher" pointing to the article "Christopher", but in any case delete this one. Herostratus (talk) 15:24, 15 December 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.

Remen

[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 dabify. --BDD (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His middle name is an inappropriate redirect. Maybe retarget to Rachel Naomi Remen? or just delete?Legacypac (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@CoffeeWithMarkets: What do you mean by "I don't see some other form that would really work out that well?" Is there a reason you don't think a retarget to Rachel Naomi Remen is "logical"? It would be an {{R from surname}} that way. (also pinging Rubbish computer as they endorse this !vote) -- Tavix (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: I meant it doesn't seem clear if a dab would be suitable, sorry if I was unclear. --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 01:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rubbish computer: Well, all you said was WP:PERX, which really doesn't say anything except that you wholeheartedly agree with CoffeeWithMarket's rationale and have nothing further to add. Unless I'm misreading CWM's post, they didn't say anything about a dab either so I'm a little confused about either your clarification or your original post. -- Tavix (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good Legacypac (talk) 07:34, 22 December 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.