This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 15, 2015.
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waskeep,retarget,retarget,retarget,retarget, andkeep, such that the first six all targetLayperson. I'mretargetingLay people toLaypeople as an{{R from modification}}—pardon the BOLDness. These pages would probably benefit from merging as suggested. --BDD (talk)18:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
lay woman,lay women andlay men are red.Layperson is an article to whichlay personlay person andlay peoplelay people redirect, butlaypeople is a DAB page, somewhat redundantly, aslay is also a DAB page that covers it. This may all be a bit of aWP:SURPRISE.
Retarget so all go tolayperson (to whichlaymanlayman was moved on 2 October 2011 byUser:Anthony Bradbury withthis edit). It's beyond the remit of RfD, but if this is done I'll propose to merge the DAB atlaypeople into that atlay, then changelaypeople to be an R tolayperson too, thence hatnoting the DAB.Si Trew (talk)21:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, there's a churchgoer who isn't clergy, and there's an amateur.Si Trew (talk)00:36, 17 February 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.
List of male rappers
[edit]Happy New Year (2013 film)
[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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion waskeep. --BDD (talk)17:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inaccurate article. The film was delayed and released in 2014.RedtigerxyzTalk18:06, 8 February 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasRetarget tocelestial cartography. (non-admin closure)Natg 19 (talk)18:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what to do with this. Google assumes "astrography" is a typo for "astrophotography", but that may be influenced by this redirect. Astrography seems to be adistinct concept, but I'm not sure it's one we cover. It sounds very similar toAstronomy. None of these options are especially appealing to me.BDD (talk)17:26, 8 February 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasRetarget toU.S. Bank Arena and mark as{{R from incorrect name}}, as well as adding a hatnote to distinguish the new target from the possible name of "New Minnesota Stadium". In the event that there are references added toNew Minnesota Stadium to declare its new name "U. S. Bank Stadium", then the option of moving New Minnesota Stadium to U. S. Bank Stadium can be explored at that time.(non-admin closure)Steel1943 (talk)21:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect created under the mistaken assumption that US Bank would buy the naming rights to a proposed stadium in Minneapolis.Mosmof (talk)22:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak delete perWP:RFD#D2, "may cause confusion". While I note Ivanvector's refs, they're not at the target and I see no easy way to integrate them there (if they were I'd change my view to keep it as{{R from incorrect name}}). SinceUS Bank Stadium andU.S. Bank Stadium are red (which tends to indicate to me this term was notthat popular), and the stats are <1/month on average, I think on balance that it's better off deleted. ButUser:Skippypeanuts' reasoning for delete is invalid: the article could be moved over the redirect at any time.Si Trew (talk)22:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget toU. S. Bank Arena. Yes, that would be better (with a hatnote).Si Trew (talk)04:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.US Bank ArenaUS Bank Arena andU. S. Bank ArenaU. S. Bank Arena are both Rs toU.S. Bank Arena, and both marked as
{{R from modification}}.Si Trew (talk)20:50, 16 February 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete,dabify,keep, andkeep, respectively. I think this distills the consensus here, but please let me know if you have any concerns with this close, as always. --BDD (talk)17:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An article was recently created under this wrong name. This redirect (created as a result of the move) is totally unnecessary. There are no links to this page.SD0001 (talk)17:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the article was written by an inexperienced user. I have now modified the first sentence on this R's target. It seems that 'Scottian' is just a term that people at the college useinternally. It has no relevance otherwise. A Google search forScottians or evenScottians Scott Christian College does not turn up any relevant results at all. By the way, the content added to the college's main article was by 220.225.222.66 (contributions), who seems to be the same person as the creator of this R's target (Samueljjohn), given the similarity in editing pattern.SD0001 (talk)11:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I know I is the only perfekt editor on the hole project.Si Trew (talk)20:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to me, apparently, but since you mention it...Si Trew (talk)02:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We do have the DAB toget out of jail free.Si Trew (talk)02:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)]][reply]
- Maybethis orthis are more reliable sources for the word's English usage. For a redirect, it doesn't need to be particularly reliable. But on second thought it does seem unlikely that the pluralized form also refers to Scott's work, that just seems awkward.Ivanvector (talk)15:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer to keep it as is. We agree that it definitely (probably?) doesn't refer to Walter Scott, but that it does (maybe?) refer to alumni of the college. It's unlikely to cause confusion and isn't misleading, so I don't see a reason to delete.This short newspaper bit mentions Scottians as college alumni, andthis blog (not RS, I know) refers to alumni as Scottians extensively; it may be that it's a highly local term. And like I said before, I haven't found a competing usage which would open the door to possible confusion or ambiguity.Ivanvector (talk)15:14, 22 February 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.
Anti-whistleblower laws
[edit]
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 25#Anti-whistleblower laws
Anti-whistleblower legislation
[edit]Relisted, seeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 25#Anti-whistleblower laws
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasconverted to article byLadyofShalott andwithdrawn bynominator.(non-admin closure)Ivanvector (talk)17:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,WP:RFD#D5, "The redirect makes no sense". Not mentioned at target.Chicken Shit wasat AfD in November 2004 and deleted (as a redirect) in 2006. (I can't examine its logs much more.) This was created in 2009 toCowardCoward, swiftly corrected by a double-redirect bot to current target, and has remained unmolested ever since. But it's not at the target;Chicken andPoultry farming are silent on the matter;bird shit goes toguano but that doesn't mention chickens at all, andanimal fertilizer is red.Si Trew (talk)10:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Chicken shit is a common enough expression for coward, and since coward redirects to cowardice that is where it should redirect to. --kelapstick(bainuu)11:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are other uses for the phrase, but this is the most common, and is indeed very common. The best solution is a db page to other uses, but until then, the current redirect is still better than deletion.Dennis Brown -2¢14:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I see no evidence that it's a common expression;WP:NOTDIC and it's not mentioned at the target. (The British equivalent is more commonly just "chicken".)Si Trew (talk)18:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it has an entry atwictionary, maybe an interwiki redirect would be more appropriate. But it certainly is a common enough expression in North America (keeping in mind Dennis and I are from very different parts of the continent, and are of the same opinion). It would be one of those things like not having tocite the sky is blue, in my experience.--kelapstick(bainuu)18:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly common collaquialism.See here,here andhere as well as the Wiktionary entry.Curse of Fenric (talk)20:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I still wish someone would just make a short article or db out of it. "You can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit", Chicken shit -> cowardly, chicken shit -> petty or inferior, chicken shit ->fertilizer. These just have to be sourceable.Dennis Brown -2¢22:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what Wiktionary is for. One can put citations there. Anyway, why not let that "someone" be you?Si Trew (talk)04:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Long story short, I don't have time right now. It's complicated, or I would have just done it already.Dennis Brown -2¢12:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have started making a stub out of it.LadyofShalott 22:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC) I would preferkeeping it as an article, not a redirect.LadyofShalott00:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There is more to the noun than the euphemism, though I think the euphemism may be enough if sourced. I'm just guessing, but I would think that there is more than one political situation which involved the phrase... -jc3700:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural close please, converted to article by@LadyofShalott: nicely done!
- I've removed the RfD tag there. I have Partridge (your ref) in the 1st edition so if you remind me I'll see if it's in there.Si Trew (talk)00:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you!LadyofShalott00:42, 17 February 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.
List of ZERO1 title reigns by length
[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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)16:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,WP:RFD#D5, the redirect makes no sense. No such list at target.Si Trew (talk)09:21, 15 February 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)16:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of this person in the Zero1 article. Meaningless redirect, done by a user with a history of this sort of conduct.Curse of Fenric (talk)08:28, 15 February 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.
