Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 6, 2016.

Shawyer theory[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 16#Shawyer theory

Mr Speaker[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 Mr Speaker to Speaker (politics); keep Mr. Speaker. JohnCD (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I came across these two rather by chance from the discussion we're having about Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_3#Mrs._Bill_Clinton, where User:Neve-selbert claimed that people don't use the stop in British English. I'm quite happy to disabuse Nevé of that notion (and if it were true, why do British people put it after "Mr.", then, such as Mr. Men but not Mr. Benn -> Mr Benn, both of which are British creations). But that's all rather tangential to this nom, which is that we probably should Retarget one or the other so they go to the same place. But which place? Si Trew (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC

Incidentally we (rightly) don't have Mrs Speaker nor Mrs. Speaker. Less rightly we don't have Madame Speaker either, nor even (incorrectly) Madam Speaker. Si Trew (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "Madam Speaker" would be incorrect. Based on wikt:madam and wikt:madame, perhaps "Madame" in English is a hypercorrection (or I suppose you could just consider it a loanword). I'm actually surprised it doesn't redirect to Nancy Pelosi, though that doesn't mean I think it should. --BDD (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, annoyingly. Both British Hansard and (perhaps more tellingly) the English version of Canadian Hansard always say "madam", not "madame". And it is "Madam Deputy Speaker". Who taught you big words like hypercorrection? :) Fortunately these are all red, so we needn't worry. Si Trew (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But the French (at least the Canadian French) don't say "Madame Speaker" at all, they say "Madame la Présidente". (An example here at Wikisource, [1], and you can click the English on the left: Canadian Hansard is a brilliant resource for bilingual texts for statistical machine translation, though early efforts by IBM made some howlers such as translating "hear" as "bravo!" because of the prominence of the expression "hear, hear"). Si Trew (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of, people have used "Madam Speaker". ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they have, but we!re discussing "Mr. Speaker" and "Mr Speaker". The Madam Speaker malarkey has sidetracked us. I didn't nom Madam Speaker or Madame Speaker, both are red, we don't have to worry about them. Si Trew (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Disconcertion[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. JohnCD (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTDICT. Also, the target is misleading: disconcertion is not the same as discomfort; rather, according to Merrian-Webster's online dictionary, it's about being "upset or embarrassed." Rebbing 19:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Boris (mayor)[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. JohnCD (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Johnson isn't the only notable mayor named "Boris", there's also Boris Miletić. The disambigutor makes this an implausible search term. -- Tavix (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Boris (British politician)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 15#Boris (British politician)

Boris (politician)[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. WJBscribe (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Had originally targeted the redirect to Boris Johnson, but, having remembered both Boris Yeltsin and Boris Nemtsov, I moved the redirect to Boris (British politician). --Nevé–selbert 18:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an implausible search term, it's also misleading as it implies Boris Johnson is known mononymously, which isn't the case as far as I can tell. -- Tavix (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He certainly is known mononymously, which is why we have redirects like Boris Bus ( → New Routemaster) and Borismaster (same target). Even so, patently there are other notable politicians called Boris. They are listed at the DAB at Boris. Delete as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, blocks a search. People are better off just going to the DAB at Boris. Si Trew (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If people are better off just going to the DAB page, we should be retargeting this there. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is helpful since that page has five politicians named Boris (and three Kings, who are sort-of politicians) listed at that section. It would be an {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. People searching for this term would be expecting information on politicians named Boris, and that target section has many of those.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Metro-bro[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metro-bro is not mentioned in the bro-country article; outside of one article on a non-notable blog it doesn't even seem to be an actual term. Eric444 (talk) 11:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This is a neologism that's gotten a smattering of attention at best. I also don't think that the redirect is appropriate. We should just trash it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Could be confused with metrosexual as well, which would cover most "metro-" prefixes. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Metro-land being one of the ones it wouldn't. Si Trew (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CoffeeWithMarkets. User:Jack Gaines added to genres of a couple of artists and songs, but I removed it because it is not a real genre. JDDJS (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this bro per CWM --Lenticel (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2016 (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.

Bulge (clothing)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had previously nominated "Manbulge" but forgotten to add this. This should be deleted per WP:NOTURBANDICT and WP:NOTNEO. I don't see coverage in reliable sources that this is a commonly accepted term for this kind of a wardrobe malfunction. Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If we're after neologisms, then "bulge" has as much notability, and a much longer history, than "wardrobe malfunction". This is also covered in the target article and has three competent sources. Although surely Linford Christie is the canon example? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the references from the target article. Firstly the Daily Mirror (a tabloid) was being used as a source. Secondly, the word "bulge" was not mentioned in any of the 3 references. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I have removed the references from the target article." And in just what way was that an improvement?
As to the use of tabloids as sources, then this is an article on wardrobe malfunctions, an inherently trivial and tabloid topic. I'm afraid that the London Review of Books and The Atlantic are rather failing us as a source for that topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[O Tempora! O Mores!] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) Oh The Times, oh the Daily Mirror. I don't really see why the Daily Mirror is not RS. Trivial perhaps but still RS. After all, my free copy from Luton Airport of August 24, 2016 says in its redtop "Newspaper of the Year". (Isn't every newspaper somehow always Newspaper of The Year? But which year? 1936? Or perhaps somehow they mean it is an Annual.) I quite like next to the masthead "So are YOU a psycopath? Take our test (see page 8). On the left is Donald Trump and on the right is Adolf Hitler. But according to page 8 "A poor result [from 11 multiple guess questions] does not necesarily make you a bad person". Phew, I got -693. Si Trew (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a formal term. Searches online refer to a clothing company that has yet to be notable. [2] This also showed up recently from news tabloids because of a photo from the recent U.S. presidential debates. [3] Book searches only reveal Battle of the Bulge uses. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" not a formal term" And "wardrobe malfunction" is? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "wardrobe malfunction" is used in scholarly sources as well. See [4], [5]. That's the difference here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sociological sources though, rather than linguistic. Wherein here's Linford Christie's package: Cecile Wright; Debbie Weekes; Alex McGlaughlin; David Webb (March 1998). "Masculinised Discourses within Education and the Construction of Black Male Identities Amongst African Caribbean Youth". British Journal of Sociology of Education. 19 (1): 81. JSTOR 1393180. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I went to the JSTOR article and bulge is not listed in the abstract. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ouch, I must have subconsciously spaced and capitalised it. Yup it was Manbulge. I have corrected it at the top now. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like Manbulge, this kind of redirect is nothing more than the promotion of a neologism with no encyclopedic value. If scholarly sources have written about bulges in clothing, an article should be created. Otherwise, there is no reason to list every newly made-up term related to excitement about "wardrobe malfunction". Johnuniq (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a neologism, but no more of one (and far older) than "wardrobe malfunction" itself. Lemongirl has now blanked the whole section in the article because she objected to the tabloid nature of the sources, yet the rest of the article is OK to use even more lightweight US tabloids in the lead? (or is it that US tabloids are OK?). This is an inherently trivial, tabloidish topic - tabloid sources would be inevitable.
The section blanking was not a constructive edit. No effort was made to find better sources, merely an editor with an obvious prior agenda removing content that they dislike, rather than content which does not belong. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bare assertions of bad faith with absolutely no proof. Per longstanding policy, the burden for finding sources lies squarely with the proponents of the addition, and you don't what efforts Lemongirl may have made to find sources; and the problems with the "bulge" addition to Wardrobe malfunction go beyond reliability. Please assume good faith. Rebbing 09:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a chronology of "I don't like the redirect", "I don't like the sources (but I'm fine with tabloid sources in the lead)", "I've been objected to by other editors, so lets delete the whole section." is not good faith editing. There was no attempt to find alternative sources. It is ludicrous to claim that male bulges do not fit within the broad scope of "genital embarrassment from clothing" and this has a clearly visible(sic) history going back through the Victorian and Georgian eras of tight trousers. Content was then removed on the basis of not recognising obvious synonyms for 'bulge' (and in such a euphemism-rich field as UK newspapers), when the underlying concept is obviously the same. One of the surviving refs is "Dick Pics, Nip Slips, and Double Standards" - so should "nip slip" depart from this article too, as it is not the same phrasing as "wardrobe malfunction"? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that all counts as "other stuff" that can be debated somewhere else. Rebbing 10:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and like Manbulge. No scholarly sources. Wikipedia is not the place to promote every neologism vaguely related to a subject. -- Begoon 03:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are not required to be "scholarly", they are required to be reliable. Is there any question of such, even from the removed sources? It seems churlish to question the expression of sheer glee on Edwina Currie's face when she saw Carl Fogarty smuggling budgies. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

ABC Kids Channel (Defunct)[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. JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion as the "(defunct)" disambiguation is unnecessary and the redirect is orphaned. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 08:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Birthday Committee\Bulletin Archive[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. JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably unlikely of a search term due to the wrong slash in the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sergal[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target; this is a non-notable made up furry species. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be a non-notable term --Lenticel (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This fictional species has some notability in a very specific context, but it's not the sort of thing that we'd discuss at the main Wiki page. I'm reminded of how there's all kinds of detail when it comes to The Lord of the Rings in terms of legendary groups, tribes, and the like. They don't all have redirects to the book series' related articles, nor should they. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2016 (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.

John Saline[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. JohnCD (talk) 17:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect from my searching. I've found a number of vandalism redirects in his past, and I'm reaching for a reason to not just block him based on recent activity, but that's not an issue for here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not mentioned in target, not even a close typo. General searches show other non-Wikipedia-notable people. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Several non-notable individuals exist by this name. There's no valid connection to Mr. Sahlin. This redirect should be trashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoffeeWithMarkets (talk • contribs) 16:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a simple redirect and it serves a purpose. I was watching Jim Henson's funeral and the name came up but I heard "Don Saline" came up but I couldn't find it when I searched so I had to do a lot more research to find it. Once I found it... I added the redirect in case anyone else had the same problem. It was a completely good faith edit and should be put back. I'm actually trying to make wikipedia a more user firendly place. 10 more peopel saying "delete" will not change this. Requester has an invalid bias towards all edits I make. Please remember consensus is not synonymous with relevance. What kind of place is wikipedia becoming?--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Brown owes me an apology. None of the edits he is talking about were vandalism. I fought each and every accusation of that but I was willing to move on ssince people are never going to unederstand these are real nicknames the people have and the redirects were made with no political agenda what so ever but there seems to be some kind of witch against every little thing I do... it's now gotten to the point where I can;t even make simple edits on here anymore. This is bullying.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Brown is misusing this page as a forum for accusing me of vandalism. If you think this redirect is bad you need to give a reason beyond "editor has a history" this is not a forum for passive aggressively accusing people of vandalism. I really am owed an apology here.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reviewed Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting and can't find any reason in there for deleting this redirect. In fact under reasons to not delete I see #5... it is useful... it helps people searching who misheard the name.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many redirects like this on wikipedia.... Valerie Flame for instance. how far are we going to take this?--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now you are just being belligerent, particularly with your WP:POINTy response below. Looking at your polemic user pages and history, I'm guessing you are right on the edge of a block. Your screaming on my talk page doesn't help. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'd suggest deleting that one, too, but least Google search results for "Valerie Flame" turn up the right person. clpo13(talk) 18:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I doubt you were watching Jim Henson's funeral, you were probably watching his memorial service. Karmit the Frog and Muss Piggy were there to pay tribute to him, too, and even the great Frank Uz. Wikipedia is written not spoken. We needn't encheferize everything. (We don't even have an R for Mock Swedish.) WP:COMPETENCE is required. Sure, WP:RFD#K5 says "somebody finds it useful", but there are bigger things like WP:CONSENSUS and even WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, which is where I'm standing with my Delete !vote.I have my own SiTrewPedia where everything is indexed exactly how I can find it, although it only currently has two pages, "whisky" and "miscellaneous". And one of those is a redirect. Si Trew (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could understand a typo between Saline and Sahlin, or Saleen. But Don and John? I'd have to see some news articles that miss two words. It would be like WP:RTYPO. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the memorial service. Thank you for the friendly correction. It still goes to my point... I was trying to make wikipedia a better place in case anyone else misheard the name and tried to search the same as I did. If you have access to search history you can see I attempted to search on John and eventually found Don's name on wikipedia later, after some external research... all before creating this redirect.. It wasn't vandalism... none of my redirects are vandalism. All of the "controversial" ones were actually nicknames people had but I doubt anyone will believe my intentions. Deleting this redirect, where there is absolutely zero chance anyone could think it's some kind of vandalism, just goes to show it.--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see where my edit is incompetent and violates WP:COMPETENCE... I also notice WP:COMPETENCE: also talks about Grudges. which begs the question... maybe this entire discourse is disruptive to Wikipedia? I can't believe we're haveing this discussion over John versus Don. Anyways... I'm done... do what you may but please don't accuse me of bad intent, incompetence, or vandalism because none of that is the case.--Dr who1975 (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Valerie Flame[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 with hatnote to the TV character. JohnCD (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per clpo13 & Dennis Brown above. I say KEEP to both but I need other, smarter editors to help me with the reasons why.--Dr who1975 (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is just good faith to nominate it. It's called Redirects for discussion, despite Twinkle and other things thinking it is Redirects for deletion. It would probably not have been a good idea to combine the two listings, because they're rather different. For example I am going to say delete on the one above but keep this one as {{R from incorrect name}}, because when written, F and P can look very similar on some screens or woodware, so it's a different case seeing something wrong (like Optical character recognition often does) and hearing it wrong, which I believe is outside the bounds of Wikipedia, which is written not spoken.
I've thus marked, and taken out that there were actually two redirects with User:Dr_who1975's nomination, for some reason "#REDIRECT:Valerie Plame" was moved to below the nomination and in the middle of the nom it had "#REDIRECT:Valerie Flame" which obviously would be a redirect to itself, I assume that was just a little cock-up on Dr_who1975's part amd easily fixed. Si Trew (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The political blogs do poke fun of her last name but use all sorts of rhymes. [6] [7] [8], but doesn't use Flame. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Valerie Flame" is a character on the TV series Childrens Hospital. -- Tavix (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and hatnote to the TV character. "Valerie Flame" was in fact the specific spelling that was used in notes that exposed Valerie Plame. [9], [10]---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This alternate spelling of her name, as stated above, is a part of the political story that she got embroiled in. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_6&oldid=1088108490"