Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 29, 2016.

Erdoğan[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 Snow close as retarget to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. I've added a hatnote at the target. I note that Erdogan was and remains targeted there. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 04:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Until this month, this redirect targeted Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. That is because he is the primary topic of the name “Erdoğan”, though one editor disagrees. I propose retargeting back to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Gorobay (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom. President Erdoğan is clearly the primary topic here. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 03:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Can we also have a hatnote pointing to the current target? --Lenticel (talk) 06:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Erdoğan" is nothing else than a common Turkish name. There is no need to re target as "Recep Tayyip Erdoğan" is not the only one having this name or the most notable one. We don't need to over-personalize people. CeeGee 06:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not aware of any Erdogan more notable than president Erdogan, and if you can name one that immediately changes my mind completely. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:20, 30 September 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.

EastEnders character Dot Cotton[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) 17:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rather pointless redirect, Anyone wanting to know the character would just search "Dot Cotton" or they'd search "EastEnders characters" where List of EastEnders characters pops up so you can't go wrong, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 21:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the other link makes far more sense, If it's of any help we could always have this deleted and I could create Dot Cotton (EastEnders), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 22:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see any need to create that link, that would just be another {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Si Trew (talk) 07:41, 30 September 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.

Maju Pulu Kita[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 7#Maju Pulu Kita

Selena M. Gomez[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 8#Selena M. Gomez

Fly To Your Heart (Selena Gomez song)[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 Fly To Your Heart(Selena Gomez song) and retarget the other two to Tinker Bell (film)#Soundtrack. -- Tavix (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. This is a bit weird. Fly to Your Heart is a a redirect to Tinker Bell (film)#Soundtrack where Gomez is linked. It is odd, then, to have this redirect go to a different place – and indeed not to a section but just to the person themselves, kinda self-disambiguating. I can't put my finger on it, but essentially this is WP:SURPRISEing as being the same, transitively, as ssaying "Selena Gomez (Selena Gomez song)", or is it just me that has the mental jar with this one? Si Trew (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless there are other "Fly to Your Heart" songs, this is an unnecessary extra disambiguator. The song itself can be kept, and perhaps added to her discography if the soundtrack had some amount of charting success. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @AngusWOOF: I added two others before or during your delete !vote, not technically an ec but your delete technically only applies to the first... you may wish to comment on the other two. Si Trew (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. This would apply to the other variants. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Tinker Bell (film)#Soundtrack. Tag all with {{R avoided double redirect|Fly to Your Heart}}. --BDD (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:33, 29 September 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:CAMELCASE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 15#Wikipedia:CAMELCASE

Bobi Ball[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) 17:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another implausible Bobi. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not a common name or stage name. Searches show there's a Bobbi Ball but no notables for that list either. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence that any Robert Ball's have used these spellings. Note: I've added two more variants to this discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as unlikely synonyms at best --Lenticel (talk) 00:49, 3 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.

Guinea-Bissau/People[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 7#Guinea-Bissau/People

Largetongue orchids[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 8#Largetongue orchids

Centum Investment[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) 17:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Neelix redirect. This is on the list at User:Anomie/Neelix_list/4#Section 25 but is not a Neelix redirect, it is an {{R from page move}} to Centum Investments on 8 June 2016 by User:Fsmatovu. I'd already moved [[:]] to there on 18 May 2016, according to my edit summary at Centum Investments, but that's not in the Co Ltd redirect's history, which has one entry that it was created on 23 June 2016 by User:Zotezangu. None of these has Neelix' thumbprint on them so I am going to remove it from the Neelix list, but I am at a bit of a loss to what's gone on here, as we've lost any sensible history. I guess things have been deleted and recreated at the same titles? Si Trew (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to know what exactly happened here. If there are a lot of non-Neelix redirects polluting the list, then we have a problem. Tazerdadog (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There won't be many. They're just quite likely to be related to me in some way if there are any, just because I've probably trogged through the Anomie lists more than most other editors have. Si Trew (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, no rationale given for deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, the company is not called "Centum Investment". The WP:PRIMARYSOURCE does support the sentence it follows, "In 2007, the shareholders changed the name of the company to Centum Investment Company Limited" (in section Centum Investments#History), but the sentence immediately following that calls it Centum Investments Company Limited. Even were it to be called Centum Investment Company Limited it is not called Centum Investment. It's marginal, though, I was more interested in working out why these were recreated, because it makes a nonsense of the ES on the various redirects to articles which have since been deleted and recreated. Si Trew (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, this article does not belong to the Neelix list, and Si Trew, has said so himself. Having created the article and edited it often, when the Centum Investment Company Limited was redirected to Centum Investment, my thoughts were that the new name mis-represented the company since it has many investments in such areas as commercial real estate, residential real estate, banking, agribusiness, energy generation and so on. I am of the view that Centum Investments is a good compromise. So I moved the article. I have no affiliation with the Neelix fellow. User:Zotezangu is known to me; we have worked on projects together. He is not Neelex either. Thanks. Fsmatovu (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of whether it's a Neelix redirect; I've taken it off that list, but still, it is an odd redirect since it's unclear to me that the company is called Centum Investment beyond a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. I presume, User:Fsmatovu, you intend to fix the following sentence that calls it Centum Investments Company Limited, as I pointed out above? It can't be both. Si Trew (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused. In your redirect from Centum Investment Company Limited to Centum Investment, you said "We don't put the official status of companies after their names at WP. WP:COMPANY I think)". So we must avoid calling the company by its correct name. Is that what we are trying to do here? As a compromise, I propose we call it Centum Investment Company. Is that acceptable? Fsmatovu (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would be worse. It really depends on whether "Company" or "Company Limited" is part of its WP:COMMONNAME. WP:COMPANY has little to do with it, it's the title of the page we're talking about, not what it's called within the article. I'm really not that het up about it, to be honest, but there terminology should be consistent within the article: and so it's not surprising it keeps getting moved around until that is settled. By all means we can have redirects for {{R from other name}}, {{R from former name}}, {{R from official name}}, but within the article the naming should be consistent (with, of course, its full legal title somewhere, e.g. in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE, but use the common name thereafter). Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mark it as {{{R from other name}} then, a — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 07:53, 30 September 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.

Herbs of spiritual potency[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 "Herbs of spiritual potency" and "Magic fungi", keep "Divine fungi". --BDD (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirects) I have taken many others such as Divine mushrooms speedily kept and rcatted as {{R from other name}}, {{R to section}} and where appropriate {{R from plural}}: all are well documented in the section. However these plurals are not documented and I think are pushing it a bit far. Obviously as English plurals these are fine, but it's a push to form the English plurals from singular translations of Chinese names; there's nothing really wrong with them except someone might reasonably sarch for "Herb of spiritual potency" if they have read that somewhere, but it is rather unlikely they will search for "Herbs of spiritual potency". Weakly delete all. Stats 0 or 1 in thirty days, well below noise level; no internal links for any except this discussion and the Neelix list. Si Trew (talk) 10:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All (including Divine mushrooms and others). Neelix nonsense. Varied and sundry informal very approximate English translations from an Asian language for rough informational purposes absolutely do not equate to the proper designation of that entity, and the phrases absolutely should not be coopted simply because Neelix was messing around with words. Softlavender (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Things like Divine mushroom are individually referenced at the target, and I am AGF assuming those are RS. So, I think it's reasonable (if unnecessary) to have plurals for those RS entries. e.g. the one for Divine Mushroom:
Hu, Shiu-ying (2006), Food plants of China, Chinese University Press.
It's still pushing it a bit, I agree, to pluralise it, but we might as well work from the outside in and decide if the more egregious plurals should be deleted, first. Si Trew (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Not plausible search terms. "Magic fungi" perhaps could follow magic mushroom in pointing to psilocybin mushroom, but from what I see on Google, "magic fungi" is used about as often for fungi that "magically" break down toxic waste as it is for psychoactive mushrooms (and it's also used in a smattering of other contexts). Plantdrew (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, and Psychoactive fungus and Psychoactive fungi go to Mushroom#Mushroom#Psychoactive mushrooms, although not marked as {{R to section}} (until I do them right now). At (User:Anomie/Neelix_list/4#Section 13). Si Trew (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep divine fungi Apologies if the links were already posted. I see this article by Backpacker magazine: [1], and various books [2] [3] [4] [5] which confirms the literal meaning. Delete magic fungi as that doesn't correspond to the ling chih mushroom. Delete Herbs of Spiritual Potency as that is vague and could refer to all sorts of herbs. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:48, 30 September 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.

Historian of life[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) 17:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_29#Life_historian, nominated by me, where the consensus was to take Life historian to Life history (sociology). I did not at that time list these other variations (probably just forgot), all are/were Neelix redirects, and I imagine should be speedily retargeted the same way: I am not quite confident enough to do so boldly, especially for the "Historian(s) of life". Regulars User:Patar knight and User:CoffeeWithMarkets contributed to the previous discussion; I did not, beyond nominating, I probably got distracted. Si Trew (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would indeed retarget "Life historians" over, but the other two look like the sort of thing that I'd rather us just delete. "Historians of life" seems like something that one would haphazardly pluck out of a larger sentence with a larger context (like the snippet "historians of life under the Nazis." used here). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have loads of these "X of Y" Neelix creations (or should I say "creations of Neelix"), , as if we were French, instead of the "Y X". It's both correct and common in English to have a noun act as a modifier of another noun, and in doing so it comes before the main noun: we don't have to reverse the natural English word order and stick an "of" in the middle. Sometimes we do, of course: cream of tartar, Bank of Scotland (but Midland Bank, Ulster Bank), but it doesn't mean we have to invent these for every compound noun. Nobody would call "life assurance" the "assurance of life". Si Trew (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All. No such animals. Neelix nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: "Life historian" seems to be a term which is used (here and here) but not in any article in Wikipedia. Might perhaps appropriately be included in Life history (sociology), but not mentioned there as yet. The other two are just Neelixisms. PamD 12:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion of all per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Life historians to proposed target above. Not having the term in the article shouldn't matter if it's a basic variation of the title. Readers can very easily figure out that someone who works with "life histories" would be a "life historian." Delete the other two. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Life historian -> Life history (sociology) as {{R from person}} (I think), Delete the other two, as all above. Si Trew (talk) 11:52, 3 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.

Lunged[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 Lunge (non-admin closure) Pppery 19:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(neelix redirect). I think this can be 'Deleted as WP:XY as it could go either to the existing target, Lung (i.e. something that has lungs is lunged), or as {{R from verb}} to Lunge, a DAB. Not sure enough to be bold about it, though. We don't have lunged animal or anything I could find like that, but I'm no biologist. Si Trew (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd retarget to lunge, as lunge_d seems much more common to me than lung_ed. I've never heard an animal described as lung_ed, but lunge_d is a reasonably common term. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd also retarget to 'Lunge' since, even though something being described as 'lunged' in the sense of 'has a lung, surprisingly' does happen (such as with analysis of lunged fish), I think the primary use of the term is otherwise. We can alter 'Lunge' if we want too. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Shouldn't 'lunged fish' link readers to 'amphibious fish' or something rather than go to nothing? Only somewhat related, I know, but just saying... CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering that too, actually. Seems like a good idea to me. Si Trew (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to lunge which already has a dab to Lung at the bottom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to lunge per above. Have also boldly created lunged fish as a redirect to amphibious fish per above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:57, 30 September 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.

Bobi Healey[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) 17:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence that any of the people at the disambiguation were known as "Bobi" or "Bobbie". -- Tavix (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As with the prev. nomination, Bobbi is a feminine spelling, not a masculine one, and there's no indication that any of the Robert Healys are nicknamed even "Bobby". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbi is a feminine spelling, not a masculine one, and there's no indication that any of the Robert Healeys are nicknamed even "Bobby". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Clarityfiend: I was going to WP:BOLDLY bundle all of these together, but then I thought I'd ask you first. Do you have any objection to this? -- Tavix (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: @Clarityfiend: I've not wholly recombined them but WP:BOLDly moved the relisting of "#Sentence logic" that split these from the two immediately below. I'm certainly happy to combine them, but at least it's easier to navigate if they are visually grouped, even if in different sections (for now). Si Trew (talk) 04:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: @Clarityfiend: @SimonTrew: I went ahead and combined them. Anyone should feel especially free to revert if this is undesired. Tazerdadog (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine by me. My, my, my. There sure were more of those critters in the woodwork. (Bobi?) Clarityfiend (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Although not listed [as of this writing] among the entries at the Robert Healy disambiguation page, Bobby Healy (video game developer) should be eligible for listing as a WP:DABLINK from the List of ZX Spectrum games in the same manner as the redlinked Bob Healey (boxer) is DABLINKed from the Percy Vear article at the Robert Healey disambiguation page. The parenthetical qualifiers for the specific Bobby Healy and Bob Healey may be considered as placeholders so that the names "Bobby" and "Bob" can serve as redirects to the Robert dab pages, but, if their biographical entries were to be created, each would be the sole "Bobby" and "Bob" upon his respective dab page. The other solution in regard to their current appearance, would be to list these two names with a brief description, but without redlinks or qualifiers and allow their respective blue links to serve as guides. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 07:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No notable individual known as "Bobbi Healey" appears to exist, and that first name indeed wasn't used by the notable Robert Healeys that we detail. I also support deletion. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My feelings remain the same when applied to all of these. I support the idea that we delete every single one. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: reinstate only if we find that one or more refers to more than one person who is listed in the dab page (if just one Robert Healey is known as "Bobbie" then make a redirect to him; if multiple, then redirect to the dab page). PamD 12:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. When Wikipedia-notable spellings show up for multiple people then revisit. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:53, 30 September 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.

Sentence logic[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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence in the article that propositional calculus is called sentence logic; the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE says it is called sentential logic (which I have marked as {{R from other name}} as part of my rambling contribution to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_20#Sentential). We do not have proposition calculus or proposition logic. Added for completeness as the result of this will probably fall out of the result of that more-general discussion. Si Trew (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recommending to delete one redirect to create another just puts you out of the frying pan, into the fire. See Fowler (Modern English Usage), 2nd edition preferably. Si Trew (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Sentential logic is the logic of sentences, for one narrow meaning of "sentence" - and if there's one point of agreement in that other discussion it's that "sentential" is not a common word. It's somewhat plausible that this could come up as a mistaken search term. On the other hand, "sentence logic" might also be a plausible search term for grammar, which would argue against the current situation. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sentential logic is certainly that, but sentence logic is not. "Sentential logic" is a specific term that may go to Formal grammar or to Sentence (linguistics) or be better deleted so that readers have a chance to decide for themselves (per WP:XY). Sentential logic is not just the logic of sentences. Si Trew (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Godsy (TALKCONT) 03:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As much as I don't like this awkward wording, I'm seeing it used in a variety of books that look like reliable sources (such as this example here and also this). There's somewhat of a reasonable chance that someone will come across this term and search it here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:XY. There are just two many fields of science where this term could be used, for example those enumerated in the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE of (Formal language theory), which also has a nice diagram of a sentence right at the top of the article. Si Trew (talk) 12:38, 29 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_29&oldid=1088108287"