Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 9

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 speedily deleted by Beeblebrox. --BDD (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Naxuan → Nakhchivan  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Pyrusca (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep @Pyrusca: Why? Pppery 23:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably because it looked like run-of-the-mill WP:X1 nonsense? – Uanfala (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Nakhchivan (city), which was apparently known in antiquity as Naxuana, of which Naxuan appears to be a variant [1]. – Uanfala (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Uanfala. The original target was the republic, where "Naxuana" is also mentioned. But the citations quoted there speak of the "city", so the city is the best target for Naxuan. Because Naxuana also redirects there, that will be consistent. — Gorthian (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Well, it's been deleted now, which probably indicates that Pyrusca didn't place the RFD template on the page. — Gorthian (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was tagged correctly, but apparently after it was already placed on one of the master lists of Neelix-created redirects for speedy deletion. If consensus here is to recreate or retarget it, any user in good standing may do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:36, 11 November 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.

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} 01:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• ️High Blast Explosive → High Blast Explosive  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Zero-width space in page title; not working around technical restriction. Pppery 21:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not useful stylization. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:30, 10 November 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.

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} 04:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• DEFLOWER → Virginity  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

When this was created, it pointed to a band formerly known by this name. As an all-caps version of the verb form of an archaic term related to the target article, it doesn't seem to be a likely or useful search term. BDD (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and caps. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - With the capitalization how it is, this seems useless. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as an unlikely synonym due to the capitalization. --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:30, 14 November 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.

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 retargetted to November 13.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 11/13 → November 2015 Paris attacks  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Unlike 9/11 and 7/7, I have never heard this terrorist incident referred to as "11/13", and I can't see much about it in sources either. The article itself also does not mention the term at all, except in a hatnote. Also, aside from anything else, dates in France (and the rest of Europe) are usually in dd/mm format, so this would be 13/11 if it were anything. I suggest this be deleted as it has no incoming links, and most date pages are red links (see User:SimonTrew/Sandbox).  — Amakuru (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to November 13. Unlike forms where one number is greater than 12, this is unambiguous as a date. It doesn't seem irresponsible to retarget it there, and I'm not sure what else it would refer to. --BDD (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per BDD. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to November 13 given the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to November 13 as most likely search target --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to November 13 because also more likely search target. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 01:17, 15 November 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.

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 Retargeted.(non-admin closure) Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect, it turns out. The redirect should go to Molokan, not Mennonite. -Moorlock (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to milking That's the profession, and it also briefly covers milking of other things. The Molokans are milk drinkers not milkers. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to milking. I've defined the term there as either the animal that produces milk or the person that milks said animal --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:59, 11 November 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.

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. 19:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Bystrytsia of Solotvyno → Bystrytsia of Solotvyn  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Inappropriate redirect. The correct English name of the river is Bystrytsia of Solotvyn (see page talk). “Bystrytsia of Solotvyno” is not an alternative name/synonym of that river. Hence, this redirect is plainly wrong and therefore it should be deleted. Gretarsson (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom as unlikely misspelling --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:53, 17 November 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.

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. This was difficult. There was absolutely no consensus for deleting, so the result was going to be a hatnote either way. I found the argument that we have no encyclopedic argument on the slang term compelling, though still chose to call this "no consensus" rather than "keep" due to strong arguments on both sides (the result is essentially the same).

If I were to advise someone unhappy with the status quo, I would recommend someone try to make an article on the slang term. It doesn't look like that's ever been tried, or at least taken to AfD. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Murica → Murcia  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Was trying to look up the meaning of the hashtag, #Murica. Instead, was sent to an article about the Spanish city. Please delete. 71.163.180.2 (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep plausible typo. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to 'Murica and hatnote to Murcia. I agree with the nom that more people would be trying to find out about the slang term than a typo for the Spanish city. Seeing as this has become a perennial discussion, I feel this is the only way to truly resolve this situation, lest we'll be back here again soon. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nom. Would rather either delete or disambiguate, as redirecting it anywhere might inconvenience users looking for the other target, and we don't know which usage is more frequent anyway. 71.163.180.2 (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thats the point of using a WP:HATNOTE. I believe that 'Murica is the primary topic in this case, so we wouldn't need a disambiguation. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from nom. An alternative argument might be that Murcia is the main topic and the hatnote should point to the other. Who knows which is primary? 71.163.180.2 (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's subjective, but if anyone knows, it's Google. Type "Murica" into Google and report your results. Did you primarily get results relating to "'Murica" or "Murcia"? -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per consensus in the first discussion and my comment in the second discussion. We don't have an article on what's described at wikt:'Murica but we do have one on the Spanish city. Neither is a primary usage (globalize!) but we should prefer things on which we have articles over things where an article doesn't exist. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ivanvector, this is particularly unlikely as I don't see why anyone would search Wikipedia for it, if the meme is notable, I would like to see an article on it. (We don't have to Make this Redirect Great Again) - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 20:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 'Murica can stay at that wikt note per WP:NOTDIC until a decent article can be written about the slang term. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is 'murica which goes to United States. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my nomination statement at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 18#Murica. Steel1943 (talk) 22:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ivanvector; on-wiki targets are better than off-wiki targets. Pppery 03:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to 'Murica, since that is more likely target than just a not-so-well-known Spanish city. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 03:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to 'Murica and add a hatnote there pointing to Murcia per Tavix. I would agree with Pppery if this were a synonym of Murcia instead of a misspelling of it. It is better as an {{r from alternative punctuation}} of 'Murica, and more likely to be lead the reader to the content they are looking for, especially with the proposed hatnote. This is the closest thing to the best of both worlds that we can hope for in this case.— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget and hatnote per Tavix and Godsy. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget and hatnote per above and WP:TWODABS. This title could plausibly refer to 'Murica or be a misspelling of Murcia, and "typo" targets should generally give way to "correct" targets. Deryck C. 19:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget and hatnote as per the above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:03, 22 November 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.