December 4
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 4, 2014.
My Anaconda Don't
- 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. This one the most prominent line in the Minaj song, and is quite likely to be searched on. --
Beland (
talk)
00:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
This seems iffy. It's only part of a line from "Baby Got Back" (echoed in Nicki Minaj's "Anaconda", where this originally pointed). On its own, it doesn't seem to be very meaningful or a likely search term.
BDD (
talk)
23:09, 4 December 2014 (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.
Koeboluzioa
- 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 procedural close. I thought this sounded familiar. This redirect is already under discussion. See
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 8#Koeboluzioa, and comment there. --
BDD (
talk)
21:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
Delete redirect. There is no reason that we need a redirect from the Basque-language word for coevolution on the English Wikipedia. This is a general topic not specific to Basque-language areas. There's no logical connection between the idea of coevolution and the Basque community.
Ahecht (
TALK
PAGE)
19:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
Delete as nonsense. (
WP:RFD#D5. Searching, I have no evidence this is
Basque language at all;
commons:Koeboluzioa.pdf would provide some substantiation were it not have to be deleted, I imagine for good reason. The nearest I get is:
And since I can understand that a bit since Basque is a bit of a latinate language and a bit celtic, this bit infusing arabic makes the whole thing rather a
pidgin that is patently not
Basque language, but that is what
My Favourite Search Engine brings up for me. So how helpful is this? R to
Basque terrorism seems as likely
Si Trew (
talk)
01:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Through interwikis, I found
eu:Koeboluzio, but it mostly uses "koeboluzioa".
Inflection, perhaps? --
BDD (
talk)
02:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Perhaps;
Basque language is no help here to me to say how nouns
decline or adjectives agree. Reading through the document I give above (no idea where I got the idea of arabic infusion; it was late), "-oa" is used quite a few times ("ikasprozesuaren ebaluazioa", "zikloa", "materielia oinarrizkoa", "erabiltzeko modukoa", "dogmatikoa", chiefly as adjective with agreement to a noun ending in -a or -n, but sometimes as a noun itself. Should we ask at iki
WP:WikiProject Basque or something?
Si Trew (
talk)
08:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- I've invited
user:Iñaki LL to this discussion. They are the first user I found in
category:User eu-N who appears to be currently active on en.wp.
Thryduulf (
talk)
10:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Happy to help here, I'm not sure what the targeted issue is, but here it goes: The word is "koeboluzio" as a dictionary entry, check out terminology dictionaries (
Euskalterm). Dictionary entries in Basque are without absolutive case marker "a", just the root. Hope this helps, regards
Iñaki LL (
talk)
21:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- But it might have an affinity with
language evolution, since Basque is as weird as
Welsh in that regard; not sure yet. At least English is fairly simple, we get Romans to invade and the French to invade and then some Germans and try to
shoehorn Latin grammar onto English which doesn't have any, and some Irishmen and Scots and others from people we once ruled and, er, that's it.
Si Trew (
talk)
10:42, 5 December 2014 (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.
Final Prophet
Government payroll
- 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. Per comments, below, interpreting as a search term for government employment statistics. I added some links to the new target to more info on that for the US and UK. Further improvements sorely needed. --
Beland (
talk)
18:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
I would like to delete this, because "government payroll" does not mean "payroll tax". Normally "government payroll" means the number of government employees and the amount of their salaries. It was used in that sense in the only article to link to it (
Reform of the administrative divisions of China). But currently the target is
Payroll tax, which is another thing entirely. I deleted the link from the China article. –
Margin1522 (
talk)
12:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
government operations. Our public finance articles are a bit of a mess; I didn't find a better target.
Ivanvector (
talk)
16:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- They are.
Public sector and
State ownership are essentially stubs but I assume a lot of warring over them to reduce them to the feebleness that I expect from anything I pay my taxes to. Neither has a section on employment.
public funds redirects to
government spending, which does say "federal civilian employees" in section
government spending#Federal spending, but that is particular to the US anyway (I note that that article is not marked
WP:WORLDWIDE, but I have tried repeatedly to make a list and redirect for
Countries that are not the United States).
Si Trew (
talk)
23:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- I'm sorry, I have no idea what this would mean. As a British person, I would take it to mean all rhose who are paid by the government, i.e. the
public sector, which is a rather wasty article and I shall nhold a seance to get
John Maynard Keynes back or something. The head articles on this are ridiculous "Boy's Annual of Economics 1957" (
Keynes as the
poster girl) knows more about it than Wikipedia does. And has better pictures.
Si Trew (
talk)
23:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- I looked through quite a few of the articles to find a specific mention of payroll, but didn't. I assume that there is some economic indicator that is attached to this that would be a better retarget, but I don't know which off hand. In a business sense, payroll is typically an overhead or operational expense, and I assume the same is true of government budgets, thus my recommendation. Disclosure: I have spent no Crown funds on this report.
Ivanvector (
talk)
00:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Indeed.
Tax Freedom Day is possible, and I found some more sources for that (I am not sure I agree with the lede that it is a "US concept") e.g.
-
Si Trew (
talk)
09:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks,
Ivanvector, that would be better. Another possibility is
Civil service. The United States section of that page has one paragraph on federal government employment. But it looks like we don't have an article on government payroll as such. Maybe I should write one. It could display a graph, like
this FRED graph from the St. Louis Fed. Apparently the BLS also has data for local and state government employment, so add those to the graph, explain what the data is, and there's your article. Call it something like "Government employment in the United States". –
Margin1522 (
talk)
10:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Sounds like a good idea, happy to help create it any way I can. The chief difficulty in creating it, I imagine, would be
WP:NEUTRAL to prevent any suggestion the "government spending is
ipso facto bad". e.g
P. J. O'Rourke's essays in
Eat the Rich suggest so and are worth quoting (for example that he says that the US govt spends 40% on public-sector spending, about as much as Europe, but gets less for it and it would be better if you just didn't tax people so much and let them decide what to do with it), but it can be done, but that, I imagine, will be the chief hurdle.
Si Trew (
talk)
13:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Putting "government" next to another noun does not make the resulting compound noun a "thing", even if it sound like it could be one. I get the feeling that "government payroll" is not an agreed-upon "thing", and if this is the case, then redirecting readers to a thing is maybe not a good idea. If there isn't a reasonably clear and obvious target for a redirect, then it should exist as a DAB page, but even THAT requires distinct meanings that can parsed, and if a term is simply too broad then even a DAB page loses its usefulness. Examples of other equally vague subjects without articles, redirects, or DAB pages:
Government remuneration,
Government order,
Government procedure,
Government agitation, etc. etc.
KDS4444
Talk
13:47, 8 December 2014 (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.
Jenova Reunion Theory
Lucretia Valentine
- 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)
18:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
After I targeted this to the only possible target which it could refer (
Characters of the Final Fantasy VII series#Lucrecia Crescent), I then realized that ... the redirect's title is misleading since this character was never referred as the name stated in the redirect. For this reason, it should probably be deleted in the event that this name/phrase belongs to another existing or future notable topic.
Steel1943 (
talk)
07:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Comment:
AmaryllisGardener, I thought the same, and considered just tagging the redirect with {{
R from incorrect name}}, but I still thought confusion would exist for readers who are not familiar with the redirect's target.
Steel1943 (
talk)
15:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Comment perhaps I do too many cryptic crosswords but I was thinking of
Lucrezia Borgia who was
Valencian (but not
Valentian).
Lucretia Borgia redirects to her, but
Lucrecia Borgia is an R to
Lucrezia Borgia (1947 film).
Si Trew (
talk)
10:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Oh dear I have probably opened a
can of worms (disambiguation) now.
Si Trew (
talk)
14:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- ...Until I decided to
boldly retarget
Lucrecia Borgia to
Lucrezia Borgia; seemed rather uncontroversial, considering that its previous target had disambiguation in its title, and the new target doesn't.
Steel1943 (
talk)
17:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as unlikely synonym. I found some Lucretia Valentines in my google search but is unrelated to FF7. Based on the story stated in the FF wikia, it seems that there were some plot important interactions between Lucrecia Crescent and Vincent Valentine. My theory is that some fans were
shipping the two with Lucrecia getting Vincent's surname in a fanbased wedding. --
Lenticel (
talk)
04:35, 9 December 2014 (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.
Blitz (Final Fantasy VI)
- 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)
13:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
Not mentioned at target. This is a "special move" used by this character, but is not mentioned at the target, and is questionable in its encyclopaedic value.
Steel1943 (
talk)
06:44, 4 December 2014 (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.
Light of Judgement
- 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)
18:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
Apparently, this could vaguely refer to a concept related
Yu-Gi-Oh! or
Kefka Palazzo, but neither one of them is notable or mentioned on either previously referenced article.
Steel1943 (
talk)
03:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. It's just a cool sounding attack for FF and a decent trap card for Yugioh. Both are not even that notable outside their respective universes. --
Lenticel (
talk)
01:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- @
Lenticel: there are uses beyond a video game. With, I take it you are a fan of this game, and it's difficult then to balance your expert opinion against what an idiot like me who has never heard of this game might expect to find. Could you confirm that you kinda know this game inside-out, that is useful expert knowledge but perhaps not for the rest of us. This probably sounds sarcastic written but is not meant to be.
Si Trew (
talk)
14:06, 5 December 2014 (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.
Gastra
- 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. --
Beland (
talk)
01:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
I'm not able to find any references via search engines that refer to this topic (Emperor Gestahl) by this spelling in any language. For this reason, this redirect may confuse readers since it could be confused with the commonly-used prefix "
Gastro-".
Steel1943 (
talk)
03:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom --
67.70.35.44 (
talk)
07:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Keep This is apparently an English rendering of his Japanese name. It's not in the translation we use at
Music of Final Fantasy VI, but I believe I've seen the 13th song of the second disc labeled "The Empire 'Gastra'".
Amazon shows it as "The Empire 'Ghastra'". So maybe that's what I'm thinking of. I remember being baffled by it as well, but it is in use. Man, I'm really letting my nerd flag fly here.
- tl;dr: It's an obscure name, but absent some evidence of confusion, I don't see a problem. --
BDD (
talk)
19:53, 4 December 2014 (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.
DQ anime
- 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 withdrawn by nominator.
Steel1943 (
talk)
17:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
"DQ" doesn't solely stand for "Dragon Quest", as shown on the
disambiguation page.
Steel1943 (
talk)
03:08, 4 December 2014 (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.
Where is abu dhabi
- 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 deleted by
Secret. --
BDD (
talk)
19:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
Implausible redirect.
Mr. Guye (
talk)
02:42, 4 December 2014 (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.
Bronze plan
- 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)
18:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
Does not seam as a useful redirect to me.
Vanjagenije (
talk)
00:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as an ambiguous term and/or interwiki redirect, or weak retarget to
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act#Change in insurance standards as the section of an article in the English Wikipedia which mentions the term as intended by the current redirect target.
Steel1943 (
talk)
01:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete highly ambiguous --
67.70.35.44 (
talk)
07:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget per Steel1943. Indeed this does seem to be the primary search result for "bronze plan" on Google, either the Act itself or companies trying to shill services directly related to it. If there are other possibilities, perhaps disambiguation.
Ivanvector (
talk)
16:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Since when are we a vector for
Google Search? Frequently, Wikipedia is top there (and I'll bet all
Lombard-street to a
China orange that it uses WP interwikis as a good corpus for its
machine translation service, but it don't say so) and one has to look past that to find RS, or one may run in circles. I'm sure you didn't mean it, but WP's purpose is not to appear at the top of Google searches, that is irrelevant. Our job is to help people find information. If Google Search happens to find our information useful, that is up to them. Nothing to do with us.
Si Trew (
talk)
14:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- To put it plainly, if we decide to retarget or delete this redirect, or make an article, Google Search will follow. It is a
Master/slave (Yes, I checked
Master-slave etc too).
Si Trew (
talk)
14:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- To put it more plainly WE ARE THE MASTERS HA HA HA HA HA HA AND YOU MUST DO OUR BIDDING, OR MAYBE FORFEIGHT YOUR BATHPLUGS. Sorry, couldn't resist.
Si Trew (
talk)
14:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Oh, not at all my meaning. I'm using Google results to gauge what real-world meanings are attached to this term, as an analogue for what people have in mind then they type this term into our search box. Wikipedia's ranking on Google doesn't matter because we're on top anyway, nyah nyah
Ivanvector (
talk)
15:22, 5 December 2014 (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.
Gold plan
- 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. Given this result, and the one above, I will be following TexasAndroid's suggestion and deleting
Silver plan and
Platinum plan as well. --
BDD (
talk)
18:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
Does not seam as a useful redirect to me.
Vanjagenije (
talk)
00:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- @
Lenticel: Interesting. This is what my own google search comes up with:
- Gold Health Plans - Coverage from $49, Time's Limited Adwww.government-health-insurance.com/ Enroll by 12/15/14, Coverage Jan 1. Recently Married?Obamacare Plans ExplainedNew Baby?Turning 26?
- Search Results
- Obamacare Gold Health Insurance Plans - Healthpocket www.healthpocket.com/individual-health-insurance/gold-health-plans Nov 25, 2014 - Gold plans have the same standard health benefits as the bronze & silver plans but have lower out-of-pocket expenses and higher premiums. Gold Health Plan | HealthCare.gov
https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/gold-health-plan/
- HealthCare.gov Gold Health Plan. Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print. See Health Plan Categories. Can we improve this page? Footer. How to choose a Marketplace plan | HealthCare.gov
https://www.healthcare.gov/choose-a-plan/
- HealthCare.gov Plan category: There are 5 categories of Marketplace insurance plans: Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum, and Catastrophic. Plans in these categories differ based ... Deductible - Out-of-pocket maximum/limit - What is Coinsurance? How are bronze, silver, gold and platinum plans different ... www.bcbsm.com/index/health-insurance-help/faqs/.../metal-tiers.html
- To make shopping for health insurance easier, plans you purchase for you and your family are divided into metal tiers: bronze, silver, gold and platinum. We all ... How To Choose Between Bronze, Silver, Gold And Platinum ... www.forbes.com/.../how-to-choose-between-bronze-silver-gold-a...Forbes Oct 1, 2013 - Plans in the Marketplace are separated into four levels – Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum – based on how you and the plan can expect to ...
- +MORE
Ottawahitech (
talk)
16:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget per Steel1943. Less clearly than "bronze plan", but still a frequent result is either the Act itself or companies trying to shill services directly related to it. Other results are various companies selling their top-of-the-line product or service as a "gold plan" but none are particularly notable here.
Ivanvector (
talk)
16:55, 4 December 2014 (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.