This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 2, 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete all except keep "occasionalist", "occasionalistic", and "ocassionalists", and retarget "occasionally" to
occasion, without prejudice against speedy renomination (ping
Tavix). Unanimous consensus is that this is redirect spam created by Neelix but some items were contested.
Der
yck C.
17:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
Delete per
WP:NOTDIC. Not all variants of the word "
occasion" refer to
occasionalism. I've redirected
occasions and
occasional to
occasion, but I believe these are too implausible to be useful or helpful at either target. --
Tavix (
talk)
23:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
- We did,
here. The problem with this set is that some of them could be considered helpful, so I wanted to take them here so people could pick out the ones they wanted to keep (as seen above). The result will probably end up the same or similar, but the extra scrutiny certainly wouldn't hurt. --
Tavix (
talk)
20:46, 3 December 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was speedy delete all
Beeblebrox (
talk)
00:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
Hinged doors are the only things that can be
ajar.
Ajar is a disambiguation page with no relation to the word and the variants are just silly. --
Tavix (
talk)
22:55, 2 December 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was speedy delete all.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
00:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
Totally implausible redirect—nobody is ever going to search for this, nobody is ever going to link to this, and even in the unlikely event someone does search for it even the stupidest reader will be able to figure out that what they're looking for is at
Hinge and
Door. ‑
Iridescent
22:33, 2 December 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was speedy delete
Beeblebrox (
talk)
00:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
Delete, vague phrase that doesn't refer to "Laissez-faire" in English. It's also poor grammar since it's a literal translation from French. Whatever the case, my searches do not come up with anything related to the target article. --
Tavix (
talk)
22:25, 2 December 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete all (including Jon-Leigh Pritchard).
Der
yck C.
17:04, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
Delete, these are non-notable, local-level, Manchester-area politicians. There's a mention for some of these, but it's not significant enough to support a viable redirect. --
Tavix (
talk)
21:51, 2 December 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete.
Der
yck C.
23:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
This make no sense. To me, a carpet book would be a book of carpet samples. --
Tavix (
talk)
21:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Not only would this primarily refer to a book of carpet samples (for which there is no article completely on point), but Google suggests a different book,
The Carpet People, as the novel most closely associated with this phrase. As that's just a partial title match, there's no point in retargeting.
I found no information connecting this phrase to Harry Potter. Apparently this is a term used by a few fans to refer to a pirated copy of the book leaked before the official release date. While the leak is covered in the article, this term is so obscure that it doesn't seem worth keeping as a redirect to the current article.
209.211.131.181 (
talk)
00:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
- delete per nom --
70.51.44.60 (
talk)
06:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete while the Carpet People book may be closer it is not a great match and the most likely target books of carpet samples is not an article.--
72.0.200.133 (
talk)
16:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, possibly speedily (though it's old enough that speedy probably can't apply). This redirect was originally created as the result of a pagemove of
content that was later deleted via AfD. The redirect should have been speedy-deleted at the same time rather than being repointed.
Rossami
(talk)
19:05, 3 December 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.
Trophy Club Municipal Utility District 1
- 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 as unopposed. @
Beeblebrox: I'm not a big fan of permanent protection on anything but wouldn't oppose if you want to salt it yourself.
Der
yck C.
17:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
This term is not mentioned at the target page, which is not surprising as a small-town utility board is generally not going to be a notable subject. As this has also been a sort of magnet for what looks like several years of disruptive editing and potential
WP:BLP violations, I propose permanently
WP:SALTing it.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
19:38, 2 December 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was keep. (
non-admin closure) --
Tavix (
talk)
21:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
These redirects are mistargeted. Suggestions?
Legacypac (
talk)
04:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- "a person who has or professes to have refined sensitivity toward the beauties of art or nature. 2. a person who affects great love of art, music, poetry, etc., and indifference to practical matters. Also, esthete." Compare to "Aestheticism (also the Aesthetic Movement) is an intellectual and art movement supporting the emphasis of aesthetic values more than social-political themes for literature, fine art, music and other arts.[1][2] It was particularly prominent in Europe during the 19th century, but contemporary critics are also associated with the movement, such as Harold Bloom, who has recently argued against projecting social and political ideology onto literary works, which he believes has been a growing problem in humanities departments over the last century."
Legacypac (
talk)
17:56, 2 December 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete.
Der
yck C.
23:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
Neelix redirect for an obscure word. This word (in singular form-thanks) is used in the title of at least two other Wikipedia Articles that are not about the style of art discussed at the target.
Legacypac (
talk)
03:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- We have
Aestheticisations,
Estheticisations and
Estheticizations all →
Aestheticism too. I'm not sure the largely US (and Canadian?) spelling without the initial "A" should then have the "-isation" form, since the "-ise" form was abolished in preference to "-ize" in the same spelling reform (i.e. Webster's), I think. ("Ae" + "ize" is fine.)
Si Trew (
talk)
09:22, 23 November 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'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)
20:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
Someone is trying to make this attack have a 9/11 style name.
Legacypac (
talk)
21:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I added the redirect for "13/11" (I didn't make the others) during a time when the title "13/11" was listed on the attack's page as an alternate name. I'm fine if you delete it. --
Monochrome_
Monitor
22:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
@
Legacypac:
- Delete all - Strong delete the first one, and a trout for whoever created that one.
72.198.26.61 (
talk)
22:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep the first possibly convert into a set index for events of that day. But it is clearly a reasonable search term for this topic.
11 September 2001 exists --
70.51.44.60 (
talk)
05:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Weak Retarget
13 November 2015 to
November 13 as plausible redirect since both the attacks and other Nov. 13, 2015 events are stated there. Delete the rest as unlikely synonyms since my google search points me to bible verses instead of the attack. --
Lenticel (
talk)
11:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep
13/11 attacks, an American (and many others) alive since the mid-90s would be likely to search for the Paris attacks article in this way due to having lived through the 9/11 attacks. Retarget
13 November 2015 to
Portal:Current events/2015 November 13, an acceptable cross-namespace redirect between two reader-facing spaces, and a page which presents the searcher with a list of the various content they may be searching for.
13/11 is already deleted and should have been anyway, it's too vague, it could refer to the number or a ratio or who knows what.
Ivanvector 🍁 (
talk)
19:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Americans would likely search using
11/13 attacks and not
13/11 attacks due to the
American date order. --
Tavix (
talk)
18:01, 25 November 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'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
Railway signal#Aspects and indications. --
BDD (
talk)
20:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
As best as I can see he invented this term from some of the meanings of the mountain's name. The term seems more closely related to signal lights, but I suggest delete as confusing and let someone recreate if useful.
Legacypac (
talk)
01:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Seems to have applications in traffic lights too.
Legacypac (
talk)
08:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment we don't have
Yellow aspect nor
Green aspect nor
White aspect.
Si Trew (
talk)
08:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- We could, though, that usage unambiguously refers to railway signalling. And as far as I understand it (not very well) railway signals are never referred to as "red light" "green light" etc, the signal is referred to as displaying a particular aspect, which is often combinations of different coloured lights, so hatnoting from
red light isn't quite proper.
Ivanvector 🍁 (
talk)
16:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, but we do often put these kind of things in a "see also" section; those outside the railway industry ) may not use that term (from my statisitical sample of 1, I should say "red signal" is more common, but
Red signal is, er, red and
Red Signal is a stub article about a 1941(?!) Bollywood film. A "green aspect" apparently is sometimes used to mean consideration for the natural environment, but not enough to deserve anything on Wikipedia (or even Wiktionary) about it. I presume the reason for "aspect" is that it's not necessarily a light source (could be a
railway semaphore signal).
Si Trew (
talk)
03:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Yes I believe that's correct, and I see your point about having this in a see-also section. Railway signalling is considerably more complicated than just stop and go, that's my concern, but I guess we're not here to educate users on how to drive a train.
Ivanvector 🍁 (
talk)
08:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Indeed.
Railway signalling does that more than
Railway signal, so perhaps perversely I change my mind:
- 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete.
Der
yck C.
17:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
I think this is more trouble than it's worth. Every Harry Potter title begins "Harry Potter and" so it's a
WP:PTM for any title in the series. --
Tavix (
talk)
15:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
- We don't create redirects based on obscure typos like that, only common misspellings.
—Мандичка
YO 😜
06:46, 5 December 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete all without prejudice against recreation of "bed dancer" because I don't know how strongly
Ivanvector feels about his "keep".
Der
yck C.
17:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
These terms specially mean dancing on a bed, which is NOT lap dancing (a contact dance). The bed is just an alternative to a hard stage. Retarget to ??
Legacypac (
talk)
17:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Perhaps the article is wrong. I see bed dancing as closer to pole dancing.
Legacypac (
talk)
17:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I searched
bed dancer and can't verify such a term exists for lap dancing or such an activity as a form of lap dancing.
Bed Dance is a film. Urban Dictionary suggests this is just moving around on your bed to music. It could easily be slang for intercourse too. I removed the term bed dance(r)from the target article lead as unsourced.
Legacypac (
talk)
18:24, 18 November 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete.
Der
yck C.
17:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
Delete per
WP:R#D2. This acronym does not refer to
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. It does, however, refer to a few other things (none of which have articles) and I feel like someone would more than likely be looking for something else and not the book. --
Tavix (
talk)
07:28, 2 December 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.
Harry Potter and the Deadly Veil
- 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 all.
Der
yck C.
17:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
At
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows#Choice of title, Rowling mentions three possible titles for the book. None of these were considered as possible titles, so they are unsubstantiated guesses at what the title was going to be. As such they should be deleted per
WP:CRYSTAL: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." --
Tavix (
talk)
07:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Weak delete. These were legitimate redirects to "Forthcoming seventh Harry Potter book" (or whatever it was called) before the actual title was announced; the names were all registered as trademarks by Bloomsbury shortly after #6 was published, so it was reasonable at the time to assume they were the prospective titles. Nowadays, however, nobody is ever going to search on them. ‑
Iridescent
20:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Not so Weak delete per Iridescent.
Johnbod (
talk)
02:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - guesses on what the title could have been; nobody is actually going to search for these, even if looking for alt titles for Deathly Hallows. Any hardcore fan that knows these titles or stumbles across them would easily know the name of the seventh HP book.
—Мандичка
YO 😜
20:30, 4 December 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.