From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 16

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 16, 2017.

List of songs performed on American Idol

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 List of American Idol Hot 100 singles fish& karate 12:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply

The target does not contain a list of this nature. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:16, 16 November 2017 (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.

Alex Burns (journalist)

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) 22:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete this redirect because (1) Wrong name; Journalist's actual name in the paper is Alexander Burns; (2) the target article doesn't mention him; (3) hardly anything links here (4) We don't typically redirect otherwise redlinked journalists to their employer; there are numerous more notable journalists that have no Wikipedia article at all, and aren't likely to get one (5) He might not stay at The New York Times or he might become better known for something else (6) Helpful editors trying to provide blue authorlinks are burdened by checking this fake article, or worse yet, carelessly providing a worthless authorlink. Anomalocaris ( talk) 05:42, 16 November 2017 (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.

Infobox settlement

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 as a group. With even TfD regulars supporting keeping, it's difficult to imagine how deletion could be supported. Noting that this outcome should not be taken as endorsing the creation of similar redirects, or as preventing the future re-nomination of individual redirects. (non-admin closure)Uanfala 12:52, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Unused redirects. Delete like all these: Template:Infobox Abkhaz district, Template:Infobox Algerian municipality, Template:Infobox Algerian District, Template:Infobox Algerian Province, Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina municipalities Zenica, Template:Bosnia and Herzegovina municipalities02, Template:CoDepartment infobox, Template:Community area, Template:Croatian County, Template:District data of Japan, Template:India UT capital infobox, Template:India UT infobox2, Template:Infobox Autonomous community, Template:Infobox Belgische deelgemeente, Template:Infobox City in Afghanistan, Template:Infobox city in the Republic of Macedonia, Template:Infobox city in the Republic of Macedonia (dual language), Template:Infobox City of Moldova, Template:Infobox city of Panama, Template:Infobox City Ukraine, Template:Infobox Crimean town, Template:Infobox deelgemeente Belgium, Template:Infobox divisions of Sarawak, Template:Infobox District Cambodia, Template:Infobox District CZ, Template:Infobox District of Moldova, Template:Infobox districts of Selangor, Template:Infobox England district, Template:Infobox Estonian County, Template:Infobox Federal Territory of Malaysia, Template:Infobox French hamlet, Template:Infobox Luxembourg, Template:Infobox Luxembourg canton, Template:Infobox Micropolitan Area, Template:Infobox Moldovan Location, Template:Infobox Montenegro, Template:Infobox Municipalities of Portugal, Template:Infobox Municipality in the Republic of Macedonia, Template:Infobox Municipality portugal, Template:Infobox Municipality pt, Template:Infobox Pakistan district, Template:Infobox Pakistani location, Template:Infobox Political Division, Template:Infobox Province of Kazakhstan, Template:Infobox Region of Georgia, Template:Infobox Romania Villages, Template:Infobox Settlement 1, Template:Infobox Settlement (Serbia), Template:Infobox Statistical Regions of the Republic of Macedonia, Template:Infobox Subdivisions of Malaysia, Template:Infobox Tehsil Pakistan, Template:Metropolitan cities of India, Template:Place in Mexico, Template:Romanian regions infobox, Template:Statistical region of Slovenia, Template:Tokyo-Infobox, Template:Tokyo-Infobox/Idea 1, Template:Union councils of Pakistan, Template:Village in Ukraine, Template:USA City infobox, Template:USA City infobox, Template:Greenlandic divisions, Template:Infobox Municipality Slovenia, Template:Infobox Vietnam district, Template:Infobox Indonesian regency, Template:Infobox Indonesian province, Template:Infobox Solomon Islands Province, Template:Infobox Burmesestatedivision, Template:Infobox East Timor District, Template:Infobox Nigerian States, Template:Infobox Sri Lankan Administrative District 85.181.156.35 ( talk) 05:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep: This nomination is somewhat of an apples and oranges argument. From what I can tell this far, the deleted pages the nominator has linked refer to pages deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion nominations, not Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion nominations. (The linked deleted pages were standalone templates, whereas this nomination pertains to redirects.) At the present time, I'm leaning "keep" since these redirects' purpose is to help editors/readers find the target template. I mean, one cannot expect everyone to know the exact names of every template prior to transcluding or substituting them, and these redirects could serve as navigational assists to reach the target template. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:59, 16 November 2017 (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. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Duo or 多 is different than 夕. Duo has a different meaning than 夕 does. No sense in this redirecting to a page with a different meaning. Goveganplease ( talk) 02:03, 16 November 2017 (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.

Racist Bassist

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) 22:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in the target. Most likely another bit of in-universe lore from the YouTube channel. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) ( talk • contribs) 02:01, 16 November 2017 (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.

Phil. Transac.: Biol. Soc.

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) 22:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Unlikely redirect/typo, all abbreviated forms would have "Trans." or (rarely) "Transact.", never "Transac". Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Yes, it's an incorrect abbreviation. But we keep redirects from incorrect abbreviation that might be reasonable errors, and this is one of them. I see no reason why this is confusing. "If we expect somebody to look it up they should type..." is a reason for keeping, not deleting. If library experience is any guide, people may wel luse every possible mis-abbreviation for journal names, and dealing with them is the purpose of redirects or cross references. . DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as implausible. Noting that the target already has about two dozen of redirects for variations on the abbreviation. – Uanfala 13:11, 27 November 2017 (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.

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B.

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 as G7. -- Tavix ( talk) 17:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Unlikely redirect/typo. All abbreviated forms would not have the stray dot after the B. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm trying to get it speedied. AngusWOOF ( barksniff) 15:38, 16 November 2017 (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.

Phil.Trans. A

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) 22:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Unlikely search term / with typo, already covered by Phil. Trans. A Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 01:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. Yes, it's an incorrect abbreviation. But we keep redirects from incorrect abbreviation that might be reasonable errors, and this is one of them. I see no reason why this is confusing. "If we expect somebody to look it up they should type..." is a reason for keeping, not deleting. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC) reply
This is not a likely typo. (most of those 6 views in 2017 come from me doing cleanup maintenance). If someone, for some reason types "Phil.Trans. A", the suggestions for the "did you meant..." will suggest the thing they were looking for. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:33, 26 November 2017 (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.

Phil. Trans. Proc. Royal Soc. A

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) 22:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Unlikely and extremely confusing redirect. This would stand for Philosophical Transactions of the Proceedings of the Royal Society A. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

So DGG ( talk · contribs), should this be targeted to Philosophical Transactions A, or Proceedings of the Royal Society A, and why that target over the other? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC) reply
probably a dab page listing hte laternatives--it;s the only mechanism we have for cases like this. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 26 November 2017 (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.

Regressive eating

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 Regression (psychology). There's no support for the current target and not much discussion—this seems to be the better option put forward. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I can't find any usages of "regressive eating" in reliable sources to mean "Paleolithic diet". In reality "regressive eating" appears to be a term for some kind of eating disorder, but I don't know enough about this topic area to tell whether it's covered in Wikipedia under another name or something. 59.149.124.29 ( talk) 14:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - I'm seeing this term being used by several reliable-looking publications in terms of eating disorders, such as this among other examples. There's probably a good place to redirect it over to, some exact section or the like, but I'm not quite sure. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 18:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 ( talk) 00:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • After a bit more reading, it seems like usages of "regressive eating" in published sources are in the Freudian sense, though I'm not 100% confident in this because I'm way out of my depth in this topic area. Anyway, unless someone has any better ideas (or a case for deletion), I guess this could be closed as retarget to regression (psychology), since this redirect is seven years old and that article does mention "eating" briefly even if it doesn't have the exact phrase "regressive eating". 59.149.124.29 ( talk) 02:24, 23 November 2017 (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:Not menu

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 5#Wikipedia:Not menu

List of Pop culture news media events

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 5#List of Pop culture news media events

🏣

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 5#🏣

Chem. Biol.

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 WP:CSD#G7. ansh 666 06:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply

This is the abbreviation for Chemistry & Biology [4], not European Heart Journal. I created this by mistake in 2009. Could be speedy'd, but there's no suitable criteria except "common sense". Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:32, 16 November 2017 (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.