Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 22

November 22
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 22, 2013.

Destiny Hope Cyrus (Miley)



 * 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 Milay, keep the others. --BDD (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete all; I understand that common misspellings can and do happen, which is why I didn't list several other redirects for discussion. However, many of these redirects are severely misspelled, and are surely not being used to redirect to the main Miley Cyrus page. WikiRedactor (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Destiny Hope Cyrus (Miley) → Miley Cyrus (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Destiney Cyrus → Miley Cyrus (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * MileyRayCyrus → Miley Cyrus (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Milay → Miley Cyrus (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Miley Cirus → Miley Cyrus (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Milly Cyrus → Miley Cyrus (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Mylie cyrus → Miley Cyrus (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Mylie Cyrus → Miley Cyrus (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Myley Cyrus → Miley Cyrus (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Myley Cyrus → Miley Cyrus (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Milie Cyrus → Miley Cyrus (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Milie cyrus → Miley Cyrus (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Miley Cyprus → Miley Cyrus (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Mily Cyrus → Miley Cyrus (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Miley yrus → Miley Cyrus (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Miley Sirus → Miley Cyrus (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Miley cryus → Miley Cyrus (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Maili Sairus → Miley Cyrus (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Ciley Myrus → Miley Cyrus (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Miley cirrus → Miley Cyrus (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Keep all Miley Cyrus fans are ordinary people with ordinary failings and an ordinary attitude to spelling Mily Sirus. Such redirects are genuinely helpful to our dyskelsic friends and ought to remain. They may offend those of us who know how to spell the lass's name, but, for those who do not, heck, let 'em find her! Fiddle   Faddle  23:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete some, no opinion on others. "MileyRayCyrus" and "Milay" are incomprehensible.  This target article is probably not the most logical interpretation of "Miley yrus". The last 5 ("Miley Sirus", "Miley cryus", "Maili Sairus", "Ciley Myrus" (thinko or Spoonerism rather than mispelling), "Miley cirrus") might be mispellings and miscapitalizations of "Miley Cyrus", but are probably closer to other articles. "Redirects are cheap", but they are not free of cost.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing "MileyRayCyrus" is related to her father, Billy Ray Cyrus. --Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. All are basically harmless, none are actively misleading or confusing. The only one I'm unsure about is Milay, but even for that there doesn't seem to be any other target so deletion would do more harm than good. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Milay I could be a plausible misspelling of My Lai, so possible retarget to My Lai Massacre, but Miley is probably more likely. Anyways, keep all. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Milay. Mentioned at Millaa Millaa, Queensland and could be short for Milayda Enríquez, and even a typo for Mialy or My Lai. All in all more likely to do more harm than good. Keep the rest as harmless. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - plausible typos, no argument has been advanced for deletion. I wouldn't object to a retargeting/disambig being done with Milay, if TWW wants. Wily D  10:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

Knockout game



 * 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 is and add a hatnote at the present target. Proposals to rename an article belong at Requested moves and this close is without prejudice to a listing there if anyone desires, although informing participants of this discussion may be courteous. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Knockout game → One-game playoff (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Probably better to retarget to Knockout (violent game). RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 13:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Knockout (violent game) is a fad that started just this month. Seeing news searches from 2001 to October 2013, the phrase "knockout game" almost always refers to a game where a team would be eliminated from competition. – H T  D  16:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Knockout (violent game) (concur with RJaguar3). This phenomenon received significant US media exposure this week, but it did not start just this month. I have heard about it locally for several years and identified by that name. Can add a hatnote to address the alternate meaning.  Dwpaul  Talk   16:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is a reference to "'Knockout' game" (the violent one) by the Associated Press as early as 1992.  Dwpaul  Talk   16:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's all well and good, but that still doesn't explain why the violent game appeared once out of 10 Google News searches from 1990 to 2000, and indeed, none appeared on a search from 1980 to 1990. – H T  D  17:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been treated mostly as a local phenomenon for many years. Agreed the frequency of use of the term (with any meaning) in news stories has only peaked this month (see Google Trends ) but the violent game is not a new phenomenon or "fad".  Dwpaul  Talk   17:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "The frequency of use of the term in news stories has only peaked this month", is pretty much the same with "any form of behaviour that develops amongst a large population and is collectively followed enthusiastically for a period of time, generally as a result of the behaviour being perceived as popular by one's peers or being deemed "cool" by social media." So yes, sure, "local phenomenon for many years", and yes, a fad. Like planking and twerking. But unlike those two, which are completely made up words, this one isn't. – H T  D  17:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep where it is and use a hatnote to direct people from One-game playoff who might have been looking for the new fad. Fads happen and then they stop getting coverage, but "knockout" has been the term for single elimination for ages. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is and make the other changes, per Roscelese. Fiddle   Faddle  23:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as is per Rosecelese. Whatever the media and YouTubers who need to find something better to do have named this stupid 'game' shouldn't affect what has been a concept of sports for ages.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Knockout (violent game). Look at the page view stats. They go through the roof in the past few days compared to historical levels. Clearly because of the violent game news coverage. If redirects are meant to send people to the most common usage, we have all the evidence we need which is most common, there is only one explanation for these stats. Redirects are simply navigation aids and they can change over time. They are not "seniority first" or "oldest usage gets priority". They are pure and simple meant to send the most people using it to the place most people want to go - this is an unusual case in which we clearly know the answer to that question based on these stats. Meanwhile, 100s of people a day are not getting to the violent game page while this discussion goes on. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Knockout (violent game), or, better yet, rename that page to this title per WP:COMMONNAME. As Green Cardamom pointed out, the traffic spike correlating with the news reports makes it clear which page most viewers are looking for. *** Crotalus *** 20:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the article on the alleged criminal trend. "Knockout game" is a better location for the article currently titled "Knockout (violent game)" anyway.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is widely used in sports and games for the existing subject. Better to target the more general subject and hatnote One-game playoff. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep with a hatnote. The "game" appears to be an urban legend, and the current target will have more lasting use. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

Shub-niggurath (geometry)



 * 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) 20:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Shub-niggurath (geometry) → Great snub dodecicosidodecahedron (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete - this is an outdated and unused term for the shape apparently coined and used mainly by a single eccentric over a decade ago, George Olshevsky, who is certainly not an authority and "named" the already-known shape based on his own fannish devotion to an unrelated piece of fiction. Universaladdress (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Question I am finding it hard to give an opinion because I do not understand the problem. The nominator may be 100% clear on what the rationale is, but the argument somehow misses me completely. Please could the rationale be clarified so that we can form an informed opinion and a consensus? Fiddle   Faddle  13:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know if that is necessary: the nominator used the phrase "...outdated ... term" in their reasoning; that alone leads me to vote "keep", as I am below. Steel1943  (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per nominator's rationale to delete. An "outdated" term could be useful for others to use to find this article, regardless the notability of the individual who "created" the term. Steel1943  (talk) 01:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment We had a somewhat similar redirect discussed some time ago (Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 October 2) involving an out-dated term that it now considered offensive. That one was disambiguated with the original target included in the disambig page, but in this case, there are clearly no other meanings, so keep and tag as R from incorrect name Ego White Tray (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, and template. I was coming to the same conclusions as the two previous editors. Fiddle   Faddle  08:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.

Wikipedia:QUEER



 * 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 WikiProject LGBT. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * QUEER → No personal attacks (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This is a redirect that has lost its way. The word "Queer" it is not inherently offensive nowadays. It used to be pejorative until relatively recently, but has been reclaimed by the LGBT community and is used widely in a highly positive manner. It forms an alternate to "Questioning" when the letters LGBTQ are used. At present it resolves to WP:NPA. While that page is highly useful it is most assuredly no longer relevant to WP:QUEER. I am struggling, though, to find a valid redirect target for it at all, since it needs to aim somewhere in the WP: space. I am putting it up for discussion for repurposing or for deletion. Fiddle  Faddle  08:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep and thank you to the nominator for making my point for me. Potentially offensive redirects should either all be kept or all be deleted. This nonsense about picking and choosing who may or may not be offended by this or that needs to stop. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have made no point for you. Every item that is considered is considered on its own merits. You appear to have missed the entire issue, that the redirect has lost its way, appearing, instead, to suggest it be kept, but with no rational argument for your opinion, save for WP:ILIKEIT. Fiddle   Faddle  09:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't like it. I don't even give a shit about it. It should be kept in the absence of a valid reason to delete it, which you don't have. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Retarget to WikiProject LGBT, I think that's the most logical place for it to go. It's not offensive at all in that context, being a common synonym for LGBT (I know of a few old people who are offended by that usage, only knowing "queer" as a playground insult, but Wikipedia needs to keep up with the times). The only reason it links to WP:NPA is that someone once tried to write an anti-homophobia policy at WP:QUEER, which quickly got deleted. 117.203.228.120 (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget to WikiProject LGBT. While we should always be careful retargetting shortcuts lest we change the meaning of pages that use it, this page has no such transclusions. This and the low usage serve as evidence that this is not a useful shortcut to its present target, indeed the LGBT project is where I would expect this to lead. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment as nominator Such repurposing is precisely the type of discussion I was hoping to have. WikiProject LGBT looks an ideal target. This has my full support. Fiddle   Faddle  16:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - No opinion at the moment, but I left a note at WikiProject LGBT, as members thereof may wish to weigh in on the discussion. Tarc (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget to WikiProject LGBT, this is a term reclaimed by an increasingly large proportion of the lgbtq community since the 1980s/1990s, and more by newer generations as non-slur. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I rather think usage of the word—both as slur and non-slur—has been on the wane for a few years, but I'm not sure. I don't see a pressing need to use it for a redirect to either the current target or the proposed retarget. it's not inherently offensive, but if it's hardly used now and unlikely to be much used whatever the target, deletion would make just as much sense. Rivertorch (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or find a better target. I'm not opposed to redirecting to WP:WikiProject LGBT since we already have WP:Lesbian, WP:Gay, WP:Bisexual and WP:Transgender. - MrX 00:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget to WikiProject LGBT. WP:QUEER is hardly a natural or obvious redirect for WP:NPA - the WikiProject is more likely to be what people are looking for. With regard to Rivertorch's point, in my experience "queer" in the positive sense is still frequently used. Neljack (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget per most of the above, while noting the absence of "Q", "I", "A", etc. from the new target's title. Perhaps ideally there'd be a queer theory/queer studies Wikiproject for this to point to. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 12:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete 108.218.12.104 (talk) 18:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget to WikiProject LGBT. It originally pointed to Anti-homophobic terminology which has since been absorbed into its present target. The suggested retarget creates a potentially useful redirect. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Why do we need this in wikipedia name-space again? Looking at the status (Discounting recent traffic due to this discussion) it appears to be an unused search term for editors on wikipedia anyways. After looking at sources it appears that queer is still very much an offensive word to gays and lesbians.,  Botton line: If the word here on wikipedia cant be used for something useful then it should be deleted. Based on the sources I can say for sure that people will be offended if they knew the word queer was being redirected to the LGBT project. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment When I grew up, 'queer' was an insult, and very unpleasant. I still find it insulting today, as does the non Daily Mirror source you provide, and we are entitled to have qualms about it because we have been subjected to it, but that does not necessarily mean that we are correct. The Daily Mirror is not of the first rank of newspapers and loves reporting trash talk. That James Arthur still believes the term is derogatory speaks more about James Arthur than about anyone else. The second reference shows someone of my vintage or thereabouts who also feels the word is insulting. While not liking the usage of 'queer' nowadays in its reclaimed form, I recognise that it is no longer deployed as an insult except by those who are militantly pignorant, and is not recognised as an insult by what one might term the 'modern homosexual', who appears to embrace the term. When I nominated the redirect for discussion I was clear that my own distaste for the term needed to be set aside, and that it has a modern use which is valid. Fiddle   Faddle  10:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Retarget. If I were using that shortcut, I'd expect it to take to somewhere talking about queer issues, ie WikiProject LGBT studies. —me_and 19:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * retarget to wikiproject LGBT studies. That is a better and more expected target.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT seems the most obvious move. (Or failing that, retarget to Peter Mandelson, I hear his popularity needs reinvigorating for the 2015 election.. :P )  Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  {chat} 16:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delegate decision to WP:LGBT. The original purpose for creating this one was kind of a dubious idea: create a WP:X for every problematic word on a long list.  People don't really want to follow through with that to the end, so they're saying retarget it to something new.  But if the LGBT project wants it, why didn't they take it before?  It's easier to type "wp:gay" or even "wp:lgbt" into the search bar, and providing them with a huge number of different abbreviations may not actually be helpful (if you have gone to the project page, they won't all appear purple when you scan a page, for example; in generally I often see purple links as a helpful indicator that a discussion has moved into familiar content).  Only if the members of that project alone favor the idea should it be kept; this discussion shouldn't be used as a reason to override their decision, since we're really just shoving it off on them rather than deciding it is truly necessary. Wnt (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.