Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 13

May 13
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 13, 2015.

49th Street (West End Line)



 * 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) 13:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 49th Street (West End Line) → 50th Street (BMT West End Line) (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=49th_Street_(West_End_Line)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Redirect is misleading and should be deleted. The station in the target article was never named 49th Street, always 50th Street. The only station named 49th Street is on another line in Manhattan. Not likely a plausible search term — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.79.248 (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Comment. Then retarget it to 50th Street. But not everyone in the world lives in New York City. I live in Szölölosnaraló, for example. Si Trew (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why would you retarget it to 50th Street? That makes even less sense than the current target... Tavix | Talk 18:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as misleading. I think it's trivial as a redirect, but the article did say that the entrance to the station is between 49th Street and 50th Street. Could this confuse someone into thinking that this station is 49th Street? If so, maybe a mention in the "see also" of 49th Street could be helpful. Tavix | Talk 18:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This presumably is a station on the New York City Subway, but as someone who as done railway diagrams (mostly British) for many years, this is hopelessly not WP:WORLDWIDE. The last one I did I think was for the oh I dunno what it was but I got it right. I think it was Metro 4 but don't quote me on that, I am probaby wrong (though I rode it on its first day of opening). Delete. See if you want to do it properly, I do, and takes ages to do sometimes. User:MJRoots is an expert at doing these, far better than me. Si Trew (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2015 (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.

Swedish furniture



 * 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) 13:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Swedish furniture → IKEA (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swedish_furniture&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Delete as misleading. I hope it is not necessary to point out that not all Swedish furniture is sold at IKEA. R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, most of it is sold in Hungary, well at least, my house is full of the stuff, lick of paint and Son oncle s'apelle Bob. (Bob's your uncle). Delete as misleading. Si Trew (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment come to think of it. Also delete per WP:REDLINK. We might be able to come up with an article like Chinese furniture. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we could, . I mean, the typical style would be in Pine wood] → Pine or something like that? But then Pinewood Studios is where they make the James Bond movies (and The Muppets, come to that), and that is at Elstree in England. So anyway around it I think would be confusing. Si Trew (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Ah, what about Norwegian Wood. I do realise they are not the same thing. Si Trew (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That won't work. Norweogin Wood redirects to a Bealles song and none of the entire on the dab page have anything to with actual wood.--70.27.228.231 (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2015 (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.

Sabre-toothed seal



 * 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) 13:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sabre-toothed seal → Walrus (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sabre-toothed_seal&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

I'm pretty sure this was created as a joke. Walruses aren't simply "sabre-toothed seals," there are a lot of other differences between them. They aren't even in the same family. Tavix | Talk 17:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as possible vandalism and inaccurate. Elassint  Hi 18:15, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you are wrong. Long-toothed seals were known well as such before Linnean classification, although I can't put my finger on it, but it is certainly the right target. Si Trew (talk) 20:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

And User:Lenticel has hit the nail on the thumb as always. Si Trew (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I found a journal article that tells us why walruses cannot be called as sabre-toothed seals. At best, this redirect is misleading-- Lenticel ( talk ) 23:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not sure it's that misleading but certainly is less than helpful. Si Trew (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2015 (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.

Badults (redirects)



 * 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) 13:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Badults (redirects) → Badults (TV series) (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Badults_(redirects)&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Simply, I'm not understanding the usefulness or helpfulness of this redirect's disambiguator. The target is a "redirects"? Steel1943 (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete (deletion) - confusing, redundant disambiguator is redundant and confusing. Also, confusing. Ivanvector (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per . Also, redundant. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete'. We had Badult and Badults the other day, here, but this is pushing it. Si Trew (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was asked to move something to Badults, and I found that Badults already contained an accumulation of old redirects, so I moved the redirects to Badults (redirects) to get them out from underfoot of what I was called on to do. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have since moved the edit history that was at Badults (redirects) to Badults (BBC TV series). I did this to attach the edit history on Badults (redirects) to a redirect with a title that is a more plausible search term/disambiguator to ensure that the edit history did not get lost. Steel1943  (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment and I thank and  for doing so. That is how we make the encylop(a)edia better. My hat off to both. Si Trew (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as it has been rendered completely redundant. David-King (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2015 (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.