Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 11

February 11
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 11, 2016.

Tableau (symbol)



 * 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) 16:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Tableau (symbol) → Long division (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tableau_(symbol)&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2016-01-12&end=2016-02-10&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Tableau_(symbol) stats])     [ Closure:  ]

Already orphaned, but this bears deleting. It is an name for the long division symbol based on a confusion of the term tableau, which appears in the literature but as a name for the entire table being created, inclusive of the dividend, divisor, quotient, and all intermediate steps. Alternatively, deletion of this redirect and replacement by a more justified dab such as tableau (division) or tableau (long division). — Llywelyn II   23:55, 11 February 2016 (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.

Palestinian terrorists
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 18%23Palestinian terrorists

Wikipedia:MOOT



 * 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. There's general consensus that we shouldn't keep the redirect as is. Given a strong plurality for delete and a lack of a widely accepted retarget after one relist, I'm closing this as delete. Deryck C. 20:45, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


 * MOOT → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:MOOT&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Is this really the best target for this shortcut? From what I have seen, "moot" in discussions essentially means "consensus will not matter in this discussion since my close's result will happen anyways". With that being said, I don't know if the current target is the best target for this shortcut. (This shortcut has existed for a little over two years and has less than 10 pages with incoming links.) Steel1943  (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Along with the verb "table", "moot" has differing meanings in different varieties of English, to the point of being an auto-antonym. See moot. Without an established usage of this shortcut, I'd discourage the term's use at all in Wikipedia discussion, though I've certainly used it myself. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This policy used to say that "Wikipedia is not a moot court", but someone changed it so that it now reads as "Wikipedia is not a quasi-judicial body". The redirect page was created before the words were changed. Jarble (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I'm half-tempted to suggest retargeting to Snowball clause, but that's not quite right either. And besides, the section on that page which describes the meaning I ascribe to this actually points back to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:RFD confusing per WP:XY. A handful of links, stats average one hit every other day. One use at Talk:New_York_v._Strauss-Kahn/Archive_7 discusses the meaning a bit. Si Trew (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. The "wikipedia is not a moot court" (and its attendant shortcut) had a long history before being reworded to the clumsier (but slightly less jargony) "not a quasi-judicial body".  There is no good reason to break all those links throughout the entire history of the project.  Rossami (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, along with Wikipedia is not a moot court. There really isn't much of a history to these redirects, and definitely not a "long" history (2+ years). While it's a true statement, it's no longer described there and I prefer the current language at the target. I agree with Steel and BDD's sentiments regarding the word, and that it should be discouraged due to the confusion. That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to an essay on the topic so I can see benefits to deletion from a "redlink" point of view. -- Tavix ( talk ) 06:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Retarget to WP:SNOW, I like Ivanvector's idea. The snowball clause states that there is no point in continuing a discussion that is going to end up going in one direction anyways so in essence a moot point. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as vague -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment: I oppose retargeting to Snowball clause. WP:SNOW refers to when the result is too obvious (usually against the proposal) based on several editors stating the same opinion. A "moot" close is more similar to a Supervote since it could potentially be different than the consensus formed during the course of the discussion. The best example that I can think of regarding this happened at RFD about a year or so ago regarding the "C:" redirects that formerly targeted "Category:" namespace pages, but all had to be deleted by default since "C:" became a shortcut for the Wikimedia Commons. I am unable to find that discussion for some reason, but I remember that its closer was Scott. Steel1943  (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2016 (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.

The cold never bothered me anyway



 * 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) 16:15, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The cold never bothered me anyway → Let It Go (Disney song) (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_cold_never_bothered_me_anyway&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2016-01-12&end=2016-02-10&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=The_cold_never_bothered_me_anyway stats])     [ Closure:  ]
 * Cold never bothered me anyway → Let It Go (Disney song) (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_never_bothered_me_anyway&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2016-01-12&end=2016-02-10&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Cold_never_bothered_me_anyway stats])     [ Closure:  ]

WP:NOTLYRICS sst ✈(conjugate) 16:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, it's a well known lyric which makes it a useful search term, especially for those who know that specific lyric but might not know the name of the song. It's also unambiguous and specifically mentioned and described at the article. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's a reasonable search term. Hasteur (talk) 18:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NOTLYRICS and per Tavix. I think it's a "Quotation" that is in "a reasonable length relative to the rest of the article". -- Lenticel ( talk ) 06:38, 12 February 2016 (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.

Ala.



 * 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 no consensus. There's a reasonable, policy-based argument for either retargeting or keeping as is, but no numerical preference for either one. I don't think relisting is likely to change the balance. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Ala. → Alabama (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ala.&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2016-01-12&end=2016-02-10&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Ala. stats])     [ Closure:  ]

I know this is the official abbreviation, but I think this was pretty astonishing when I clicked it. Should be retargeted or deleted. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Why was it astonishing? Were you expecting a different target? There's ala maybe. I guess considering that ala is a dab page and not a redirect, the form with a period should also go there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep If someone is typing in the period, Alabama should be the intended target. sst ✈(conjugate) 16:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep with hatnote on target article to the the ala dab page -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:25, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the arguments above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If as you say, it's the official abbreviation, why did you find it "astonishing"? What else would you expect that title to point to?  Keep.   Rossami (talk) 06:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This doesn't necessarily affect the discussion, but I don't think any US states really have "official" abbreviations, not as a general class. I mean, there are official postal abbreviations, but I don't think any state has self-designated an all-purpose official abbreviation. See List of U.S. state abbreviations; "Ala." is Alabama according to the current AP Stylebook and older federal government conventions. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, "abbreviations" are listed in the state infobox. No references, but gives it a sense of "officialness". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * For those of us old enough to have had to memorize them before the standardization of the two-character postal codes, yes, there were "official" abbreviations - official enough that I got graded on them anyway. Rossami (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ala per WP:LEAST. Not in any way "official". --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 18:58, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep or retarget to ala it should not be deleted -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2016 (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.

Highlands School, Birmingham Alabama



 * 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) 16:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Highlands School, Birmingham Alabama → Mountain Brook, Alabama (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Highlands_School,_Birmingham_Alabama&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2016-01-12&end=2016-02-10&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Highlands_School,_Birmingham_Alabama stats])     [ Closure:  ]

Page was originally created as an unreferenced non-notable stub, was previously nominated for G11 and PRODed noting the NSCHOOL failure. A user came in to redirect the page to the Education section of the city. Looking at the content of the city page, it consists of a one sentence mention that the school exists as a private school along with annother private school. Both of these were sourced to the websites of both schools which means they are not independently sourced. I have removed the paragraph describing the private schools as in my experience, unless they can show show a significant impact on the city, they are typically not included. Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:RFD confusing if not at target. Si Trew (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2016 (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.

RJM



 * 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 dabify. Thanks to IP58 for the legwork. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * RJM → Roger Joseph Manning, Jr. (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RJM&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2016-01-12&end=2016-02-10&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=RJM stats])     [ Closure:  ]

Useless, possibly confusing redirect. There is no indication "RJM" commonly refers to Roger Joseph Manning, Jr. Huon (talk) 10:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Disambiguate (drafted below the redirect). There's at least two other topics in Wikipedia which mention in their articles that they're called RJM. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate per 58.176. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate 58.176's proposed disambiguation (along with putting the proposed target) is a good idea. Hasteur (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * dabify per above -- Lenticel ( talk ) 06:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate: no indication that Manning is primary topic ... or indeed that he even merits a line in the dab page, as no mention of the abbrev in his article (which I've just rescued after it was turned into a redirect as "non-notable" after 10 years with no tagging of notability concerns). Pam  D  14:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Dabify -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2016 (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.

Masterbatory



 * 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) 16:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Masterbatory → Masturbation (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masterbatory&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2016-01-12&end=2016-02-10&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Masterbatory stats])     [ Closure:  ]


 * Masterbated → Masturbation (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Masterbated&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2016-01-12&end=2016-02-10&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Masterbated stats])     [ Closure:  ]

Renominating for deletion these two incorrect spellings on top of wordplay by Neelix. The previous nomination had 5 delete votes and 1 keep ~vote by User:SimonTrew but was closed as no consensus. SimonTrew are you strongly attached to these two or are you willing to go along with delete? Legacypac (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Neelix crap. Unnecessary, useless, misspelled, born of Neelix's weird sexual fixations. Softlavender (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per previous discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - in general, there is no reason to have spelling errors as redirects. Slang or colloquial expressions might be fine as redirects, but Wikipedia cannot cover every possible spelling error and should not try. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Thanks Rossami, as closing admin of previous discussion, for recommending the discussion to be split. My argument still applies to this reduced nomination: I think it's counterproductive to keep R from incorrect title and R from misspelling to topics with social stigma surrounding them. Deryck C. 22:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sorry to go against the flow here, but, unfortunately for all of us, "masterbation" is an extremely common mis-spelling of "masturbation". I've seen it literally (not figuratively) hundreds of times.  Of course, a case could be made that those people unable to spell it should be made to figure out what the correct spelling is before they get to the article to... do whatever it is they're going to do when they get there, but we are, after all, here to service (pun intended) our readers, so I think it would be best to leave the redirects in place, and decry the state of education in the English-speaking world that requires it. BMK (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I can understand why someone might make that argument if we were discussing "masterbation" as a possible spelling error-based redirect, but we aren't. We are discussing "Masterbatory" and "Masterbated", which are altogether less likely and plausible search terms. Some people may indeed not be able to spell "masturbation" properly, but those same people seem extremely unlikely to be using a search term such as "masterbatory". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - I still feel the same way. It's plausible enough that someone will type "masterbate" and "masterbation" by error, but "masterbated" and "masterbatory" appears to be a step beyond. Frankly, we're talking about nonsense. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. They misspelling is quite plausible, but the fact of the matter is that they get hardly any hits. We don't have a similar one for disterbance, although we do for (-> metropolitan area  conurbation  boldly retargeted Si Trew (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC) ) although that gets a tiny number of hits, too. Si Trew (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * (Off-topic: the new stats tool has some bad flaws, why does the graph have to take its time to rise from zero to the heady heights of ONE? This is not election night on the telly, just the facts please ma'am. It's also much harder (impossible?) to change the page viewed by just pasting it in the URL bar. Nice to have multiple stats, but it's very difficult if not impossible to navigate without a pointing device. Grrr). Si Trew (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * acknowledged that it would be a bit rough around the edges. Supposedly WMF is working on an "official" stats tool, and this is more of a stop-gap since stats.grok.se stopped working roundabout January 20. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We should discuss this somewhere else... but (1) my tool is now a long-term project with new features to come, and (2) you can hover over the date labels at the bottom to see totals. On mobile you can tap, hold, and move your finger left/right to browse totals; you can also change the chart type to bar, if you want! &mdash;  MusikAnimal  talk  19:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making the tool. I'm glad it is a long-term project, since although stats.grok.se has done us proud, it would be much better to have something inside the WMF and "officially" supported. I would (and should) raise my gripes there but did not know how to do that. My point about it not being accessible without a pointing device, for example, is only emphasised by telling me that I can hover, move my finger, and so on. I'll happily raise these as issues/problem reports/bugs/enhancement requests (whatever) against the tool; where should I do that? Si Trew (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * While I'm at it, can we please have dates in the usual Day MonthName Year order used at discussions? Looking at another stats today I see that the date range was for 01/13/2016 - 02/11/2016, which took me a while to figure out that this was from 13 January to 11 February. The second date is genuinely ambiguous (2 November?), and the first not much less so, because I wondered if 13 was a sentinel value. It would be super-nice if the dates along the X axis were displayed a bit more sensibly, too.
 * I went to use the "Report Issues" thing on the bottom of the graph but that sends me off to GitHub. I'm not prepared to sign up to a GitHub account, can't I report issues within Wikimedia? Si Trew (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per above points -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can mentally justify keeping the base terms masterbate and masterbation in place as redirects from common spelling errors and plausible search terms, but we don't need to maintain an entire stable of spelling-error redirects for every possible declension or adjectival form of the verb — I'm not even convinced that the correctly spelled masturbated and masturbatory redirects are actually all that necessary either, because who's seriously going to actually type either of those terms into the search box while somehow not recognizing the base article on masturbation that's going to be the #2 autocomplete option as soon as they've typed the u, and then the #1 option on the very next letter? Bearcat (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2016 (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.

Export (C++)



 * 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) 16:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Export (C++) → C++ (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Export_(C%2B%2B)&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2016-01-12&end=2016-02-10&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Export_(C++) stats])     [ Closure:  ]

Delete.. WP:RFD, not at target, and WP:REDLINK. "export" in C++ has a long and interesting history, but it's not covered in this article. It's not at Export (disambiguation). Si Trew (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - The redirect falsely implies that it's going to some kind of section, sub-section, etc that would describe the context of "export" here when the redirect doesn't. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sorry, I hadn't actually realised it was an ; I've added that to my nom. The section was removed on 25 June 2010 by an IP editor with . Si Trew (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2016 (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.

Jeffrey Pino
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 18%23Jeffrey Pino

Dutc



 * 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) 15:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Dutc → Dutch (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dutc&action=history history] · [//tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews#start=2016-01-12&end=2016-02-10&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Dutc stats])     [ Closure:  ]

This could have been deleted under R3 criteria but was declined as it was not recently created. It's highly unlikely to be used nowadays to refer to DUTC (Dublin United Transport Company) either. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Weak keep. While this is helpful I doubt "Dutc" will ever be searched for. More people use "Dutch". Hdjensofjfnen (Is something wrong?) 00:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as WP:RFD confusing per WP:XY. Could just as likely be a typo for Duct, a DAB page. Dutch gets about eight times as many hits as Duct, but that's not a knockout; the R is at noise level. In the alternate, we could add a hatnote at Dutch to Duct, but I don't think we usually do that for typos. Si Trew (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's old and has a high probability of being externally linked.  And while I could see the argument for retargetting, the current target seems least bad to me.  Rossami (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Dublin United Transport Company as R from alternate capitalization / R from abbreviation -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This isn't the correct name for anything and it can be a plausible typo for a few different things, as a few editors above pointed out. We can't know for sure what someone is likely searching for, so the best solution is to delete it. I believe that our readers are competent enough to figure out their mistakes without forcing them into a topic that may or may not be what they're looking for. -- Tavix ( talk ) 05:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * DUTC exists and is a proper abbreviation. Why wouldn't the lowercase form lead to the same place? -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Because "Dutc" isn't an acronym... -- Tavix ( talk ) 05:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * 'Delete who cares how old it is, if it is wrong it is wrong. Agree with User:Tavix especially.  Legacypac (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This sort of nonsense should not come up in a search. Softlavender (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - 25 hits in the 90 days prior to this nomination is evidence of no utility. Current target is wrong; retarget would be fine, but if this redirect were deleted then someone typing "dutc" into the search box would end up at Dublin United Transport Company anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2016 (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.