Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin

November 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 1, 2016.

Wikistalker[edit]

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) 16:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

I was surprised to find this in article space. I don't think that wikistalking is a concept well known outside of Wikipedia jargon, and indeed it is not mentioned at the target. Its hatnote treatment there is the result of a previous discussion, but that discussion is coming up on 7 years old, and I think our consensus has generally changed about how to deal with this sort of cross-namespace redirect (delete it). Furthermore, the use of the "stalk" language on-wiki was deprecated years ago, and Wikistalking was deleted and salted in 2006. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:40, 1 November 2016 (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.

Second Elizabethan Era[edit]

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 Elizabeth II#Reign. -- Tavix (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted or retargeted to Elizabeth II#Reign. Compared to the widespread usage of Victorian era, "Second Elizabethan era" pales in comparison. Thatcher's Britain renders about 8,330 results in Google Books, compared to 7,740 less for this redirect. I think eras nowadays in the UK are normally named after prime ministers, rather than for kings and queens. --Nevé–selbert 22:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect: If the title is out there, (and it is) redlinking is just bait to recreate. Montanabw(talk) 01:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as proposed. An IP has added a description of post-war Britain as the Second Elizabethan Era only yesterday; this should be reverted. Nominator is apparently correct that eras haven't really been described according to the reigning monarch since Edward VII (or since World War I). And Elizabeth II's reign doesn't quite overlap with the postwar period anyway, by about a decade. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Elizabeth II#Reign given that such a change appears like a reasonable compromise CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2016 (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.

Red State (2008 film)[edit]

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) 00:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible and misleading redirect. In 2008, Red State was little more than a script with no funding. In no way is it a "2008 film" when it hadn't even filmed a second that year. Also nominating Red State (2009 film). Nohomersryan (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • So added. Red State (2010 film) also exists—do you want to add it, or do you see that as more plausible? --BDD (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm, I think that one should go too but the case for keeping that one might be stronger since the film was probably finished before it came out in early 2011. I've added it too. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2016 (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.

Port 25565[edit]

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 "53 port" and "port 1199", keep others. Deryck C. 10:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

☒N Delete all, no significance or inbound links. Port 25565 was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Port 25565 and redirected with results 2 redirect, 2 delete, 1 delete preferred but redirect OK, so may need to be discussed or reviewed more in-depth. (Port 25565 seems to be related to Minecraft. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing Port 666, previously a merged article. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Port 25565, with 233 pageviwes a day. Delete 53 port, Port 8333 and Port 1199, as they have virtually zero page views. "Port" is not usually put after the number; the Bitcoin one doesn't seem to be notable enough to attract views; and port 1199 is not mentioned at the target article. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 53 port and Port 1199 per Nyuszika. Weak keep 8333, as it's sourced in the article, although I agree with the sentiment that it's not that significant. keep Port 25565 due to the page views. -- Tavix (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Port 25565 per Nyuszika7H and Tavix; Keep Port 8333 per Tavix; Delete Port 1199 and 53 port as they lack a mention at the target and anywhere else in the encyclopedia as far as I can tell.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 10:25, 13 November 2016 (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.

Pie (math)[edit]

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. Deryck C. 12:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling  ONR  (talk)  19:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete that's a novelty. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unlikely dab. That said, redirects are cheap. Montanabw(talk) 23:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pie chart? -- Tavix (talk) 23:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely dab. Kaldari (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though we do have an article titled Mathematical Pie. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep considering that there is a hatnote on Pie for the constant, it seems like a plausible typo. Although (math) isn't the standard disambiguator, it is clear what this refers to. Pppery 00:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the unusual modifier making this an unlikely synonym --Lenticel (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, but really only because of Pie chart. Misspelling "pi" is completely understandable (cf. Pie Day), and "(math)" is a plausible search term, even if not the way we'd disambiguate a mathematical topic. --BDD (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2016 (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.

Infoplease[edit]

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) 00:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem. It was indeed merged into the target article, but there's no mention of it whatsoever there. I noticed Infoplease as an EL in an article and wanted to find out if it was a Wikipedia mirror, as I suspected. So I can speak firsthand to how this is misleading and harmful. BDD (talk) 19:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I went ahead and added the related Infoplease.com to this discussion, which also does not appear at the same target. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as creator. I don't remember the state of infoplease.com at the time of redirection, but it might have had another owner then. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above findings --Lenticel (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2016 (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.

Tsett[edit]

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) 00:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an Anglicized spelling of German “Zett”, which means ⟨z⟩. ⟨ß⟩ is “Eszett”. The proper target would therefore be Z, but since the letter ⟨Z⟩ is not specifically German, it would not make sense to retarget it there, per WP:RFOREIGN. Gorobay (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There's ess-tsett so people are going to try to look for tsett anyway, but hatnotes can help. There's also some organization that uses those letters but it needs notability. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • “Ess-tsett” exists because it is a German letter, so it is often called by its German name, even in English. “Tsett” is just the letter Z. English-speakers don’t call Z “tsett”. Gorobay (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2016 (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.

Template:PD-recycling[edit]

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) 16:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, misleading, and probably implausible in the context of a file being pd-ineligible FASTILY 07:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - template redirect not in use, and it's not clear what recycling has to do with a file being ineligible for copyright. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:02, 2 November 2016 (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 miniscus[edit]

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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since redirect has the word "The" and the main word is misspelled, this redirect is too unlikely to be helpful. Steel1943 (talk) 02:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No real strong opinion here, but WP:CHEAP applies, I feel. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Miniscus already redirects to take care of misspelling. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the search engine doesn't correct "the thing" searches, although the intended target comes up in search results, so this sort of redirect is marginally useful in case a reader likes to type "the" in the search box, and it's valid here in the sense that "the meniscus" is reasonably common shorthand for the meniscus (liquid) (the article itself refers to it as "the meniscus"). But the misspelling makes this that much more implausible, and it has 3 hits in the last 90 days, so it might as well go. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2016 (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.

Bhután[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 13#Bhután

Multi-Tool Notepad[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 November 13#Multi-Tool Notepad

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_1

Leave a Reply