Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin

April 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 28, 2017.

Antoine River, Missouri, USA[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. 09:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misleading. These are redirects to a river, but the non-standard disambiguation may confuse someone into thinking this is a locality by the name. As an aside, the Missouri redirect is wrong, the river is not located in Missouri (see map) -- Tavix (talk) 21:40, 28 April 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.

Eubot's Cyrillic-based redirects 1[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) 23:27, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are all Eubot versions of originals which contained the same phrase (the article title, or a natural redirect to the article title) in both Cyrillic and Latin alphabets. As can be seen, Eubot Latinized the Cyrillic, creating reduplicated redirects (albeit with varying spellings). All of these seem very implausible; the Marsh na Drinu one has received semi-respectable hits (2 per month), but that's likely just because Marsh na Drinu is a plausible search term. Marsh Na Drinu exists and will take the search box hits if the reduplicated version is deleted.

Intuitively, the originals of this group feel fairly implausible in their own right, but some of them have received surprisingly many hits, which probably makes them keepers. Imago (Имаго), in particular, is at >400 hits in the new tool's DB; Марш на дрину/Marš na Drinu and Весна священная, Vesna svjaščennaja are both around 60 hits. Sideways713 (talk) 19:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - confusing transliterations, unlikely search terms. I have bypassed all article-space links to Imago (Имаго) so we can see what happens there in a month or so. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:35, 1 May 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.

Eubot's Cyrillic-based redirects 2[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. 09:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are all redirects from faux Cyrillic originals that Eubot mistook for real Cyrillic and transliterated accordingly. All of these are very implausible, and many are also cluttering since they resemble real search terms for unrelated topics. TETIaIS, a similar redirect with a similar history, was deleted in this discussion in January, and the same deletion arguments apply here. Bordt! may be the strongest candidate for non-deletion here; it's received 2-3 hits/month (not much, but something), and the exclamation mark means those hits likely came from readers who were actually looking for the movie. Most others should be easy deletes.

In this group, the originals were (and are) good, valid, intentionally mixed-script redirects from stylized titles and should not be nominated for deletion. Sideways713 (talk) 19:31, 28 April 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.

Touch keyboard[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 10#Touch keyboard

Eubot's Cyrillic-based redirects 3[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 all except unbundle "Ruckii" WP:NPASR per discussion. @Sideways713 and Thryduulf: Feel free to nominate "Ruckii" in a new request as you see fit. Deryck C. 09:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are all redirects created by Eubot from an original mixed-script title that (whether through vandalism or good-faith mistakes) contained both Latin and Cyrillic characters. All of these are very implausible search terms, although Charlotte Brontio has somehow received a significant number of hits (76 in the new tool's DB), including a spike in July. Kion and Anniio Plank is the worst of the worst here, being based on an already deleted original created by a banned user. Tiranio, a similar redirect of similar origin, was deleted in this discussion in December, and the same deletion arguments apply here.

Most of the originals still exist, and I considered nominating them for deletion as well; but they're fairly harmless, generally seem to interfere with searches less than the Eubot ones, and (strangely enough) many of them are former article titles. Sideways713 (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Transliteration of mixed-script titles is an exception to the point I made above about how ascii-equivalents should exist for non-ascii titles. I'm dubious that the originals are good redirects in this case, but I've not looked in detail. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a quick glance, Ruckii seems like the only one that has an obvious claim to getting kept as it looks like a somewhat plausible Latin-script (mis)rendering of the Cyrillic Русский. – Uanfala (talk) 00:50, 6 May 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.

Confederate States Air Force[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. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that "states" was ever in the name. Unlikely search term, apparently stems from a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that Bill Bryson states somewhere, in Made in America (book) I would guess, that Colonel Sanders started to become the archetypal Southern Colonel after being granted honorary membership of the Confederate States Air Force at the rank of Colonel. (That rank does not exist in the regular USAF or RAF, I am aware; the article states he was awarded the title of Kentucky colonel, which I believe is indeed the case.) Will check; if he does in fact say Confederate then User:TenPoundHammer's statement of "no evidence" is weakened, but not beyond repair; could have just been a mistake on Bryson's part. Si Trew (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not in Made in America (book). Perhaps I am thinking of Notes from a Big Country, but so far I am on User:TenPoundHammer's side. Can't find that one on my bookshelf right now. Si Trew (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
..because I have the American (original) version called I'm a Stranger Here Myself. D'Oh. But I appear to have mislaid that or lent it to someone. Si Trew (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The redirect exists because "delete then redirect" was the consensus of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confederate States Air Force in 2014. Thryduulf (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This title gets a lot of google hits, but almost all of them are for various different alternate histories. We have an article American Civil War alternate histories but that doesn't mention an air force, and retargetting to any single one would not be appropriate unless it is a central plot point in one more than others (doesn't appear to be the case based on a quick google). Military of the Confederate States of America doesn't mention this for obvious reasons. It's a not implausible misremembering of the (now former) name of the present target, and so in the absence of anything better it will do, but ideally it should should be a hatnote atop a better target. I'll leave a note a the Alternate History wikiproject to see if they have any thoughts. Thryduulf (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind also that names are changed sometimes in British editions. That would still be RS but they may have changed the names which is why I may have mixed up US and UK editions and have trouble finding it. It's good if RS, crap otherwise. Dont rely on my say-so on this one. Si Trew (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:Thryduulf tends to do a lot more checking than I do; I do basic checks as requried, but Thryduulf tends to look into these things. In case of any doubt of WP:COI, which I'm expecting, no more has Thryduulf asked me to say this than Champion has asked me to list Eubot nominations. Facts are still facts, though a hundred times you tell them so. Si Trew (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I missed that the CAF had changed their quirky name to something bland (pity), but if Bryson referred to it that way, nobody else that I can find did. The phrase seems to be used entirely in "If the South Had Won the Civil War"-style speculation and modelling. The current redirect seems to me to be misleading. Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was Bryson, I am unsure on my facts there. A journalist had a flight over with them, and it may have been P. J. O'Rourke. I've been racking m brains on where I read this because he was took up on an airplane, actually it was a B-52 for the southern confederate airforce, and kinda admired that they had their own airplanes. It may have been the Texas Air Force but referred to it as the Confederate Air Force, I am trying to track that down. Si Trew (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GBook searching isn't turning up a plausible candidate: I get eight hits on the phrase, of which only one is genuine— another alt-hist thing. Mangoe (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relisting to allow the 10 Apil log page to be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:31, 28 April 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.

BIGGEST SINGLE[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. 09:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding a list of "biggest singles". That, and both words in the phrase are ambiguous, so it's unclear what this could refer to anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The term is too vague and neither target would give the reader what they might be looking for. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If these were recently created they'd almost be G3. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:41, 29 April 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.

Amleto Palormi[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. 09:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RFD#DELETE #10. Redirect from actor's name to article (stub) on one movie he acted in, and that contains no information on the person. Better to have this name be a redlink that might eventually be turned into an article. Xover (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Italian Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on this actor. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:11, 28 April 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.

Engalus[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. 09:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article Lordtobi (✉) 14:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I combined these two entries. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was a cancelled game [1]. As the article does not mention such projects, this should be deleted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:14, 28 April 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.

GFACE[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 10#GFACE

Crytex[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 keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo Lordtobi (✉) 14:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep likely typo, not costly. See [2] [3] [4] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most probably not a typo in the literal sense, but if you've heard this spoken it will be very easy to mishear or misremember -k as -x (or -ch), especially if the speaker has an accent you're not familiar with. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. It's what I like to call an "auditory typo". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:41, 1 May 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.

Κατάδουπα[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 9#Κατάδουπα

(name)[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. 09:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd nominate these for WP:G7 (I created these almost five years ago), but they're all receiving page views. Steel1943 (talk) 06:09, 28 April 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 World's biggest (by volume) and largest (by area) buildings[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. 09:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm failing to see how this is a plausible search term as a redirect. All and all, I'd say that this redirect's existence is WP:COSTLY. Steel1943 (talk) 04:44, 28 April 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.

Annika Irmler[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. 09:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current target of this redirect seems erroneous. The subject of this redirect is a person who seems to have held or now holds the record for the world's largest or longest tongue. Steel1943 (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as the person is not notable for anything else and would be low profile otherwise. The current record holder was not even updated until just now: [5] I don't see this being some competition where the name should be kept around like with Bob Beamon. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC) updated 01:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I seem to have created the page that is now a redirect. I have no memory of it. It seems stupid. I imagine I was just following some prompt of pages that need creation. --OGoncho (talk) 04:59, 1 May 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.

Radhakant Bajpai[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. 09:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea what is going with this over 10-year-old redirect. It's pointed towards its current target for about 10 years now. The history of the redirect hints that it targets the wrong target, and may be a WP:REDLINK candidate; the subject of the redirect seems to currently hold the Guinness Book of World Records' record for hairiest ears. Steel1943 (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as with Anna, was a former world record holder, this time for longest ear hair, but is not notable for anything else. I don't see this being some notable competition where the name should be kept around like with Bob Beamon. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC) updated 01:45, 29 April 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.

Biggest clock[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 9#Biggest clock

PPPPPP[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 disambiguate. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect targets a game. However, as revealed by a google search, it is intended to target an album, which has no article on Wikipedia. RoCo(talk) 14:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep mentioned in article, no other suitable target. feminist 15:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, PPPPPP is the soundtrack of VVVVVV, which is mentioned at the target, so keeping seems reasonable enough. Noting that this 6-letter-long title used to briefly redirect to 7 Ps (military adage), which has since been deleted at AfD. – Uanfala (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh look, just when you think a string of characters couldn't possibly get more implausible it will turn out to be the name of several things. Disambiguate, draft will soon be available below the redirect. – Uanfala (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's a whole new open field of wikiactivity: typing in the search bar a random letter repeated a random number of times and putting together a dab page to disambiguate between the results. It's surprising how common these are. – Uanfala (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The DAB created by Uanfala disambiguates a bunch of nonexistent pages, which isn't what DABs are for. Best to leave it pointing to somewhere where it actually is mentioned. Primefac (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dab pages disambiguate between topics that can either have their own articles, or be treated within other articles, see MOS:DABMENTION. – Uanfala (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak disambiguate. I understand Primefac's concern about the dab page essentially being unnecessary, but since this page isn't an article, and since it has been discovered that "pppppp" in lowercase refers to something as well, and since 6P refers to something else entirely, I'd say the disambiguation page is more helpful than the current situation. Steel1943 (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig per Steel1943. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong disambiguate - PPPPPP is "prior practice prevents piss poor performance" for me, and means other things to other people, many of which is covered in the draft DAB. I'm not convinced that the song is a strong primary topic per this DuckDuckGo search. Deryck C. 11:40, 1 May 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.

Delta connection[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 Delta Connection with a recommendation to disambiguate when other things named "Delta Connection" or "Delta connection" get separate articles. Deryck C. 10:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Not sure) There is an overly long hatnote at the target, and there is also Delta Connection and Delta Connection (Kenya), not sure if the latter is notable or not, but I'm not sure if we should create a disambiguation page or trim the hatnote. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 08:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like the wrong target for that redirect (not incorrect, just not the best). We could also use more categorization for Category:AC power and for Category:three-phase AC power, as both are massive topics.
Given that the redirect target is unclear, I'd be happy to see this converted to a disambig. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the US airline, with a hatnote to the electrical term, and the Kenyan airline (if it survives AfD). Given that this is not the primary name of the electrical transform and that the Kenyan airline has been renamed, the primary target is strong enough that WP:DIFFCAPS doesn't apply, in my opinion. – Train2104 (t • c) 17:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 01:06, 28 April 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.

Younger brothers[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 Younger Brothers. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this should target Birth order since Younger brother redirects there (per WP:DIFFCAPS), or if this redirect should target Younger Brothers, a disambiguation page. Either way, I don't think that the current situation is not helpful since the redirect's title is ambiguous. (For the record, my "vote" is "retarget to Birth order" due to capitalization differences.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be {{R from plural}}}. We don't usually distniguish the singular from the plural unless there is good reason to do so. It's not a question of caps, "Brother" and "Brothers" doesn't differ by caps. Little Women and Little Woman both are articles. I don't understand the point here. 22:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)
@SimonTrew: I'm unclear what you mean by "I don't understand the point here." When you say that, are you referring to the current situation of the redirect or are you referring to this nomination? Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you are unclear why I am unclear. I thought I put it plainly. WP:RCAPS says keep different spellings of the same title together. That would argue for retargeting, but you are after a DAB. Shall we draft a DAB under the R for now, for discussion? Si Trew (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: There's already a DAB at Younger Brothers. Steel1943 (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:59, 28 April 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.

Younger family[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 9#Younger family

Pastoralis praeminentiae[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 keep Pastoralis praeminentiae; delete Pastoralis praeminentiæ. The discussion was a bit muddy due to the late addition of the second redirect, but I feel there's clear enough consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(eubot) Not sure. You should think that Eubot added an E, but in this case, the bot took one away (the second in "praeeem..") I guess from an R from "PraeAEmen" with the ligature. I can't find it on reasonable basic search because it doesn't exist. Si Trew (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The first word of the nominated redirect, Praeminentiae, doesn't exist, and neither does Praeeminentiae. For this reason, it may be difficult to ascertain if the former is a plausible mispelling of the latter. Steel1943 (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Medieval Latin used æ, so this is præeminentiae or preeminentiae, but not praeminentiae which is therefore an unlikely search term! Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regardless of what the correct forms are in Latin, this seems like a likely misspelling. – Uanfala (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The original non-Eubot redirect here was Pastoralis praeminentiæ, which still exists... and, unusually, seems actually less useful than the Eubot version. The Eubot redirect is plausible as a misspelling, while the original is not, since it contains both a Latin ligature and a misspelling very unlikely to be made by anyone who used that ligature. The stats back this up; the Eubot version has been getting 10-15 hits/month, which isn't bad at all for a misspelling, while the original's hits are almost below noise level. Accordingly, I have added the original redirect in this discussion; my !vote being to delete the original and keep the Eubot version. Sideways713 (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 00:59, 28 April 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.

Mark (singer)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 8#Mark (singer)

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_28

Leave a Reply