From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 26
April 28 >

April 27

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 27, 2018.

Europe Citoyenne

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 Corinne Lepage. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 14:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

While it is partially mentioned, "Citoyenne" is just part of a much longer name in French ("Citoyenneté Action Participation pour le 21ème siècle") - actually, it is just part of a word. "Europe Citoyenne" seems too broad of a redirect and is not mentioned within the target article. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC); edited TheSandDoctor Talk 23:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Retargeted. Mélencron ( talk) 23:30, 27 April 2018 (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.

Citizen Europe

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 Corinne Lepage. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 14:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in target. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Retargeted. Mélencron ( talk) 23:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Retargeting to Corinne Lepage did not resolve the issue as it isn't mentioned there either. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 23:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
It literally is... Mélencron ( talk) 00:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Mélencron: Struck. Browser acting up. "Find" didnt cooperate. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 01:13, 28 April 2018 (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.

Force Vie

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. Now in article ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 14:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

"Force Vie" is not mentioned in target. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Resolved. Mélencron ( talk) 23:28, 27 April 2018 (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.

Van Winkle & Wiley

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. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 14:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

"Van Winkle" is not mentioned in target of either redirect TheSandDoctor Talk 22:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC); edited 22:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep "Wiley worked in partnership with Cornelius Van Winkle, George Long, George Palmer Putnam, and Robert Halsted." --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Headbomb ( talk • contribs) 13:49, 28 April 2018 (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.

Wiley & Halsted

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. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 14:16, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

"Halsted" is not mentioned in target. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep "Wiley worked in partnership with Cornelius Van Winkle, George Long, George Palmer Putnam, and Robert Halsted." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Headbomb ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Headbomb: I was surprised and rechecked. It was added an hour or so after the nomination ( diff). The same goes for ‎Van Winkle & Wiley. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 13:55, 28 April 2018 (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.

Nous Citoyens

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 Redirect converted to an article so no-longer in scope. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in target. TheSandDoctor Talk 20:41, 27 April 2018 (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.

Richie Softbora

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 speedy delete WP:CSD#G7. ansh 666 19:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Not mentioned in target article. TheSandDoctor Talk 20:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Not only is it not mentioned in the target, there are only two hits on Google for this as an exact phrase and both of those are gibberish. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:04, 28 April 2018 (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.

Game stores

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 Game store. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 13:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Too generic of titles for useful redirects. More places sell games than just Massmart. TheSandDoctor Talk 20:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Yes, there's a store called Game in South Africa, but that's certainly not primary topic for game store, and there are no further details about Game other than it's part of Massmart. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC) updated 15:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Oops, Tavix is right. I missed that. Change to Retarget AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 15:39, 28 April 2018 (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.

Bureau for State Security

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) feminist ( talk) 13:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Too general/generic for a useful redirect. TheSandDoctor Talk 20:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Keep, in fact I think the redirect should be reversed and "Bureau for State Security" should be the title of the article because "South African" wasn't an official part of its name. Unless there is another country that has had a "Bureau for State Security", there is nothing wrong with this redirect. If so, then disambiguation should be considered. -- Tavix ( talk) 20:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Tavix: Looks like China has one ( NYTimes). I have no issues with disambiguation. -- TheSandDoctor Talk 21:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Hmm. Perhaps if there was somewhere that mentioned it, but I'm unsure where a good place would be. Currently the South African one is the only one mentioned on Wikipedia, and it seems like it would be primary, so perhaps a hatnote can be employed if we can figure out how to mention the Beijing one. Giving another run through Google, I can't tell what the official name is (whether it includes "South Africa(n)" plus of vs. for), so I'm going to withdraw part of my earlier statement. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The target, at least currently, appears to be the primary topic for this title. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The official name was Bureau for State Security, so I can't see why this should be deleted. The reason why I haven't moved it over the redirect is that it was commonly called Bureau of State Security by the media, presumably because of the resultant acronym (B.O.S.S.) ( WP:COMMONNAME). I have initiated a move to Bureau of State Security over that redirect already. If another such body comes into existence, it can be turned into a disambiguation page. For now, this redirect is valid, and a hatnote and disambiguation page be added if the redirect causes confusion. Park3r ( talk) 00:02, 28 April 2018 (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.

Animalus Anthropomorphicus

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. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 21:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Concept not mentioned at the target article. -- Tavix ( talk) 00:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 15:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • In case I wasn't clear, my nomination was for the redirect to be deleted. Per WP:RGUIDE: If a good-faith RfD nomination proposes to delete a redirect and has no discussion, the default result is delete. Unless there is something that needs to be discussed for some reason, I think it can be deleted by the next patrolling admin that comes by. -- Tavix ( talk) 15:12, 27 April 2018 (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.

Fort Pillow

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. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk · contribs) has already created a draft disambiguation page which appears a reasonable conclusion, other participants are encouraged to fine-tune it. As there's clear disagreement over the primary topic this seems self-evidently a case for a disambiguation page rather than a redirect; if further adjustments need to be made by moving pages around then by all means discuss that elsewhere. ~ mazca talk 09:47, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Should this redirect to Battle of Fort Pillow? I'm OK with the status quo, but others have redirected to the battle (which is reasonable), and after hearing the battle cry "Remember Fort Pillow!" and observing that the Alamo redirects to Battle of the Alamo rather than the Alamo Mission in San Antonio, I decided to put this up for discussion. This redirected to Battle of Fort Pillow from 21 October 2005 to 28 June 2008 (for 2 years, 8 months), and then to Fort Pillow State Park from 28 June 2008 to 11 March 2018 (for 9 years, 8 months). I reverted a change back to the battle then, but am now having second thoughts. Fort Pillow, Tennessee is also a locality, where a nearby prison formerly named Fort Pillow Prison and Farm is located. wbm1058 ( talk) 14:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply


In my opinion, “Fort Pillow” should direct to the battle and not the state park. The most important thing about Fort Pillow’s history by far is the battle. It was the most controversial battle of the Civil War (the article says). If there had not been a battle, there would not be a state park. To redirect Fort Pillow to the park is deprecating the racist massacre and I’m really uncomfortable about that. deisenbe ( talk) 14:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Keep it redirected to Fort Pillow State Park. There is no deprecation going on. Fort Pillow is a noun thing which exists. The first sentence links to Battle of Fort Pillow, which is appropriate. -- Doncram ( talk) 15:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
What, battles don’t exist? Only parks exist?
Be sending the redirect to the park and not the battle, you’re saying the battle (massacre) is less important. That’s deprecation whether you admit it or not. One click to get to the park, but two clicks to get to the battle. It’s the biggest massacre in the history of Tennesseea and everybody has to see first that there’s a state park? deisenbe ( talk) 00:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Right, a battle does not continue to exist, while a fort or any other kind of place can continue to exist indefinitely. The place is listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places as "Fort Pillow". Actually I would support moving the article to "Fort Pillow", with lede to explain it is about the place and the fort and to mention that indeed, yes, there is a state park there now. That would go towards addressing Deisenbe's discomfort.
It is still ludicrous to assert any deprecation is going on by Wikipedia calling a place a place. One might as well go accusing the National Park Service of being racist or whatever you like, too, because they also call it a place, and because they choose to list places which evoke history rather than providing a list of historical events (connected or not to places). -- Doncram ( talk) 20:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
That’s a great idea. Just put the items on the page alphabetically. deisenbe ( talk) 09:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
The name of the article on the park should be Fort Pillow State Historic Park. (I just stumbled on this.) See https://tnstateparks.com/parks/about/fort-pillow I would have already changed it but thought I should put it here first. deisenbe ( talk) 09:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Technically, do we have to wait for this RFD to close, or should I just start a wp:RM about moving the article about the place (including park) to "Fort Pillow". -- Doncram ( talk) 20:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
I think you should let this settle, then move the state park article to a new title if appropriate. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 08:51, 4 May 2018 (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 Clarified in Legal Theory

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. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 11:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC) reply

No mention of this term in target article: no evidence that this is a useful redirect. Pam D 09:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep. Google makes it very clear that this is the English translation of a work by the same author as the target. I think it's the same work, and so this would be a keep as a redirect from an alternative name, but I'm not certain of that. I'm going to see if there is a noticeboard for Arabic speakers to see if things are clearer for them. Thryduulf ( talk) 09:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Its the same meaning and was also used in Al-Ghazali.  M A A Z   T A L K  03:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. There's a mistranslation (possibly automatic) going on here. The enwiki article says "Al-Mustasfa... (Arabic: ... المصطفى ) which I think is wrong: it should be المستصفى (I've corrected it). The article's المصطفى would be "Mustafa" the name; the right word المستصفى (mustasfa) would be something like "summary"; "clarified" would be مصفى (musafa). Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 07:58, 30 April 2018 (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.

Deuterogamy

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. ~ mazca talk 09:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Term not mentioned in target article: no evidence that this is a useful redirect. Pam D 09:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. The only uses (as opposed to mentions) of this word I've found in the first four pages of google hits are typos for Deuteronomy but it's not common enough to be worth redirecting there. All the rest of the google hits are dictionary definitions or word lists (including List of Greek and Latin roots in English/D and List of Greek and Latin roots in English/G)), meaning that this would also fail Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. Not all the definitions include the remarriage sense and those that do have it as the secondary meaning to "secondary pairing of sexual cells or nuclei that replaces direct copulation in many fungi, algae, and higher plants." Digamy seems to be a much more common synonym for remarriage. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The word deuterogamy is an antiquated, but very much real (not typo), word meaning "second marriage", as discussed in Garner's Modern English Usage (see the bigamy; polygamy; deuterogamy; *digamy entry there). Garner says, "Deuterogamy is the more common term (to the extent that either might be called common!) and is not, like *digamy, liable to confusion with bigamy. Hence *digamy should be considered a needless variant. Of course, the term second marriage is more common—and more readily understood—than either of the other words." There is no good reason for Wikipedia not to have the redirect to remarriage. "It might help users only occasionally, not every day" isn't a good reason. The oversight "term not mentioned in target article" has already been fixed and is thus no longer a factor in this discussion. Also, the argument above claiming that the word deuterogamy would fail Wiktionary's inclusion criteria is totally wrong. The word appears in all major dictionaries, which is the very first thing that should be checked before any argument is made that a word fails Wiktionary inclusion criteria. Quercus solaris ( talk) 21:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
    • @ Quercus solaris: The Wiktionary Criteria for inclusion require at least three durably archived uses spanning at least one year, but I failed to find any uses (only mentions). Appearance in other dictionaries is irrelevant. Thryduulf ( talk) 22:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Withdraw now that term has been added to target article (but is it correct to make a link to Wiktionary from within the text of an article? I haven't seen it done before). It might be preferable for the lead paragraph to include something like "previously also known as digamy or deuterogamy", to make it clearer to the reader why they have been directed, rather than them having to find an unbolded term 4 paragraphs down the first section. Pam D 22:11, 27 April 2018 (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.

Morechella bispora

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 5#Morechella bispora

Antimaterials

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 May 5#Antimaterials

Back to the Future Part IV

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 Back to the Future (franchise)#Future. (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 13:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Not related to topic. Not mentioned in article. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 08:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

  • Delete or retarget. There are plenty of sources (at least some of which look reliable) for "Back to the Future Part IV" but none of them relate to the theme park ride, so keeping it as is not appropriate. The sources that exist are of two types, those from before April 2017 are about possible official remakes or sequels, those from April 2017 or later are about a fan-made trailer for a fourth part (and possibly fifth part) in the series. If someone were interested in doing so I suspect there is reliably sourced encyclopaedic information about either or both that could be added to Back to the Future#Sequels, in which case I would retarget the redirect there. I'll leave a note at Talk:Back to the Future about this discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget, but rather to Back to the Future (franchise)#Future. -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 10:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Retarget. I agree with HyperGaruda's idea to redirect to Back to the Future (franchise)#Future. -- Lyverbe ( talk) 12:08, 28 April 2018 (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.

Tayiyibbi

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) 23:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC) reply

Very implausible misspelling, even considering the various ways of transliterating from Arabic scripts: this redirect adds another syllable where there is none. Otherwise an orphan redirect. HyperGaruda ( talk) 08:19, 27 April 2018 (UTC) reply

HyperGaruda, is it common to double the syllable for yi? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 16:30, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Doubling consonants (e.g. y→yy) or lengthening vowels (i→ii or →ī): possibly yes and that could also be caused by the transliteration method; but doubling entire syllables is not something I have ever heard of in Arabic. -- HyperGaruda ( talk) 16:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC) reply
Thanks, Delete per nom then and leave open options for single consonants like Tayibi AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 20:37, 30 April 2018 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_27&oldid=1138582239"