Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 22

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. 08:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Aaliyah X → Aaliyah  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete per WP:RFD#D5, nonsense. Aaliyah doesn't have anything titled "Aaliyah X" -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as implausible synonym. The artist wasn't called as such nor did she created songs and/or albums named as such. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 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) 14:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Office spinoff → Parks and Recreation  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• Office spinoff → Parks and Recreation  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Parks and Recreation is not a spinoff from The Office. The show was originally going to be, but that idea was scrapped early on (see Parks and Recreation#Conception). Delete as confusing. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per the RfD delete confusing/misleading criterion (I'm too lazy to look it up right now, just like these redirects are lazy). Parks and Recreation is not a spinoff of The Office, it was barely a spinoff of The Office (U.S. TV series), and in any case it's not untitled. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC) I copied my comment from the discussion below, because that's just how lazy these redirects are. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as vague. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Office is a The Office spinoff, and office spinoff can refer to oh so many things, such as Microsoft Works with Word, etc. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 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) 14:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Skittles (confectioner y) → Skittles (confectionery)  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, implausible typo. It's less than four months old so I don't think we have to worry about breaking any links. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, speedy per WP:R3: recently created implausible typo. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that but didn't because I figured it was too long ago. Is there anywhere that defines "recent" or is that just up to the admin's interpretation? -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admin interpretation, I think. What defines "recent" would be an explosive ANI case I'm sure. I figured since you called it "less than four months old" then it's probably "recent" enough. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is recent enough, so WP:R3 applies. Vanjagenije (talk) 15:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 (surprisingly, but that's the consensus). Deryck C. 15:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fresh Pickle → Pickle  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

This was originally an article basically explaining "how to grow a fresh pickle" and was redirected instead of deleted (WP:NOTHOWTO). Now it's sitting at a disambiguation page which is completely inappropriate because there is nothing at that page titled "Fresh Pickle." The previous RFD was derailed due to an entry at List of cucumber varieties called "fresh pickle" but it was removed because no one could find any sources on it. Due to that fact, I'm recommending deletion. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I was one of the keep opinions the last time around but we are certainly not pointing this anywhere that says anything about a fresh pickle. Looking at the original "article" it was patent nonsense that should have been speedily deleted rather than converted to a dubious redirect. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absent evidence that this is actually a cultivar. Also, can a pickle really even be fresh? --BDD (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the joke... -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Alice's Restaurant (album), the current target of The Motorcycle Song, which as its central theme discusses the significance of the pickle. It's fresh in the sense of being witty. Or just delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Untitled Office Spin-Off → Parks and Recreation  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• The Untitled Amy Poehler Project → Parks and Recreation  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Delete, no longer untitled. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per the RfD delete confusing/misleading criterion (I'm too lazy to look it up right now, just like these redirects are lazy). Parks and Recreation is not a spinoff of The Office, it was barely a spinoff of The Office (U.S. TV series), and in any case it's not untitled. Amy Poehler may have (and likely does have) other untitled projects in the works, but this fails WP:CRYSTAL. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there have been several Microsoft Office spinoffs that were not properly titled until release. Extreme vagueness -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 Monarchy of Australia. There's consensus that this is an unacceptable synonym for Australia, but that relevant information can be found there. I've also tagged the redirect with {{R unprintworthy}}. --BDD (talk) 13:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Kingdom of Australia → Australia  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There is no such place, could not find any significant usage of the term. - TheChampionMan1234 05:42, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment technically, as a Commonwealth Realm, it is a kingdom whose monarch is Queen Elizabeth (see Monarchy in Australia ) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Australia is a monarchal country with a Queen of Australia -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Australia is a constitutional monarchy; it is not, and never has been, a kingdom. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Monarchy of Australia. One definition of "monarchy" is "a kingdom" (eg: wikt:monarchy). I know it's more complicated than that, but as a redirect, I think this is a good solution. I feel like that's the type of article someone would be looking for if searching with that term. I don't think they'd be looking for Australia because they'd more than likely use the common name and not guess at an official name. I wouldn't object to an {{R from incorrect name}} tag. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that works, and I'll go with it. The problem I see with that is that "kingdom" (wikt:kingdom) implies an absolute monarchy where the king is the supreme ruler. That is very far from the case for the Head of the Commonwealth/Queen of Australia who actually wields very little absolute power (maybe none). However, someone searching this probably won't be disappointed with an article on the monarchy, unless they're looking for an ancient or pre-European Kingdom of Australia, which doesn't exist. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little bit of research and ended up changing that definition. Take a look at other major dictionaries (I tried M-W and dictionary.com), and they define it simply as a nation/state/country/whatever that has a king and/or queen as it's head. That makes sense when we think about the modern day "Kingdom" of the United Kingdom: Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state, so it would make that definition fit. We can apply that same definition to Australia. Even though it's not a Kingdom (capital K), we can still say "kingdom (lowercase k) of Australia" because Queen Elizabeth II (a monarch) is the head of state of Australia. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: WikiProject Australia has been informed about this discussion. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to the monarchy for reasons illustrated above. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Australia is a federation of states, it was formed by the states for the benefit of the states not the monarch Gnangarra 04:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per others. ColonialGrid (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally disagree with Tavix's explanation as to usage, there is nothing in the history of australia where the term has been used, the standard appellation for the country where it is an entity in any way other than the country name is the Commonwealth of Australia and nothing to do with anything relative to any monarchy in any way, much closer to Gnangarra's explanation. JarrahTree 06:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that someone searching "kingdom of Australia" is probably looking for "monarchy of Australia", so let's reward them for their efforts. It's a better solution than deleting it simply because Australia is not a Kingdom. {{R from incorrect name}} applies here. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Entirely plausible mistake that can be searched by anybody who does not have the slightest idea about Australian political and constitutional history and just heard that Australia has a Queen.--The Traditionalist (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if some just heard Australia had a Queen they would search for Queen of Australia Gnangarra 02:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepRetarget to monarchy of Australia (making my !vote explicit) per Tavix. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ivanvector, my position is retarget to monarchy of Australia. I don't think it should be kept at Australia because someone searching for this term would "more than likely use the common name and not guess at an official name." -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Bah, I'm not getting enough sleep. !vote adjusted. It's what I meant. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:R#DELETE item 8 - "the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym ..."
• Retarget at Monarchy of Australia. It is not in dispute that the country is not and has never been known by that name, but it is a plausible that someone might assume that since there is a "Queen of Australia" (or a King perhaps, in the future), that there's a Kingdom too. It's best to direct such readers to a page that will clarify the matter for them. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Leondeon → London  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

There are several non-notable, obscure uses of this word (mostly corporate/institutional names). However none refer to London. - TheChampionMan1234 05:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - implausible misspelling. E is a long way on the keyboard from pretty much all of the other letters in London. Except D, which is for delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think this is supposed to be some kind of Korean eye-dialect using Revised Romanization, in which an o-like sound is spelled "eo". It's a very unlikely search term, though, and should probably be deleted per WP:RFD#D8. The IP responsible for this has created a number of other similar redirects; the non-Asian ones, at least, should probably also go if this is deleted. Sideways713 (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 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) 13:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Vittle → Food  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]
• Vittles → Food  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]