This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 11, 2019.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 24#Pop-cultural imperialism
- 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.
Killiondude (
talk)
00:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
A circular redirect to a DAB page. It has an incoming link, and
User:DPL bot is complaining about the
WP:INTDABLINK error. I propose deletion to encourage article creation. (I suspect the name is
invalid, but that's another matter.)
Narky Blert (
talk)
17:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. Given that the other species name has "trilobitoides", this would at least be a plausible error for that topic. Until an article is written on the actual trilobite genus (is there an actual trilobite genus?), this is helpful. I can clean up the disambiguation page after this closes. --
BDD (
talk)
21:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete
Brongniartia (beetle) was described before the trilobite or the isopod and is thus the only animal that can use Brongniartia as a scientific name. Well it's important for scientific record-keeping to keep track of junior homonyms, I don't think Wikipedia redirects for junior homonyms are really appropriate; redirects get scraped by other websites and give too much prominence in this case to a scientific mistake that should be left to languish in obscurity. I'm not positive that Isotelus is the valid name for the trilobite. The trilobite family
Olenidae links to Brogniartia and seems to be treating it as a synonym of
Triarthrus; Triarthrus is quite distantly related to Isotelus (they are in different orders).
Plantdrew (
talk)
22:08, 17 January 2019 (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.
Killiondude (
talk)
00:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
This is the species' common name with an extra comma. Not a probable typo or anything like that.
SchreiberBike |
⌨
23:47, 11 January 2019 (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
Diversity jurisdiction.
(non-admin closure)
feminist (
talk)
06:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
I’m not finding what this redirect refers to. There are some resources that stated that "Article 3, section 2" refers to diversity, but that’s a section, not a clause.
Steel1943 (
talk)
03:29, 3 January 2019 (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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 25#Shoot The Pyramid
- 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. H/t to
feminist for making a draft. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
01:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
Implausible. Also means '
pomegranate' in Farsi. —
Mr. Guye (
talk) (
contribs)
22:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom.
Rubbish computer (
Talk:
Contribs)
23:27, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Sorry for not having the time to properly look into that, but the term can be a plausible phonetic misspelling of the target (though how plausible you find it depends on how you segment it). So whatever happens to the redirect, its target ought to have a pointer to
Artsakh (as well as to
Arsac). Now, I'm not sure whether enough material can be extracted out of
All pages with titles containing Arsak for a disambiguation page, but at least the redirect can be retargeted to the topic that seems to be split between the articles
Ashk and
Arsaces. Also noting that
Arshak needs some attention too. –
Uanfala (talk)
10:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Disambiguate. I agree that Arsak is a plausible letter-to-letter phonetic transliteration of Artsakh (Armenian has a much more complicated consonant phonology than English and Artsakh is only five letters in Armenian, A-r-ts-a-kh, making Arsak a plausible alternative). But we have uncovered other options of what this might mean, so disambiguation might be the best thing to do.
Deryck
C.
16:36, 8 January 2019 (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.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency
- 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)
12:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
Delete, since redirect term does not occur within given target.
Hildeoc (
talk)
16:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. It's a synonym. Add it to the article if its absence bothers you. -
Nunh-huh
18:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Comment the target really needs a sourced explanation of the relationship between the two terms. As one of the people who is "bothered" by the term's absence I thought of adding it myself, but then I got contradictory information from sources: I found one saying that a hemogram is a complete blood count
[1] and others saying that a hemogram is part of a complete blood count
[2]. This is not my area of expertise and I have no idea whether that's right or not. In any case, readers who don't know what a hemogram is (likely a large fraction of people who type the term "hemogram" into the search box) should not be left wondering about the exact relationship and not being presented with any information to answer their question.
59.149.124.29 (
talk)
07:39, 21 December 2018 (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 no consensus. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
12:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
Delete, since redirect term does not occur within given target.
Hildeoc (
talk)
16:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: strange as it may seem, that's not a good reason to delete a redirect. The questions you should be asking are: is this anyone is likely to search for while wishing to get to the information in the redirect target; is it confusing or mis-leading for the redirect term to exist or to use that redirect target; is it excessively promotional, spam, or abusive.
Hemogram is effectively a synonym of
complete blood count and is a redirect to it, although it is not mentioned in the article either (probably should be). Hemogramme is a mis-spelling (also foreign spelling) and can be tagged as such, but would still be a reasonable redirect.
Lithopsian (
talk)
17:03, 16 December 2018 (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. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
01:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
I've recently AFC approved
Bokashi (horticulture) but encountered this old extra period redirect. No articles are linking to this. Do we still need this?
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
17:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
(Sorry, I didn't realise you were talking about two different redirects. Over here a period is a full stop :-)) ... The real oddity here is
Bokashi bucket, which is just one idiom among several for the bokashi fermentation vessel. It is not mentioned in
Compost#Bokashi. Hardly a "notable subject". Left to me, I would get rid of it like a shot.
Manofcarbon (
talk)
11:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC) Malcolm
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 all to Booth Newspapers.
WP:NPASR per low participation.
(non-admin closure)
feminist (
talk)
15:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
These should presumably all point to a single target; I'm not sure, however, what that target should be. –
Arms & Hearts (
talk)
20:31, 22 December 2018 (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.
Phraseology:Tian Gao Huang-di Yuan
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 21#Phraseology:Tian Gao Huang-di Yuan
Bill of Rights (disambiguation)
- 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
Kaufman. Keep, retarget, whatever. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
18:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
This had been nominated for
WP:G14 speedy deletion using the additional rationale; "Title uses the ligature
ff, no article title does. Implausible typo." I declined it as G14 does not apply to redirects and it wasn't recently created so
WP:R3 doesn't apply. I then changed the target of the redirect to
Kaufman (disambiguation) as that actually has items on it that use the Kauffman spelling and it is a disambiguation page. The IP that originally nominated the redirect for speedy deletion reverted that change in redirect saying it wasn't a better target for the redirection. So here we are. Either it should be deleted as an implausible redirect or redirected to the DAB page.
~ GB fan
17:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Not as likely as Kauffman with double-character f-f, but that is not a valid reason for deletion per
WP:R#DELETE. (In fact, it is just the opposite, a reason to keep the redirect.) --
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
19:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep it redirecting to the
Kaufman (disambiguation) page, which combines the various spelling variants for disambiguation. This is not an "implausible redirect", but a perfect match per
WP:REDIR and
WP:R#KEEP.
- If, as a surname, it is or was spelled with double-character f-f or with a ligature-ff is a matter of context (time in history, locale and publishing media), so it is obvious that we need to "catch" it through a redirect.
- Also, OCRs of books will often pick up a double-"ff" as "ff", so people might end up putting that into the search box via copy & paste. This also applies to non-surnames.
- --
Matthiaspaul (
talk)
19:50, 12 January 2019 (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.
Black Monday (January 2008)
- 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.
So
Why
18:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
Delete Target section has been deleted, and "Black Monday" is mentioned anywhere in the article
UnitedStatesian (
talk)
16:27, 11 January 2019 (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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 24#Sony's Marvel Universe
- 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 at
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC. Participants here are fairly split, but do I find the arguments for keeping/retargeting to the noticeboard archive to be stronger; still, in a vacuum, I'd probably relist in the hope of finding a stronger consensus. That being said, this was discussed very recently, with
the previous RfD having been closed a mere three weeks ago. The redirect was unfortunately never tagged for that discussion, so perhaps it makes sense to have had some back and forth over it since. Process-wise, that lends value to this discussion, despite having been opened so recently to the previous one.
- With that in mind, there are a few ways to look at this. One is on its own, in a vacuum, as noted above, but I think we do ourselves a disservice to artificially put aside such a recent discussion. I think a more proper way to view this current discussion, given all the caveats above, is as a continuation and pseudo-DRV of the previous one. Time enough has passed that the facts on the ground have changed somewhat, so I think that's a fair consideration. In that light, I don't see a consensus here to overturn the discussion from three weeks ago, and continue to find the arguments for pointing to
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC to be stronger. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
14:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:
Redirect to
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC (again).
This was decided at
the previous RfD (opened December 26, closed 3 January), but one editor is of the opinion that the previous RfD did not decide this issue because there was another, later RfC.
[3]
[4]
[5] Also see
[6]
I am relisting it and notifying all who participated in the last RfD. The only alternative that I can see would be edit warring.
I will leave it up to someone who is uninvolved to decide what to do here. My choice would be a
WP:SNOW close this as already having been decided.
Guy Macon (
talk)
13:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC) (Edited for clarity 14:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC))
reply
- This should obviously be targeted to somewhere that all the debates are summarised, and the perennial page seems the obvious one to me. The previous RfD discussion happened when there was a single large RfC: now there are two, the second much larger than the first and incorporating new data on editorship and so on. The obvious target now is the perennial page, where both RfCs are listed along with other discussions.
- Second choice would be to the archive of the newer RfC. Or we could move all debates about the Mail from the time-based archives to
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive - Daily Mail or something. It's nothing to do with thinking the previous RfC didn't settle it, the facts have changed. Directing only to the original RfC makes no sense in the light of subsequent debate.
Guy (
Help!)
13:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- I strongly disagree with this redirect going to any summary. Many people (including many people on other sites) have already used the redirect to link to the RfC and it shouldn't go to another page that they did not intend to link to. Given the contentious nature of the Daily Mail ban, I really think the link should go to the official close, not to anyone's summary of it.
- The RfC at
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC already has a link to
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#2nd RfC: The Daily Mail at the very top, so the interested reader can easily find both.
- The second RfC is a bit malformed. The first RfC is much clearer.
- We have no guarantee that
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Mail will link to the two RfCs forever. Like any other Wikipedia page, it can be changed by anyone, and the change would not be obvious to those of us who are interested in where these redirects should go.
- Moving the first RfC is a bit of a problem. While many people (including many people on other sites) have already used the redirect to link to the RfC. many others have directly liked to the first RfC.
- When I link to, say,
WP:BRD or
WP:1AM, I don't expect my link to silently change to going somewhere else, and I don't want to have to watch every redirect to see if it gets changed. Heavily linked redirects should be stable. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
14:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Seems to me we should re target to the last RFC we have had (as I am sure we have not seen the last one).
Slatersteven (
talk)
15:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Re-target to RSPS seems fine. Target to either of the RfCs also seems fine, so long as they link to each other. Making an IAR RfC dab is also fine. Whatever means we don't have to spend any more time having discussions about our discussions about our discussions.
GMG
talk
15:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Love the above idea. Brilliant! Don't want any existing redirects changed to point to it, because many people have already used those redirects to point to something else, and we should not alter the meaning of their posts. --
Guy Macon (
talk)
16:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- That amounts to "never change any redirects ever". Historical stuff is historical, the most common use of this going forward is going to be in sourcing discussions for articles.
Guy (
Help!)
16:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Daily Mail - This target, which is part of an explanatory supplement to a guideline (not an essay), has been vetted by the community and provides essential context about this blacklisted source. Specifically, 34 previous discussions and two RfCs are linked from WP:RSP, making it the most informative target imaginable. Linking to an isolated RfC does not help contributors who would otherwise benefit from a more thorough examination of this source. RSP has proven to be a very useful resource. Creating another metapage is not desirable per
WP:NOTBUREAU. -
Mr
X 🖋
18:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC (the first RfC), to avoid changing the meaning of existing links which refer specifically to this RfC and not whatever the current consensus happens to be. Perhaps
WP:DAILYMAIL2 should be used for the second RfC. I also support Guy Macon's
addition of a note, and it may be appropriate to include a link to RSP as well. –
dlthewave
☎
23:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Mail. That page provides summaries and links to the past RfCs so it would be always up-to-date. I don't understand how existing uses of the shortcut could be a problem because "per WP:DAILYMAIL" is easily understood as "per whatever was the latest consensus on it when the edit/comment was made".
Nardog (
talk)
00:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC . Best to redirect to an RFC over a essay that holds no weight, is hard to read and navigate ...and just leads (links) to the RFC anyways. Lots of targets already made best not to change the intended target of many many pass debates --
Moxy (
talk)
13:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources § Daily Mail best option that I can think of, since there have been several RfCs.
L293D (
☎ •
✎)
03:50, 22 January 2019 (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. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
16:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
I recommend retargeting to
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Naming because
WP:POVNAMING is too long.
wumbolo
^^^
13:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: Most likely, "POVN" = "Point of view/Noticeboard". Also, the redirect has several incoming links.
Steel1943 (
talk)
13:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- There is about a hundred of them, not too bad.
wumbolo
^^^
15:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- There's a good chance that these redirects are in edit summaries as well, which cannot he changed. In addition, it has been targeting its current target for almost 11 years, so I don't see a reason to change this considering that this is a "Wikipedia:" namespace shortcut.
Steel1943 (
talk)
15:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- I wish it were easier to take account of redirects used in edit summaries. At least once I've followed an edit summary redirect and been puzzled at where I ended up before finding that it had been retargeted. ♫
ekips39
(talk)❀
08:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per Steel1943. Also, shortcuts
prefixed suffixed with -N are more often redirects to various noticeboards, so people will naturally use WP:ABCN if they want to link to the noticeboard for a certain topic (e.g.
WP:BLPN,
WP:RSN,
WP:FTN,
WP:ELN,
WP:ORN etc.). And many people still use the abbreviation "POV" and not "NPOV", so they will also naturally use "POVN" and not "NPOVN". Regards
So
Why
16:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- @
SoWhy: Sorry about the grammar-correcting part of me coming out, but ... don't you mean "suffixed"?
Steel1943 (
talk)
18:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Right you are. Thanks!
Regards
So
Why
18:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per SoWhy. If there's really confusion with
WP:POVNAMING then add a {{
Distinguish}} to
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard instead, retargeting a decade old shortcut will potentially break too many old links and discussions.
Nathan2055
talk -
contribs
01:30, 13 January 2019 (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 disambiguate. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
01:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
It seems strange for this to go where it does when there are several other related topics that readers are also quite likely to search for. This includes the two previous targets:
Telepathy and
Overall equipment effectiveness (TEEP = Total Effective Equipment Performance). Here are some links to give an idea of this, though I know they're not reliable sources.
I don't know exactly what should be done here, but a disambiguation page might be a good idea, similarly to those for other acronyms and initialisms. Given the number of well-known topics it can refer to, retargeting would probably not be justified. I'll also note that there are no incoming links except for a talk page archive, for what that's worth (not much). ♫
ekips39
(talk)❀
09:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- @
Ekips39: happy to help. A disambiguation page entry must link to a target that actually mentions the term: your combined fictional character entry doesn't because
Babylon 5 doesn't mention "teep". If teep is a term used a lot for fictional characters with telepathic powers, perhaps this is worthy of a mention at the
Telepathy article.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk)
09:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- I see. I have exchanged that link for a link to
The Hood Maker, which does mention the term. The content relating to fiction in
Telepathy was significantly
cut down
in 2014, leaving only the short section
Telepathy#Use in fiction, so it doesn't seem appropriate to add this there. A better place would be
Babylon 5. I see the main B5 article doesn't mention it but
Psi Corps does. Clearly the term is used in the series, and it doesn't say it means members of that organization, but we can't link to the main series article. Difficult. As for other works whose articles mention the term, all I found was
the TV adaptation of The Hood Maker and
The War Against the Chtorr. I know there are others, but I suppose there's only so much we can say about this. Maybe we can't say it occurs in several different works including (etc.). It seems misleading not to, though. ♫
ekips39
(talk)❀
03:30, 14 January 2019 (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.
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 25#Lewis' law
- 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)
18:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
This abbreviation could be used for both
Maxillaria petiolaris and
Micranthes petiolaris, among others species not yet on Wikipedia. Delete per
WP:XY. Redirects from abbreviated binomial scientific names are a bad idea. They are rarely unique, and don't have clear primary targets.
C. elegans is on of the few abbreviations strongly associated with a single species, but
C. elegans (disambiguation) is a monument to the folly of trying to associate these abbreviations with Wikipedia articles.
Plantdrew (
talk)
03:04, 11 January 2019 (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.
Department of Transport (Victoria, Australia)
Relisted, see
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 25#Department of Transport (Victoria, Australia)
- 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.
Killiondude (
talk)
00:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
This term is not mentioned in its target article.
Neveselbert (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
00:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - I can find no sources defining this particular term, either as a synonym for
Politician's syllogism or any other possible definition.
Nathan2055
talk -
contribs
10:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. I'm in UK, and follow UK politics, and couldn't stand the woman; but I've never heard of 'Thatcherite fallacy' before.
Narky Blert (
talk)
00:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
-
Narky, speaking as a fellow Brit who can't stand those who couldn't stand her, it's nonetheless rather sobering that we reached the same conclusion on this redirect.
Neveselbert (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
00:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
- Comment "...Thatcherites, along with everyone else, talked as if the issue were about 'more' and 'less' government. And in doing so they reinforced the popular fallacy - which they should have been combating - the fallacy that a government can do only one of two things, intervene or not intervene."
[1] This is not precisely the
Yes Minister concept but it bears some resemblance. There's also this forum post from 2009
[2] making reference to the concept before circularly referencing this redirect/article.
Triptothecottage (
talk)
23:37, 17 January 2019 (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.
Guy (
Help!)
14:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
reply
Includes article and misspelling. No links. Was originally created as a fork. Suggesting deletion.
Bsherr (
talk)
00:15, 11 January 2019 (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.