Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 24

< August 23

August 25 >

August 24

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 24, 2015.

Watching paint dry

• Watching paint dry → Paint  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

The redirect's subject is not mentioned at the target. This is part of a saying that goes "It's as exciting as watching paint dry", so I assume that there may be a good retargetting option out there, but I am currently unable to find one. Steel1943 (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as confusing. This is more for boredom rather than paint itself --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Soft Redirect to wikt:watch paint dry. Didn't find a good target here, and unsuited for it's own article (WP:NOTDICT). Wiktionary explains the meaning appropriately.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Soft Redirect to wikt:watch paint dry per Godsy. Rubbish computer 02:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I'm okay with soft retarget as well --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOUN, WP:NOTDIC. WP:NOTDIC#Pointers to Wiktionary gives an exception to the general rule: "For Wikipedia articles which could only ever be dictionary definitions and keep being re-created and re-deleted, or which could potentially be proper articles but are dictionary-like stubs at the moment, it is possible to effectively "salt" them with a soft redirect to Wiktionary using code such as {{Wiktionary redirect|dictionary}}." By no means does either condition apply here; watching paint dry is not encyclopaedic like the Labours of Hercules or penal labour. "Drying time" is mentioned in various paint articles, such as acrylic paint and impasto, as well as articles on other subjects such as Dyson Airblade#Drying time and Sun-dried tomato, so that is not much help.

But if the consensus has changed so that now "anything not in Wikipedia but in Wiktionary should be soft redirected thence" then we should say so. I think we need a rationale stronger than "Wiktionary explains the meaning" (appropriately or not); something that more closely justifies its inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Si Trew (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Soft redirect. Soft redirects to Wiktionary should be used where all of the following are true:
  • There is no scope for an encyclopaedia article at this title
  • There is no other Wikipedia page to which this would be an appropriate redirect.
  • There is a relevant entry in Wiktionary
  • People do, or are likely to, search for the term on Wikipedia.

  In my view all of these criteria are met in this case, and so we should soft redirect. The "keep being re-created and re-deleted" language is years out of date. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

South Buckhead (disambiguation)

• South Buckhead (disambiguation) → South Buckhead  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Needless redirect to a page that wasn't a proper disambiguation page originally. The trivial distinction made in the original page contents has been noted at Buckhead, Atlanta#Neighborhoods instead. As the improper disambiguation is gone, the redirect implying that a disambiguation page exists is harmful. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - it's a double redirect, and since the ambiguity which the dab page was trying to solve has been resolved, there's no point keeping this. Stats are zero. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Stats are zero because it was created 3 days ago. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Huh. Why is there a bot that creates redirects to disambiguation pages? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The nominator erased the disambiguation page formerly at South Buckhead, which existed from 2012 to 2015. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Not a disambiguation. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per above reasons. Rubbish computer 02:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

When the Pawn Hits the Conflicts He Thinks like a King What He Knows Throws the Blows When He Goes to the Fight and He'll Win the Whole Thing 'fore He Enters the Ring There's No Body to Batter When Your Mind Is Your Might so When You Go Solo, You Hold

• When the Pawn Hits the Conflicts He Thinks like a King What He Knows Throws the Blows When He Goes to the Fight and He'll Win the Whole Thing 'fore He Enters the Ring There's No Body to Batter When Your Mind Is Your Might so When You Go Solo, You Hold → When the Pawn...  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 18#The Boy Bands Have Won, and All the Copyists and the Tribute Bands and the TV Talent Show Producers Have Won, If We Allow Our Culture to Be Shaped by Mimicry, Whether from Lack of Ideas or from Exaggerated Respect. You Should Never Try to Freeze Culture. -- Schneelocke (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy close since no rationale has been presented, no suggested action has been presented, the other discussion has yet to close, and the only statement in this nomination is similar to an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Otherwise, (Statement no longer valid.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Keep since the redirect is unambiguous, and since WP:TITLELENGTH states that the title cannot be any longer than this. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

So you are calling every other good-faith editor in this discussion irrational? THat is not nice. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 22:47, 10 August 2015‎ (UTC)

• Keep. If a reader copies and pastes the exact, actual title of the work in the search box, this is what Wikipedia will search for, and the reader will be taken to the correct article. bd2412 T 01:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Not true. If you copy and paste the entire thing into the search box, you get search results which list the article containing the text, but not taken to the article directly. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per BD2412's point. --Rubbish computer 01:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Your rationale presented, sir, is WP:CONCISE (a subsection of WP:TITLE) - Steel1943 is hoist with his own petard (oh we don't have that WP:QUOTATION) for something sorry wife walked in entirely forgot what he is hoist with. As if anyone knows what a petard is, anyway. Si Trew (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Comment. There is no need for keeping full quotes, we are not WikiQuote; WP:NOTQUOTE; and having it hinders any external search from finding that quotation. But my train of thought is still boarding at the station so I strike my delete to leave as a comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 10:21, 9 August 2015

• Delete - per my point above, this does not function as a redirect for the full title. It is not useful unless a person searching knows exactly what the character limit is on searches, and so is not helpful to navigation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Why does it matter whether the person searching knows exactly what the character limit is? If that person pastes in a title ten or twenty or fifty characters longer, won't the search be truncated automatically to this length? bd2412 T 15:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Not for me, I get search results, but I've just pinged Tavix who got an error message instead. Is it truncated for you? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• When you use Wikipedia's search function, you get search results, but if you search using the address bar (ie: editing the URL), it'll give you an error message: "The requested page title is too long. It must be no longer than 255 bytes in UTF-8 encoding." It just depends how you search. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• I would say that if it depends how you search, and this matches the result for some way of searching, then it is potentially useful. bd2412 T 23:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• It does seem to depend on how you search, but there is only one permutation out of 445 which produces the article, discounting spelling errors. The other 444 produce either search results or an error message, depending on how they're accessed. If search results are useful for 444 variations, they are useful for the other one too. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - plausible search term, argument for deletion seems to rely on the factually incorrect premise that users reading an internet encyclopaedia won't hit it's technical limitation in number of characters. WilyD 09:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Not quite, my argument is that users reading an internet encyclopedia won't know what the technical limit is exactly, and are unlikely to type this exact phrase with it in mind. It's entirely possible to continue typing in the search box when your search is over the character limit. If they get one character wrong or enter one character too many, they don't get the article they're looking for. They might get search results, but they would get search results anyway, so this redirect isn't serving any purpose. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per The Earwig's closing rationale at the aforementioned RFD. This redirect is just like the other one, and I feel like it should suffer the same fate. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep as harmless. I've read all the arguments above, and I'm still none the wiser about what problem deleting this is attempting to solve. In some months this gets a clearly human level of traffic, so it also appears useful to at least some people. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - per this precedent and WP:R#D8. Redirects should be useful, not necessarily what is technically possible. Not reasonably likely to be searched for this way.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, of York, Mariner: Who lived Eight and Twenty Years, all alone in an un-inhabited Island on the Coast of America, near the Mouth of the Great River of Oroonoque; Having been cast on Shore by

• The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, of York, Mariner: Who lived Eight and Twenty Years, all alone in an un-inhabited Island on the Coast of America, near the Mouth of the Great River of Oroonoque; Having been cast on Shore by → Robinson Crusoe  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 18#The Boy Bands Have Won, and All the Copyists and the Tribute Bands and the TV Talent Show Producers Have Won, If We Allow Our Culture to Be Shaped by Mimicry, Whether from Lack of Ideas or from Exaggerated Respect. You Should Never Try to Freeze Culture. -- Schneelocke (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC) Schneelocke (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy close since no rationale has been presented, no suggested action has been presented, the other discussion has yet to close, and the only statement in this nomination is similar to an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Otherwise, (Statement no longer valid.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Keep since the redirect is unambiguous, and since WP:TITLELENGTH states that the title cannot be any longer than this. Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. If a reader copies and pastes the exact, actual title of the work in the search box, this is what Wikipedia will search for, and the reader will be taken to the correct article. bd2412 T 01:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Remark - this isn't the exact, actual title of the work, it's truncated due to software limitations. A redirect from the complete title would obviously be a keeper; I'm not sure about an arbitrarily truncated one. -- Schneelocke (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not saying this is the exact actual title, I'm saying that if someone pastes the exact actual title into the search bar, Wikipedia will automatically search for this truncated version. bd2412 T 16:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
      • • And so would any other search engine. So, in effect, this hinders rather than helps a search. Si Trew (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per BD2412's point. --Rubbish computer 01:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - plausible search term (indeed, the cut-off may be from software limitations, but readers encounter those limits - they're not Gods (at least, many aren't). As noted, no rationale for any action (or potential action) has been suggested, so it's hard to say anything other than "seems fine". WilyD 16:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per my comments above and in the older Rfd mentioned by the nominator. In order for this redirect to be useful, a user must know exactly how many characters can be typed into a URL or the search box. The search box does not truncate: if all 252 characters are not typed in this exact combination, or if any more or less characters are typed, the user misses the redirect and gets search results instead. This redirect cuts off mid-sentence; it's extremely unlikely that any reader would ever search for this exact phrase. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per The Earwig's closing rationale at the aforementioned RFD. This redirect is just like the other one, and I feel like it should suffer the same fate. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - same problem as this precedent (which I just noticed Tavix already mentioned). Redirects should be useful, not necessarily what is technically possible. Delete per WP:R#D8 and Ivanvector above.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per my comments above. Deleting this will not improve Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

When is Christmas?

• When is Christmas? → Christmas  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 14:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep as being a plausible search term. A redirect is not a FAQ, WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects, and none of the reasons for deleting redirects listed under WP:RFD#DELETE applies here.  --Lambiam 20:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep as creator, plausible search term leading to specific information (it goes to Christmas#Date. I don't think this should have been nominated separately from When is Christmas Siuenti (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_28#When_is_Christmas Siuenti (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - plausible search term, no rationale has been presented for deletion. I'm a little surprised this isn't it's own article yet, though I don't think redlinking to encourage creation is warrented. It'll spin out in it's own time. WilyD 16:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per unambiguous consensus that redirect titles are encyclopedic content covered by What Wikipedia is not, and pages should not be titled as though Wikipedia is a question-and-answer site. Were these a combined nomination that was individually relisted? Some of us seem to be repeating the same arguments verbatim. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep as unambiguously harmless and unambiguously useful, directly and indirectly (by assisting search engines to answer natural language queries). Regardless of the consensus at that RFC (of which I was unaware), I fail to see how a page that starts "Wikipedia articles should not read like:" could be at reasonably interpreted to refer to anything that is not an article, such as a redirect. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook." also completely fails to have any relevance to redirects that enable people to find the encyclopaedic reference they were looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

How old is the Earth?

• How old is the Earth? → Age of the Earth  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 
• How old is the earth? → Age of the Earth  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOTFAQ -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, plausible search term, leads to relevant information. Siuenti (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. WP:NOTFAQ applies to articles, not redirects. While it is not the most common practice, redirecting a common question with an unambiguous answer to the article that contains that answer meets none of the deletion criteria for redirects and does aid searches and prove useful to someone. Remember that redirects are WP:CHEAP. ~ Rob^Talk 14:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep as being a plausible search term. A redirect is not a FAQ, WP:NOTFAQ does not apply to redirects, and none of the reasons for deleting redirects listed under WP:RFD#DELETE applies here.  --Lambiam 20:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep plausible search. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, which, along with any other statement on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, can be applied to Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects. Steel1943 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Please read NOTFAQ before invoking it. It's quite clear that it only applies to how articles are laid out. The claim that it can be applied to "Wikipedia as a whole, including redirects" is untrue. WilyD 16:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I wouldn't have "invoked" it if I didn't read it. My comment about "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" referring to Wikipedia "as a whole" still stands. Anyone can debate the interpretation of that page in discussion (as apparently, we are doing here). If you want to invalidate any part of WP:WWIN to not apply to specific aspects of Wikipedia, feel free to start a discussion on its talk page. However, it looks like the discussion about specifically restricting WP:NOTFAQ from applying to redirects (on WP:WWIN's talk page) is approaching a WP:SNOW oppose close. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

If you had read NOTFAQ, you would have discovered that it's unambiguously inapplicable here, in a way that no one who had read it could miss. There's no need to apply a footnote to it say it doesn't apply to redirects, any more than there's a need to apply a footnote to WP:CSD#G12 saying it doesn't apply to redirects. The substance of what it says makes it entirely unambiguous that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - plausible search term, no argument has been advanced for deletion. WilyD 09:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Note: I've combined these two very similar items, which had near-identical vote breakdowns and discussion. --BDD (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@BDD: You've left my delete !vote in there twice.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

@BDD: Actually it appears to be my error, I'm fairly certain, after reviewing the history. I'm going to go ahead and fix it.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per unambiguous consensus that redirect titles are encyclopedic content covered by What Wikipedia is not, and pages should not be titled as though Wikipedia is a question-and-answer site. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep for the same reasons I express above at #When is Christmas? - i.e. this unambiguously useful and unambiguously harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete... it's not useful, unless you want to abandon WP:NOUN as a policy. Questions are not nouns. Si Trew (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:NOUN relates explicitly to article titles, and redirects are not articles (otherwise we'd be at AfD). One of the reasons redirects exist is to enable readers who are not familiar with our titling policies and guidelines to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hot chicks

• Hot chicks → Physical attractiveness  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

It is targeted as Physical attractiveness#Female physical attractiveness. Wikipedia is not a pornographic website nor is it a dating site. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - seems to direct readers to what they're looking for. Nominator doesn't suggest any action, nor does their statement suggest anything should be done. WilyD 09:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per RfD#D5, as this appears a plausible search term. Rubbish computer 11:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. A double dose of informal slang. A young bird, especially one newly hatched, having a high degree of heat or a high temperature? Nope. Hot men and Hot women are acceptable perhaps, this isn't.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Weak keep - I'm with Godsy's rationale, but I don't think it's all that confusing really, but not all that useful as a redirect either. Stats show that it's being used, though not much. It's probably mostly harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Unlikely in the extreme that a searcher would actually be seeking the scientific analysis of the concept, though I will confess that the "instant karma" aspect of the redirect does have a certain amusement value. But I agree that Wikipedia isn't a dating site, it's not a porn site, it's not Bomis, WP is not a scrapbook (no clue what this search pulls up at Commons) and we don't use this as a navigational category. No search on this term is actually going to bring up any photo of the sort the searcher is probably seeking. Montanabw^(talk) 16:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Finite module

• Finite module → Finitely generated module  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

"Finite module" could mean a module that is finite as a set. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

In that case, keeping the redirect and adding a "see also" sounds like a good solution, assuming the finitely generated module meaning is dominant. mathrick (talk) 11:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep and add a see also section to Finitely generated module, per Mathrick. Rubbish computer 12:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 04:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Huh? so we want a see also section with a circular redirect?. Si Trew (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Q word

• Q word → Thank You  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I don't get this at all. I suggest retarget to quiet, as there is a notable superstition amongst health care workers against uttering the word "quiet" in a hospital. Which I also don't get, but there you have it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the last part of "thank" (k) and you? as in "ten Q"? – Paine  11:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Weak disambiguate - could this also refer to Queer? --Rubbish computer 12:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but I didn't see any results for it. To search, I googled "the q word" (no quotes) and got a page that was only results for the usage I suggested, discounting a couple of links to Scrabble cheating sites which come up in the same spot in search results for any "the [letter] word" search. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, no prominent usage of the term, and it isn't mentioned in any of the suggested targets. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per Tavix. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Weak retarget to Mind your Ps and Qs#Origin theories. Si Trew (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• retarget to Word (computer architecture)#Size families where Qword redirects. "QWORD" is mentioned in that section. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete, in absence of a clear target it is best if we throw up a search page. —Kusma (t·c) 12:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Nom comment - Thryduulf's solution seems best out of all of these. At least, it's the only one which actually discusses what the "Q word" is (or rather, what a QWORD is). The others, including mine, are fairly speculative. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Redirect per Thryduulf. Montanabw^(talk) 16:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

T word

• T word → Torture  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

I know several possible uses of "T word", none are for this target. Laverne Cox created a documentary called "The T-Word" which we haven't written an article about but perhaps could; in the meantime The T-word goes to twat, and so should this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Retarget to Twat per nom. --Rubbish computer 12:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete both as vague. My results show this referring to taxes, tit, twat, and transgender/transsexual/tranny, none of which are primary or prominent (which would make disambiguating weird, IMO). -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete both per Tavix. --BDD (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. We don't have Q-word or T-word. As analogues, we have F word as a DAB to which F-word redirects; C word and C-word both → Cunt; S-word → Shit but S word is red. For all of them, WP:NOTDIC is somewhat relevant. Si Trew (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment the most notable use I can find is "The T Word" a documentary on MTV. It is mentioned at Laverne Cox#Career - "On October 17, 2014 Laverne Cox Presents: The T Word, an hour-long documentary executive-produced and narrated by Cox, premiered on MTV and Logo simultaneously." That (plus a source) is all we have for it though, so whether it merits a retarget or not I'm not sure. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that myself, but the show doesn't seem to be something which meets the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC threshold, especially because we don't have an article about it. Maybe deleting both of these to encourage creation of an article? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - Things are just too vague. While the most prominent usage of the term is to refer to the slur 'tranny', there's other meanings out there including the specific title of the TV documentary. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. ::I've never heard a transistor radio being referred to as "The T word"; I have no idea what you mean :) The section at DAB Tranny#Society and culture lists Tranny (slang) and under that subheading, several possible meanings. But I would that almost always these expressions are used with the definite article. WP:THE doesn't help much, but perhaps WP:COMMONNAME trumps it. To continue my analogues:

• The F word → The F Word, a British food magazine, as {{R from other capitalization}}
• The F-word red
• The C word red
• The C-word red
• The T word red
• The T-word → Twat (add this to nom?)
• The Q word red
• The Q-word red

And in addition

• M word → Marriage (might nom this separately)
• M-word red
• The M word red
• The M-word red

Caps forms:

• The F Word, a British food magazine, as stated
• The F-Word red
• The C Word an episode of an American TV comedy series, which hatnotes to
• The C-Word an episode of an America TV drama series, which doesn't hatnote backI hatnoted back with this edit^{Si Trew (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)}
• The T Word red
• The T-Word red
• The Q Word red
• The Q-Word red
• M Word red
• M-Word red
• The M Word red
• The M-Word red

Si Trew (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• I had gone through these a little while back (A word, B word etc.) and listed several at Rfd (including this one). I didn't add "the" to any of them though. Is it an issue that (for example) F word and The F word have different targets? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• "Delete' no clear target is primary. Montanabw^(talk) 16:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Next Greek legislative election

• Next Greek legislative election → Greek legislative election, September 2015  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:ARTICLETITLE. The page has been previously deleted as an implausible redirect. Page has been repeatedly created so requesting WP:SALT. Curb Chain (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Tsipras already dropped the writ (there are several BBC articles on the election, for example). I've found leaving the redirect in place since, for example, my browser is set to find "Next Greek legislative election" more easily (I've been using that link to follow polling for several years, since it always points to whatever the "next" election is, be it this year or next or whatever). So please, leave it in place until the election happens and then "de-direct" it in September.50.206.51.2 (talk) 04:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Per the above, the election has already been called [1]. How is it CRYSTALly? -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

See my comment to User:Thryduulf.Curb Chain (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. There are many "Next ... election" redirects, and while consensus about them isn't strong it has generally fallen to keep when they are predictable. When we have a specific article or section on a future election they should point there, when we don't they should point to the article that notes when the next election will be to the degree of precision currently known (e.g. "the next election will take place on or before day month year"). Thryduulf (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTNEWS #2 (especially) and #4, articles should not be created unless it is enduringly notable. These "Next ... election" redirects are simply being used as a repository of reports until they are "considered" official, as is clear from the rest of these comments. If the article is going to be moved anyway, then it would fail WP:ARTICLETITLE since articles should have the proper title in the first place.Curb Chain (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

For elections, you can't have the "[Country] general election, [year]" format used in article titles until the election is assured to be held at a certain date, because otherwise it would fail to meet WP:CRYSTALBALL #1. But also as per CRYSTAL #1, future elections are notable and certain enough to take place at some point to take them into consideration, specially because it is not difficult to find enough relevant information to keep the articles going (Electoral system, opinion polls to be constantly updated, etc). Impru20 (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

So is this a problem with the article? I know we aren't discussing the article, but if you take Next Irish general election, it seems to be an WP:indiscriminate repository of information regarding the NEXT Irish general election.Curb Chain (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. No sense for this. Tsipras has resigned, and the legal process that will lead to a snap election in either 20 or 27 September has already started. "Next Greek legislative election" should be keep so that people are redirected to the September election, and once it is held, the article can be re-used for the next election. Impru20 (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:RFD#K5 as this seems useful to the reader: updating these redirects for national elections would not cause much extra work. Rubbish computer 15:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:RFD#D2 since the election it refers to is the current election; the next election is whichever one follows the one next month. Which also helpfully illustrates why we should not create these redirects generally. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per Ivan. As soon as the election is over, the redirect will be outdated and we'd have to revisit this. Since we're already here, let's just delete it like we've done three times in the past. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • As soon as the election is over, this can simply be retargeted per my comment above, without drama or need for any hot air while continuing to provide a way for people to find the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• And that's why we shouldn't have redirects like that. They'll go out of date and require a fair amount of maintenance. Are you volunteering? -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• We don't remove things from articles because they go out of date and require a fair amount of maintenance, and the same principle holds entirely for redirects. Have you got any evidence that these redirects are not being updated when required? Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• My point was that it's pointing to the wrong target now. So yes, there is evidence they're not being updated when required. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Here's two examples from this month: WP:RFD/Next Australian constitutional referendum and WP:RFD/Next Bloc Quebecois leadership election. Both deleted. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, editors need to update but it is a plausible search phrase. No WP:CRYSTAL elements, there will always (most likely) be a "next" election, and where the redirect targets a recently passed election, it could also be retargeted to Elections in Greece if lack of updating is a concern. Montanabw^(talk) 16:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Next Spanish general election

• Next Spanish general election → Spanish general election, 2015  (links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:ARTICLETITLE. The page has been previously deleted as an implausible redirect. Page has been repeatedly created so requesting WP:SALT. Curb Chain (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• With respect to the Spanish election, though the writ hasn't been dropped I think there are only a handful of extreme scenarios where the election could be any year other than this year (e.g. the potential election period does not spill into 2016). Much as a US Presidential election could, in theory, be moved up under certain narrow circumstances (or the next Olympics cancelled), WP:CRYSTAL doesn't seem applicable w.r.t. the 2015 election. I'd agree if we were talking about the elections after these (which could fall anywhere in the next few years), but the odds of the elections not happening this year seem vanishingly small...so the two labels and the redirect seem appropriate.50.206.51.2 (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per my comments above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. Not WP:CRYSTAL, since legally, it is not possible for the election to not be held in 2015 (20 December would be the last possible date to hold it), unless very exceptional unforeseeable circunstamces happen (war, national emergency, whatever). But assuming the election would be moved up into 2016 of further under those circumstances would be WP:CRYSTAL, since those are not foreseeable in the near future. So, unless those do actually happen the election should be treated just as the US presidential elections or the Olympics are, to be held at the date they are legally expected to. Specially given than Rajoy himself has confirmed that the election will be held "by the end of the year", after the 2016 Budget is passed into law in Congress. "Next Spanish general election" should be kept as a redirect to the 2015 election, and once the election is held it would be used for the election after this year's one. Impru20 (talk) 11:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

If an election is determined to be in a specific year, it should be titled "Spanish general election, [insert year here]". For example, "Next Spanish general election" was moved to "Spanish general election, 2012" and then "Spanish general election, 2012" was moved to ""Spanish general election, 2011".Curb Chain (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The point is that, in many countries, such as Spain, elections are not determined to be in a specific year. What is determined is the latest possible date the election can be held in the event of no snap election being held earlier. Surely, the one who moved the "Next Spanish general election" article to "Spanish general election, 2012" back when he/she did it shouldn't have done so as per WP:CRYSTAL, since legally the election could have been held in 2011 (as it finally did). In this case, however, we are already in 2015, it is impossible for the election to be held later than 20 December 2015 and Rajoy himself has stated that the election will be held by the end of the year. But the election still has not been held, so it is still the next election, and Wikipedia readers can still search for "Next Spanish general election" in looking for the 2015 election.

Once the election is held, the "Next Spanish general election" article is simply re-used for the next election. Just as it has been done in Wikipedia for many other countries. I see no reason why it should be removed. Impru20 (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

So we should have the one page Spanish general election, 2015 without this redirect, since we know in certainty that it will occur this year because referring to "Spanish general election, 2015" is equally ambiguous as a reader from google could think "next" as to any subsequent "Spanish general election". Another note, I don't think these redirects are being used appropriately.Curb Chain (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Since the 2015 election has not been held yet and the last election held was the 2011 one, from our current viewpoint, at the present, the 2015 election factually still is the "next" election, that has not changed. The only difference being that we know now that it will be held by the end of 2015. The redirects are also used like this to prevent keeping deleting a page that will be created again after the election is held, anyway. And it does not cause any issues. Unspoken policy regarding election-treatment in Wikipedia has been to act like this (such as UK, Portugal, Ireland, Greece, etc), as, out of the diverse solutions available, it is the more workable and useful. Impru20 (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not understanding this sort of titling of articles. If the election will be held in 2015, then title it Spanish general election, 2015. This prevents confusing. Will there be 2 Spanish general election in 2015? Why not start an article Spanish general election, September 2015 if an upcoming election is held. If another one is held in November, then create Spanish general election, November 2015 when you have the information.Curb Chain (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:RFD#K5 as this seems useful to the reader: it would not cause much extra work to update these redirects for national elections. Rubbish computer 15:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete as it's generally not a good idea to create redirects like this. Once the election is over, we'd have to revisit this redirect since it'll be outdated. I wouldn't nominate a redirect like this unless it already is outdated, but since we're already here, it's best to save us the trouble down the line. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Except we wont have to revisit it, as it can just be retargetted to wherever mention is made of when the then-next election will be. Also, deleting a redirect that is used, useful, harmless and is pointed at the correct and unambiguous target just because it might not be all of those in future is, at best, cutting of your nose to spite your face. Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    • No, it just creates more unnecessary work for us in the future. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
      • It does create more work, but enabling readers to find the encyclopaedic content they are looking for is as necessary to Wikipedia as writing the encyclopaedic content in the first place (indeed it is rather pointless to write encyclopaedic content if people can't find it). If you suggested removing content from an article on the grounds that it will be out of date in the future, rather people do the work and it gets updated without fuss or complaint - we even have {{update after}} and {{As of}} to help keep track of this. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
        • Search terms would help people find what they are looking for just as easy without the maintenance. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Keep, same as the Greek redirect above; editors need to update but it is a plausible search phrase. No WP:CRYSTAL elements, there will always (most likely) be a "next" election, and where the redirect targets a recently passed election, it could also be retargeted to Elections in Spain if lack of updating is a concern. Montanabw^(talk) 16:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)