Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFD)
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted.

  • If you want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you need not list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold!
  • If you want to move a page but a redirect is in the way, do not list it here. Put a request to Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.
  • Redirects should not be deleted just because they do not have any incoming links. That is not a sufficient condition. Please do not list this as the only reason to delete a redirect.

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

Before listing a redirect for discussion, please be aware of:

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that readers will find themselves staring blankly at a "Search results 1–10 out of 378" result instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. They take up little storage space and use very little bandwidth. It doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is also cheap because recording the deletion takes up little storage space and uses very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • If a good-faith RfD nomination has no discussion, the default result is delete.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted to a different article, discuss it on the talk page of the current target article or the proposed target article, or both. But with more difficult cases, this page can serve as a central discussion forum for tough debates about which page a redirect should target.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another's do not need to be listed here. Anyone can remove the redirect by blanking the page. The G6 criterion for speedy deletion may be appropriate.
  • In discussions, always think whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader.

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]

Shortcut:

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles—such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.

Note that there could exist (for example), links to the URL "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorneygate" anywhere on the internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) "WhatLinksHere" for "Attorneygate"—since those links might come from somewhere outside Wikipedia.

Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.

Shortcut:

Reasons for deleting[edit]

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. For example, if the user searches for "New Articles", and is redirected to a disambiguation page for "Articles", it would take much longer to get to the newly added articles on Wikipedia.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so the redirect should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.) See also: § Neutrality of redirects.
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange. (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to itself or to an article that does not exist, it can be immediately deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Implausible typos or misnomers are candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then it needs to be deleted to make way for move. If the move is uncontroversial, tag the redirect for G6 speedy deletion. If not, take the article to Requested Moves.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject.
Shortcut:

Reasons for not deleting[edit]

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). On the other hand, if the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, if someone sees the "Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then he or she will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. For example, redirects resulting from page moves should not normally be deleted without good reason. Links that have existed for a significant length of time, including CamelCase links and old subpage links, should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. See also Wikipedia:Link rot § Link rot on non-Wikimedia sites.
  5. Someone finds them useful. You might not find it useful, but this may be because you browse Wikipedia in different ways. stats.grok.se can also provide evidence of outside utility.
  6. The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form, or to some other grammatical form.
  7. The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and deleting the redirect would prevent anonymous users from so expanding the redirect, and thereby make the encyclopedia harder to edit and reduce the pool of available editors. (Anonymous users cannot create new pages in the mainspace; they can only edit existing pages, including redirects, which they can expand). This criteria does not apply to redirects that are indefinitely semi-protected or more highly protected.

Neutrality of redirects[edit]

Shortcut:

Just as article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. Non-neutral redirects may be tagged with {{R from non-neutral name}}.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. ClimategateClimatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and now redirected to Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

See also: Policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately.

Closing notes[edit]

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion[edit]

Shortcut:
I.
Tag the redirect.

  Enter {{subst:rfd|content= at the very beginning of the redirect page you are listing for discussion, and enter }} at the very end. Example:

{{subst:rfd|content=#REDIRECT [[Foo]]{{R from move}}}}
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]].
  • Save the page.
  • If you are unable to edit the redirect page because of protection, this step can be omitted, and after step 2 is completed, a request to add the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page.
II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For this template:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of RedirectName, put the target article's name in place of TargetArticle, and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    (replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating).
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:rfd2|multi=yes|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • If the redirect has had previous RfDs, you can add {{Oldrfdlist|previous RfD without brackets|result of previous RfD}} directly after the rfd2 template.
III.
Notify users.

  It is generally considered good practice to notify the creator and main contributors to the redirect that you are nominating the redirect.

To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. For convenience, the template

{{subst:RFDNote|RedirectName}} ~~~~

may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as:
Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]
  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.

Current list[edit]

September 5[edit]

The Ideal School of Manhattan[edit]

No mention of subject on the target page. The subject appears to be a school, which is expanding into a high school and thus could have its own article. Better as a red link. Ravendrop 00:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

September 4[edit]

Charles.Marvin Green[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted WP:G7 by GB fan. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Has period in article title by mistake Checkingfax (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Periods are very unlikely typos. Steel1943 (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as likely typo. Charles Marvin Green is to same target. Si Trew (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unlikely typo. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as implausible typo, although it is probably already going to be deleted. Rubbish computer 22:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
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.

Hockey on the ice[edit]

A couple months ago, as I was looking through sport redirects, I happened upon "hockey on the ice". Logically, I figured that would more likely refer to to ice hockey than bandy, so I retargeted it there. Yesterday, I got a message on my talk page saying that it was reverted due to "hockey on the ice" being a historical term for bandy. It's explained in the bandy article, something I didn't catch earlier. So I added a hatnote there and thought the problem was solved. Since then, a discussion broke out on my talk page by various people, offering differing suggestions on what to do with this. Due to this, I figured it'd be best to get a wider input on the matter here. I'm still balancing on a three-way fence between leaving it at bandy for historical purposes, retargeting it to ice hockey, due to the literal meaning of the phrase, or retargeting to hockey, which would be a compromise between the two as it briefly explains both codes. Thoughts? -- Tavix (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment' thanks for the ping, but surely it would be simplest to R this to Ice hockey? Bandy as an Oy term for a hockey stick I think is strine, though, somewhere mentioned by Clive James in his[[[Unreliable Memoirs]]] so I can RS this but will take me a bit of searching through the woodware to do so. Si Trew (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - perhaps go a little out of the box and make Hockey on ice a disamig page? Otherwise, I think the hatnote on Bandy is sufficient. There is going to have to be a hat note on one or or the other if we leave these as redirects, and if this specific term is more commonly used for Bandy, as opposed to being a french translation as for ice hockey, then the status quo is sufficient. Resolute 19:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate between bandy and ice hockey, as this does not appear to be a common term for ice hockey, but is a plausible one nonetheless. Rubbish computer 22:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose disambiguation. Resolute, Rubbish computer: that's the point of redirecting to hockey. You fulfill the same role that a disambiguation would for the term "hockey on ice" since both terms are there, and you get the added bonus of being able to explain the codes/types more. Effectively, a disambiguation would be redundant. -- Tavix (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to hockey per Tavix. Rubbish computer 23:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to hockey as I suggested in the talk page discussion. I don't think its used for bandy any more than its used for ice hockey. So in that sense send it to the page that talks about both. -DJSasso (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Israeli Secret Intelligence Service[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted WP:G3 by CactusWriter. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate redirect with no better target. Based on a WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory about the supposed US/Israeli origins of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The ISIS article doesn't mention it. A CSD seems sensible, but I can't determine a criterion that fits. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • @SimonTrew: On what basis are you proposing that? What relevance is the MOSSAD redirect? Are you basing that on your own interpretation of the combination of words? This is not another name for Mossad. It's what someone said the acronym ISIS "really" stands for, more or less. Here's a metaphor, at the risk of further confusing things :) - It's like if someone said "the CIA really stands for 'Canadians in America'" because of some conspiracy theory about the CIA allowing some kind of illicit Canadian immigration... and then Wikipedia actually redirected Canadians in America to Central Intelligence Agency without the latter even mentioning the non-notable theory. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:00, 4 September 2015 (UÉÉ
  • I am not going to continue this conversation farther. Wwe had lots about ISIS and ISIL and various others, and you are just being WP:BADFAITH here, paently the Israeli Secret Intelligent Service should redirect to the Israeli Secret Intelligent Service, not to the Islamaic State of Iraq and the Levant. ISIS] is a redirect to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant for example, but I take Occam's Razor and need not endlessly multiply examples. Si Trew (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Look at this (randomly chosen from the first page of ghits). That is the basis for the creation of this redirect. It's not another name for Mossad. It's an obscure conspiracy theory about the Islamic State's origins. Someone looking for that title would be looking for [an incorrect version of] the Islamic State article, not Mossad. Bad faith has nothing to do with it (and I don't know how to take a statement that I'm "being WP:BADFAITH" -- assuming? acting in?); you've simply provided poor justification for your argument beyond what would also justify redirecting Israel's Agency Kind of Like the CIA or MI5 (i.e. something someone might possibly type in when they're looking for Mossad). Perhaps I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying (e.g. I don't know what "[We] had lots about ISIS and ISIL and various others" means) or perhaps I'm mistaken in my understanding of what constitutes an appropriate title/redirect. It's entirely possible. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy 'Delete per G-3 and WP:PROFRINGE. This is a rather naked attempt to use the project for the promotion of a fringe, and false, conspiracy theory. It serves no legitimate purpose and should be removed immediately. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, I should've thought of G3. It looks like CactusWriter just deleted it as such, so this thread can probably be closed. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
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.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev[edit]

Cochrane collaboration
Cochrane library

I was doing some cleanup for WP:JCW earlier, and I started updating some of these redirects given some were pointing to the Cochrane Collaboration, and others to the Library. I updated most of them to point to the collaboration, but I have a nagging doubt that what I did may not be the best solution possible, so I'm starting this RFD so we can decide what's the best course of action from here on.

The best solution, IMO, would be to have a specific article on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and redirect the first set of links to that target. Failing that, however, we need to decide if it's best to point them to Cochrane Library or Cochrane Collaboration. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Cochrane collaboration is better to direct it towards...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Almost all of the content in "Cochrane Collaboration" is about the database of reviews. There are a handful of mentions about the Library. I don't really see any advantage in creating a new article about the database, or changing the article's name. The current situation looks fine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Create article for Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Retarget the rest to Cochrane collaboration, as this seems a more suitable target. Rubbish computer 17:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I think creating a CDSR article would be a good idea, and that redirecting all the redirects listed under the "Cochrane collaboration" section on this page to the CDSR page would be a good idea as well. As for the Cochrane Library redirects, they should be kept the way they are, IMO. Everymorning (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

市区重建局[edit]

These ambiguous Chinese-language (one simplified, one traditional) redirects point to two organisations with the same Chinese name but different English names. I suggest that we delete both due to the potential of confusion. Both Hong Kong and Singapore recognise traditional and simplified Chinese characters (although HK defaults to traditional, SG to simplified) so I'd argue that WP:FORRED applies equally to both possible targets. Deryck C. 14:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd accept disambiguation as an alternative. Deryck C. 12:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment (as creator) I have considered this ambiguity at creation, so I also made sure there are headnotes linking between both articles (diffs: [1][2]). I have no objection to any suggestion to better solve this bold introduction of confusion, including deletion or perhaps a Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 14:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 17:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think if both places defaulted to the same scripts, a disambiguation would be the best choice, but from the references I've seen, the current way this is set up looks to be a good solution. The hatnotes should clear up confusion so I don't see the benefit of deletion here. -- Tavix (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is probably headed towards disambiguation, but questions remain. Which one would be the dab, for one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Alternatively, if you keep it the way it is, the hatnotes take care of everything and you don't need to answer those questions. -- Tavix (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[[ i

Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions[edit]

Article created entirely in good faith, perhaps under the impression that the slash would make it a sub-page. Ran afoul of copyright problems, unused, redirected. However, as it stands it's a highly improbable redirect, so should perhaps now be deleted. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as the article opens with "The following lists of endangered languages are mainly based on the definitions used by UNESCO": seems a plausible search term. Rubbish computer 10:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - While these kinds of redirects do mean that you have to be typing, have the text you need, but then keep on typing... I still see this as being reasonably helpful even if it's relatively improbable that someone would type it out. I can imagine someone searching this or writing this, in good faith, even if it's not likely. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, though I note that Endangered language sowan not refer to it. Probably far too precious for cunning linguists. Si Trew (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Dangit[edit]

The target is a disambiguation page for places and people named "Dang", none of which are also known as "Dangit". Retargeting to Damnation#As profanity might be one option. I guess it depends on the consensus for what to do with all the other minced oaths that have been nominated today. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 12:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Goink[edit]

Delete — alleged to be an ethnic slur for people of mixed Chinese & Korean descent, but outside of Urban Dictionary & sources which quoted them I can't find anyone actually using the word this way, it clearly has other meanings, and anyway that topic is not covered by the target. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak add to List of ethnic slurs#G and retarget there if valid sources can be found. Otherwise, delete per nom. Steel1943 (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Steel1943. Rubbish computer 22:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment there are a great number of sources reporting that Urban Dictionary claimed it's an ethnic slur. (It sounds a lot more like something made up in school one day). I can't find a source which outright states in its own editorial voice that it's an ethnic slur, though I'm sure if we trawl the gutter for Buzzfeed-style "You won't BELIEVE how many billion people Phil Jackson might have offended!" sites I'm sure we can find one that was dumb and careless enough to do so. I note also, for example, that "fucking [any real English-language ethnic slur]s" will get you thousands of GHits, but "fucking goinks" has precisely zero, and even the singular "fucking goink" has only four uses an an insult, none of which seem to be directed towards a particular ethnic group. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Rejection of profanity[edit]

The redirect targeting Minced oath just isn't correct. A minced oath isn't the rejection of profanity, but rather an altercation. The title of the redirect is a bit suitable for a WP:REDLINK deletion in regards to a possible subject for the rejection of profanity in different cultures, etc. With that being said, weak retarget to Profanity or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 06:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - The only logical target would be the general article for Profanity, but even that feels like a stretch. I'd rather just get rid of this altogether. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as there appears to be no suitable target. Rubbish computer 10:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Mother trucker[edit]

These redirects are examples of minced oaths, but the redirects are not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of these redirects is questionable since the subject of the redirects isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless good retargeting options can be found for these redirects, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 06:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Shootdangit[edit]

This redirect is an example of a minced oath, but the redirect is not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of this redirect is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless a good retargeting option can be found for this redirect, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • REtarget to damnation since that's where goddammit leads to -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment not on Wiktionary and probably doesn't meet inclusion criteria there either (wikt:WT:ATTEST). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to damnation as a plausible synonym. Rubbish computer 10:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as an implausible synonym for anything in Wikipedia. It's two minced oaths run together in a way that is extremely rare (I get only 93 non-duplicate GHits), with no particular reason to retarget to one rather than the other (why not shit, for which "shoot" is a minced oath), so it should also be deleted per WP:XY. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Strewth[edit]

This redirect is an example of a minced oath, but the redirect is not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of this redirect is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless a good retargeting option can be found for this redirect, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment has this ever been used as the past tense form for "to strew" (to distribute)? -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Yes, in the King James Bible, new testament, they strewed their Lord with lilies, and indeed Graham Chapman as Brian thus spake in Life of Brian. Si Trew (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm an idiot, that would be strewn as past historic. Si Trew (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Retarget but not sure quite where. No, it is an Australianism for "(God's) Honest Truth". I just happen to know that because "strew" is kinda my mame. Retarget to Australian slang, I think, or something similar, it is just strine. Si Trew (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

By word[edit]

From what I am seeing per research, "by-words" aren't exclusively/always "minced oaths", so there is an WP:XY issue here. So, probably soft retarget to Wiktionary or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: The closest retargeting option I could find that could somewhat resolve the WP:XY issue is Word of mouth, but that may still be too vague. Steel1943 (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to proverb since that is where byword leads to. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • That statement enforces my WP:XY concern. On that note, I have added Byword and Bywords to this nomination. (I do not think that a disambiguation page would be appropriate due to the lack of a strong connection between the term "byword" and these subjects.) (Withdrew this statement due to now being neutral on creating a disambiguation page, as mentioned below in the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)) Steel1943 (talk) 06:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • wikt:byword means "proverb" WP:POFRED shows that redirects are used for synonyms to target the article where the topic appears. There's no problem here. We can always convert "byword" to a disambiguation page, to point to synonym, nickname, epithet, and proverb, instead of having a hatnote on "proverb". Or repoint all of them to "synonym" and hatnote to the others. At any rate, we have articles on the topics that this is an alternate name for, so wiktionary is the wrong place to go, since content appears on Wikipedia for this topic(s). It's not as if no content appears on Wikipedia, and therefore it should go to Wiktionary, we actually have articles on the topic(s) on Wikipedia. Wiktionary already shows this has strong connections to the topics per POFRED alternate names for our topics. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Create Page - So that we have all four terms going to something that lists the alternate meanings of the word. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Create page per CWM. Rubbish computer 10:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • <s{Delete all'> to enable the creation of the page. I'll have a go atDraft:Byword but not right now. I think in Shapkespeare somewher, and certainly used a lot by Alan Coren, ("My name is not dropped in literary circles, I am no byword when plumbers pass by") so sourcing RS should not be too hard. Si Trew (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Byword, which I have expanded to be a disambiguation page. Deleting these redirects won't enable the creation of a new article about the word. If anyone wants to create such an article, they are free to do so while the redirects remain intact. Neelix (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Yep that makes more sense, Retarget all. Struck my delete above, Si Trew (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Ot tried to but had a bit of sneeiying dunno why, I get hay fever but it is not the time of year for that. Tried again. Si Trew (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Drat[edit]

This redirect is an example of a minced oath, but the redirect is not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of this redirect is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless a good retargeting option can be found for this redirect, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, WP:NOTDIC. It isn't actually from "damnation" anyway, but from "God rot". Si Trew (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Danged[edit]

These redirects are examples of minced oaths, but the redirects are not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of these redirects is questionable since the subject of the redirects is only somewhat identified, but essentially as a WP:DICDEF. Unless good retargeting options can be found for these redirects, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually we do but PeskyJohnny Pesky, to my surprise and delight. Si Trew (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

'sfoot[edit]

This redirect is an example of a minced oath, but the redirect is somewhat identified by subject at the target article, but as a bit of a dictionary definition for what the contraction represents. For this reason, the helpfulness of this redirect is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless a good retargeting option can be found for this redirect, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary as there is an entry there. Rubbish computer 10:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:TITLE, we don't start titles with apos. or maybe retarget to afoot. 'tis , many any a slip twix a carp and a leek, as Shakespeare said somewhere (or am I msistaken;). Si Trew (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. All these with the apos at the front worry me a little, it is sometimes used in lingustics to indicate a glottal stop but it is WP:NOTENGLISH. (and having a southern English accent I often swallow My T's with a glottal stop). Si Trew (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

'Sblood[edit]

This redirect is an example of a minced oath, but the redirect is not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of this redirect is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless a good retargeting option can be found for this redirect, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Per this redirect's edit history, it looks like it was previously a WP:DICDEF-ish article that was redirected to Minced oath in 2005. Steel1943 (talk) 05:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Soft retarget to Wiktionary as there is an entry there. Rubbish computer 10:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:MOSPUNC. Wiktiionary can have it if it wants, but it is not encylclopaeidic, WP:NOTDIC.Since when (abozuut six months ago) was Wikipedia used as an index to WIktionary? delete it, that is what Wiktionary is for. Thiuis is an enxccyclopaediae not alexicon, and the entries at Wiktionaryy are usually not very good anyway, but that is just my opinion. Si Trew (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Egad[edit]

These redirects are examples of minced oaths, but the redirects are not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of these redirects is questionable since the subject of the redirects isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless good retargeting options can be found for these redirects, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Retarget to God (word) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Soft retarget to Wiktionary as there is an entry there. Rubbish computer 10:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. I have no idea what a soft retarget is (actually I do, it just means retargetting so the "soft" is redundant) but I am strongly against turning WIkipedia into "Wiktionary with pictures and other stuff". That is why we have, er, Wikipidia and Wiktionary as two seperate entities. A lexicon and an encyclopaedia are not the same thing. WP:NOTDIC. 15:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Gosh darn[edit]

This redirect is an example of a minced oath, but the redirect is not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of this redirect is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless a good retargeting option can be found for this redirect, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Winter is icumen in,
Lhudle sing goddam
Groweth snot and may it rot
Lhudle sing goddamn
Old english verse, translated by Ogden Nash. Si Trew (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

For crying out loud[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retarget as {{R from other capitalization}}, to which I shall Rcat, and no-brainer. (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This redirect is an example of a minced oath, but the redirect is not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of this redirect is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless a good retargeting option can be found for this redirect, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not a minced oath. My mother used to shout this at me when I was six years old, and she did not mince her words(but I have never known her swear, "bloody" is about as far as she gets). I have marked it as R from other caps.
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.

Chrissake[edit]

These redirects are examples of minced oaths, but the redirects are not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of these redirects is questionable since the subject of the redirects isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless good retargeting options can be found for these redirects, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Gawt deem[edit]

This redirect is an example of a minced oath, but the redirect is not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of this redirect is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless a good retargeting option can be found for this redirect, (Nominator opinion change: see below. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)) I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or (Nominator opinion change: see below. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)) delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Doesn't exist on Wiktionary. Probably doesn't meet inclusion criteria there either (wikt:WT:ATTEST). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to goddamn since this is a variant spelling, and that page leads to the article damnation and wiktionary -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Rwtarget' to goddamn, with 70. 51. I did think vaguely of carpe diem but that is well wide of the mark. Si Trew (talk) 09:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to goddamn per above. Rubbish computer 10:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:R#D2. Do we have any evidence that this is a common variant spelling? Goddamn is a dab, and none of the entries there are known as "gawt deem" so the retarget proposal doesn't make any sense to me. -- Tavix (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: Agreed. If anything, this phrase looks like the "got eem" meme that has been flying around these days. In fact, given this, I struck out some of my nomination statement. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment There seem to be about seven people per year using it on Twitter [3]. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - unlike gosh darn this isn't established in use. Deem put simply is to "to hold an opinion" or "judge", I don't view it as a plausible misspelling of damn, and it is actually a defined word. Gawt is much more similar to got, not a plausible synonym of God. In my opinion this equates to "Got deem" (reminds me of Got Milk?), which isn't good grammar or a proper usage, and has no good target.Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Jeez[edit]

The redirect is an example of a minced oath, but the redirect is not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of this redirect is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless a good retargeting option can be found for this redirect, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Blasphemy#Blasphemy in Christianity since that is where Christ sake leads to -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per 70. Rubbish computer 10:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing. or DAB irt to include Jesus creepers. a type of sandal, but we don't seem to have that as slang ot anything else. Something with this Christianity redirects is very fishy... I state exőélicitly, I have edited a few on the way when we have been doing the R's, but I am not a christian, I am just .Church of England, where you only häve to go there for hatch, match and dispatch. Nit KJesus wppuéd ne a good Wikiőőedoam cps he just said basically try to be mnice to other pepőeé. forgive them their sins, cos you have lots yourseéf- In that sense I am a Christian I just don't think there is Santa Claus upstairs, but it makes my life work do as Jesus said. Forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sinned against us. And lead us not into tepmtation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, foreverf and ever. Amen. Si Trew (talk) 17:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Dagnabbit[edit]

These redirects are examples of minced oaths, but the redirects are not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of these redirects is questionable since the subject of the redirects isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless good retargeting options can be found for these redirects, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Regardless of the result of this discussion, the edit history of Dagnabbit shows that this page was previously some sort of article for a character in the Forgotten Realms series. I think the edit history of that may be able to be safely deleted since I was unable to find material on Wikipedia regarding this subject besides the content of the edit history, so it may not be necessary to keep considering that doing so may be a WP:NOTWIKIA violation. Steel1943 (talk) 05:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Damnation since that is where goddammit leads to -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per 70. Rubbish computer 11:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

What the ****[edit]

This isn't even a minced oath; it's just a version of "what the fuck" that is censored. I was thinking of just boldly retargeting, but since I've also heard of the phrase "what the shit", it may just be best to delete it per WP:XY. Steel1943 (talk) 05:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Fugged[edit]

These redirects are examples of minced oaths, but the redirects are not identified by subject at the target article. For this reason, the helpfulness of these redirects is questionable since the subject of the redirects isn't identified by subject at the target. Unless good retargetting options can be found for these redirects, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Per Fug (a disambiguation page), retargeting to The Naked and the Dead may be an option, but at the present time, I am not sure. Steel1943 (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Wiktionary has fug, but didn't mention its use as a minced oath until I added it just now. I also created fugged. There's no fuggin or fuggin'. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to fug and add an explicit link to fuck at the dab page, since it should already appear there, as it is used outside of the novel, in the real world. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I do not see any value in this retargeting option since these redirects could only be used properly to identify alternate forms of a verb or adverb form of "Fug". Steel1943 (talk) 07:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The usage in the novel and the actual value that should be added to the disambiguation page for fuck would end up with two values. Or we can just redirect them all to fuck instead WP:POFRED alternate names for fuck. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to fuck per 70's last point. Rubbish computer 11:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Fuck - Minced oath alternatives to "fucking" are discussed on that article. Neelix (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Frig (interjection)[edit]

The redirect(s) is/are example(s) of (a) minced oath, but the redirect(s) is/are not identified by subject at the target article. For the reason, the helpfulness of the(se) redirect(s) is questionable since the subject of the redirect isn't identified as a subject, but goes to an article which it is an example. For these reasons, unless (a) good retargetting option(s) can be found for the(se) redirects, I say either soft retarget to Wiktionary (if there is a corresponding entry) or delete. Steel1943 (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Wiktionary has all of them: frig frigged frigger friggers friggin friggin' frigging frigs. Agree that current target is unhelpful, in particular given the WP:XY issue - it has other meanings besides its use as a minced oath. Not sure whether it's better to soft redirect or delete. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • REtarget all (excpet "interjection") to frig since there's multiple values there that can take these terms. Add an explicit link to fuck to the dab page for an additional value. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
From what I am seeing on Frig, that is actually false. The only term on there these could refer is the subject of Frig (interjection) ... which, of course, is a redirect to Minced oath and part of this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 07:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not the pheasant plucker, I'm the pheasant plucker's son. And I'm only plucking pheasant 'til the pheasant plucker comes. Si Trew (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
There's two values, "sexual intercourse" and "masturbation" that appears on the disambiguation page, aside from the interjection value, so yes, there are multiple values there. With the addition of the new entry, that would be another. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
At any rate, "frigs" should point there regardless, as a plural, since it is a list of multiple frig values, they are frigs. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Disagree I think Frig should go to Frigate, {{R from abbreviation}}, but in civil engineering (or perhaps very uncivil enginnering) a frig factor is what to add in to covertt hat at walls are never square nor cables cut to the right length, or as a good friend of mine once did, being paid by the metre, As a Chartered Engineer once quoted to me, "Do the estimates and add ten percent for luck". Much as I love{{{convert}}, we still have not yet the tag frig_factor there.
If, like my good mate Fred, you get a job and told to do the bannister]s, stair rods and stair rails while his mate did the walls, while you are paid by the square metre, he lost on that one!. But it is not, as far as I am aware, a roundabout way of pretending not saying "fuck". Si Trew (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's OK to say "Fuck" here by the way. I don't link the word and especially hate "cunt", which women seem more to oibject to, but WP:NOTCENSORED. This discussion would be easier if others were not quite so mealy-mouthed. Si Trew (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to fuck as appears to be the most suitable target. Rubbish computer 11:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget all to Fuck - "Frigging" is discussed as a minced oath alternative to "fucking" on that article, so that's certainly a valid target, and also the best one I can see. If there are other valid targets, they can be linked via a hatnote. Neelix (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget all. Indeed, and nobody ever looks up frog (disambiguation), cos everyone knows what a frog is. James Thurber has it somewhere as when playing some word game he looked up "dog", to find it means feed-dog, hangdog and so forth. I think he wrote "Nobody ever looks up 'dog' in the dictionary, because everyone knows what a dog is'. (I had an (edit conflict) with Neelix (Nice ta see ya, Neelix) so I hope I have not disturbed any others' comments.)Si Trew (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC))
No, ho, we cannot do that. Frig itself is a DAB, which doesn't mention its use as going round the houses to say "Fuck" at all. Which considering its long and ancient history, as documented encylopaeidacallay at Fuck, deserves a mention at that DAB. Too many people being too mealy-mouthed here. I rarely swear, but we are discussing swear words, so it is hardly evitable though it may be inevitable.Si Trew (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Articallify All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC).

September 3[edit]

More NHL draft picks[edit]

Delete per WP:XY, as confirmed by numerous previous discussions, the most recent of which being at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 1#NHL team draft pick redirects. Resolute 22:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per previous discussions. -- Tavix (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm not seeing how those sorts of redirects are a bad thing. A user searching a player learns the fact of his having been drafted by X team in Y year in the ## draft position. That is worthwhile information. What is the possible rationale for deletion? Carrite (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Because there are multiple potential targets, each equally viable. Such redirects actively hinder search abilities by forcing the reader to a specific page chosen entirely at random by the redirect creator rather than letting the search engine retrieve all pages such a subject would be mentioned in and allowing the reader to choose what they want. Resolute 23:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)@Carrite: The rationale is WP:XY since there are several articles that each individual could be redirected to and it's impossible to guess what someone could be looking for. "In these cases, search results may be more helpful, allowing the reader to make the decision." To illustrate this, I picked one player at random: Eric Mestery. If someone wants to know information about his draft, the current target or 2008 NHL Entry Draft#Round two would be equally good choices. However, keeping these redirects hinders searches on any other aspect of his career, and we have information on that. For example, he was also drafted by the WHL in the 2004–05 WHL season and he is mentioned in a few other articles if you do a search for him. A minor rationale that I've seen used is WP:REDLINK. If someone were to look at 2008–09 Washington Capitals season#Draft picks, they might think Eric Mestery has an article because there's a blue link. If they click on the link, they'll be redirected right back to where they were, creating either disappointment or confusion. Deleting this would prevent that. Click on the red link, and you'll get search results for all the articles in which he is mentioned, and the reader can make their own decisions as to what part of his career to read about, instead of being pigeon-holed into one specific list/article. I hope that helps answer your question. -- Tavix (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY and previous discussions. -DJSasso (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: per XY and the precedent for the hundred-plus other such redirects we've sought to delete this past week. And to chime in on Tavix's answer to Carrite, that even presupposes that the most important thing about these players, and where a searcher might know them from, is that they were selected in the NHL Entry Draft. My own take is that it's at least as likely that someone searching for such a player would be coming at it from the angle of a junior league or collegiate team for which he starred. I think it more likely that someone searching for Jason Bertsch (say) would be a Spokane Chiefs fan, for whom he played four seasons, than someone vitally interested in low-round draft picks from twenty years ago.

    Even if the NHL Entry Draft was of paramount importance, though, this targeting would still be misplaced. As knowledgeable hockey people are aware, it is sometimes the case that drafted players who don't sign with their team within a certain time period can be reeligible for the draft, and be drafted all over again by a different team. Coincidentally enough, this was the case with Bertsch, who while being redirected here to the 1997 New Jersey Devils season was in fact also drafted two years earlier by the Quebec Nordiques. He played professionally for neither organization (or, as to that, at all).

    There's a further irony, in that Bertsch played under the name "Jay Bertsch," which is how he's listed on the massive Hockey Database. Dolovis created a separate redirect for that -- also under RfD -- to the NHL draft year, without any apparent effort to determine whether they were the same player or not, a degree of inattention I've come to expect from him. Ravenswing 05:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per above and previous discussions. Rubbish computer 10:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

That's How You Know (musical)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted by GB fan. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I erroneously created this when moving the content now residing at That's How You Know (musical number). "That's How You Know" is not a musical, so this title is inaccurate. (No worries Si Trew we're both responsible now) Godsy(TALKCONT) 18:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete - clearly erroneous good-faith page move that was immediately corrected. I don't know why GB fan declined G7, I guess WP:G6 is better, per note 4. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
    • The reason I declined the speedy delete is because I made a mistake. I should have deleted it and have now fixed my mistake. -- GB fan 00:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
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.

...---...[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was -.- . . .--. (keep) because the nomination has been withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete as WP:NOTENGLISH. For if not, we start a Morse language encyclopedia. Hits are at bot noise level. I probably pissed on Thrdyuulf's bonfire for having a day without any incoming, but I am as always ---- .- - .-- . ..--.. Si Trew (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

YYZ is Toronto Pearson International Airport, as any fulish canuck kno. I don't see how that is foreign, and I don't see the case for keeping or rather creating the second one? I didn't realise this was "Redirects for Creation". Si Trew (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to create it, I'm against unnecessary proliferation of marginally useful redirects as you know. But, had someone else created it, I would have argued to keep that target. For those who don't get why, the song YYZ is the Morse code pattern "Y-Y-Z" continuously repeated through varying musical arrangements, from the obvious cymbal-hit intro pattern to much more complex guitar legato patterns and weird keyboard stuff (which Geddy Lee played with foot pedals while simultaneously playing bass). The Morse code pattern is therefore more relevant to the instrumental than to the airport. It's completely irrelevant to this discussion but I am failing in my duty as a Canadian if I don't explain this in far too much detail. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, -.---.----.. has been deleted twice before. I can't tell what its content was though. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
That is the Morse code for YYZ. YYZ is the airport code for Toronto Pearson International Airport and that is where it redirected. -- GB fan 00:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, mentioned and explained in the article. -- Tavix (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, withdrawn by nominator I can see the case for "SOS" specifically being kept, but I don't think we should have Morse just for Any Old Word, any more than we should have Braille for Any Old Word (and we probably couldn't cos Braille is usually done as a a font, and people can choose their own fonts. Similarly, I imagine there are fonts that have the written representation of Morse as their glyphs). Entirely off topic, a few years ago I had T-shirts printed for some RNIB fundraiser with a slogan across the chest, in Braille, reading "Get your hands off my tits". Si Trew (talk) 04:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
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.

September 2[edit]

2017 CAF Confederation Cup[edit]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL due to the fact that no information exists at the target on the 2017 edition. -- Tavix (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 17:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Katrina Richardson[edit]

Delete per WP:R#D2 as this is confusing. There is no one at this dab named or nicknamed "Katrina". -- Tavix (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete and comment can we add Catrina Richardson to this? There are a huge amount of unnecessary and potentially misleading and confusing redirects to this page. Boleyn (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
late edit:
Boleyn in what way/s do you think the redirects may be "potentially misleading and confusing"? GregKaye 07:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
They have no connection to the subjects on the page. Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
It should be noted that Boleyn has made numerous similar redirects, including 1) Phillip AndersonPhilip Anderson; 2) Elisabeth BrownElizabeth Browne, Countess of Worcester; 3) Elisabeth BrowneElizabeth Browne, Countess of Worcester; 4) Katherine CookCatherine Cook; 5) Katherine FisherCatherine Fisher (disambiguation); 6) Catherine FosterKatherine Foster; 7) Phillip LewisPhilip Lewis; 8) Katherine McCarthyKatie McCarthy; 9) Katy McCarthyKatie McCarthy; 10) Catherine MorrisonKathryn Morrison; 11) Katherine MorrisonKathryn Morrison; 12) Katherine ParkerCatherine Parker; 13) Catherine RossKatherine Ross; 14) Phillip YoungPhilip Young (disambiguation), etc. It would be overkill to continue, but this list is much longer. If these redirects have "connection to the subjects on the page", how is it that those nominated for deletion are represented as not having such a connection? The already-mentioned [below] entry, Catherina (and similar spellings), indicates that this given name has myriad permutations, thus suggesting that a random selection of some variations for inclusion and others for deletion may well be singled out as the true source of confusion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Actually, all of these make sense to me. The redirects are all homophones of either the target or another redirect that targets the same page of the created redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
These also make sense to me. I am simply pointing out that the author of the words, "They have no connection to the subjects on the page", has made numerous redirects of the same or similar nature. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
@Boleyn: Yes check.svg Done -- Tavix (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thats not how it works and your examples prove it. In every example you give either a) it's not a redirect to a dab page (eg: it's red or it's own article) b) the redirect is to a dab page that includes the variant. In this case, NO ONE is known by these "variants" so it's either confusing or nonsense. -- Tavix (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
1. Although you claim to have refuted my arguments, such "refutation" cannot overcome existing evidence. In my previous submission, I deliberately limited myself to the surname "Smith" and presented intentionally boilerplate examples, including redlinks, all prefaced by "if". All of them were intended to be generic, rather than represent existing headers. Are you contending that in the event the three redlinks above, Liza Smith, Elisabeth Smith and Bette Smith, were actually created, such redirects would be "confusing" and you would argue for their deletion on the basis that they are "nonsensical and that "NO ONE" is known by such names? Is it your position that only names which already exist on the disambiguation page are eligible to serve as redirects? Thus, are you arguing that if there is no one whose main title header indicates the name Phil Smith or Philip Smith at the Phillip Smith disambiguation page, then "Phil" and "Philip" cannot serve as redirects to "Phillip"?
2. Since you insist on already-existing examples, I will oblige, but limit myself, initially, to the following 25 redirects to dab pages of names which do not appear on those dab pages: Phillip Anderson, Phillip Baker, Elisabeth Brown, Elisabeth Browne, Phillip Clarke, Katherine Cook, Phillip Davies, Phillip Davis, Katherine Fisher, Catherine Foster, Phillip Hall, Phillip Lewis, Katherine McCarthy, Katy McCarthy, Catherine Morrison, Katherine Morrison, Phillip Murphy, Katherine Parker, Phillip Robinson, Catherine Ross, Catherine Smith, Phillip Smith, Elisabeth Taylor, Elisabeth Wilson, Phillip Young. There are additional ones, which I can type as a list if/when the need arises: Are these redirects all incorrect and awaiting someone who would submit them for deletion, although such WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS? If that is your position, please state so, thus allowing the discussion to proceed from there. Are some redirects more eligible than others? If so, what are the applicable standards? The field is ripe for further argumentation. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 06:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Rubbish computer: Could you explain why? I just refuted why his argument doesn't hold up. -- Tavix (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@Tavix: I voted before you refuted this, and I stated I supported what RS had put forward so I do not know what you are trying to say. Rubbish computer 01:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @SimonTrew: WP:WAX isn't a good argument. Those are different situations than the one at hand. There is no one at this dab named "Katrina Richardson" so it's confusing to have "Katrina Richardson" redirect there. -- Tavix (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry @Tavix:, but it is you who quoted WAX in an earlier discussion, not me, and that went to close. I'm confused about why you think I quoted or suggested WAX. I didn't: I argued the case on its merits. Still, Í am rather happy that I have got Bijou (jewellery) translated, that was an effort, but I should be glad if you or others could cast your expert eyes over it, there are lots of little errors, some of which I can spot, some of which I shall miss. I added it to the DAB at Bijou. cocks up the WikiData links, though. Si Trew (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm a liar, it is Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_26#Gourmette_chain, which went procedural close as converted into a stub article by yours trewly. Still busking for plaudits for translating Bijou (jewellery) this morning, well and this afternoon, and flowers, barnstars and money are greatly appreciated. (In partricular, money.) I'm amazed we haven't identity bracelet and the best I could do was dog tag, I should really appreciate some better suggestions cos despitge my wandering I could find no better. Si Trew (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Roman Spinner; it brings them to a disambiguation page for various variations of the given name which exist on Wikipedia, for which the reader may be under the misapprehension of them being spelled in that manner -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
    • @70.51.202.113: I just had an (edit conflict) with you there, I think I resolved it but please make sure I didn't delete anything you wanted to say. Si Trew (talk) 05:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't think there are any problems, I did a revision comparison, and all looks good -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Hardy Men[edit]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No films of this name mentioned... -- Tavix (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Into the West (2015 film)[edit]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Into the West (film) is a 1992 film by Jim Sheridan, but neither target mentions a 2015 film. -- Tavix (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

CSKA London[edit]

This should be deleted, redirect serves no purpose other than to be a not-so-subtle jibe at the club's Russian owner/influence. GiantSnowman 17:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Nonsensical redirect, this was only related to the club's owner, not to the club itself. MYS77 19:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above points. Rubbish computer 23:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I was about to nominate this myself. For the record, I first raised the issue at WT:FOOTY (permanent link here, anticipated archive here). --Theurgist (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Physible[edit]

Currently redirects to The Pirate Bay, since the neologism originated there as a category name for printable 3D models. There are several options that would make more sense here: Redirect to 3D printing, to 3D modeling or a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Don Cuan (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate per nom, with the disambiguation including a Wiktionary link. --Rubbish computer 14:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to wikt:physible pending the creation of an article or keep as a second choice because the status quo actually describes the term. Oppose disambiguation because no other entries besides the current one would pass WP:DABMENTION. -- Tavix (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Now that I think about it a little more, I think I prefer keeping over soft redirecting. It's better to keep people at Wikipedia if we can and the current target explains the term. -- Tavix (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The term doesn't have anything to do with TPB directly, other than them being the originator of it. A printable 3D model that I've downloaded from anywhere else or that I've created wholly myself could also be called "a physible", without TPB being involved. Don Cuan (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand that. However, unless we create an article about it, I'm not seeing a better solution. -- Tavix (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
From WP:NOUN: "Adjective and verb forms (e.g. democratic, integrate) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Democracy, Integration)"...
""Physible", if it meant anything, and the context in the article makes it clear, would be an adjective, thus "a physible" would be like saying "a black" or "an automated" or "an inflatable". While of course we often do so in English, we do so with an unwritten noun (a black person or ball, an inflatable boat or toy) which often can only be distinguished by context and stand meaningless as titles in themselves. Si Trew (talk) 05:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not a misspelling of anything, it's a neologism (with WP:NEO being the strongest argument against it) derived from "physical" and "able". It's intended to mean that a file containing a 3D model is able to be turned into a physical object through 3D printing and comparable methods. Its use as a noun can indeed be compared to "an inflatable" and both are perfectly acceptable grammatically. In fact, this one seems to be used primarily as a noun. Don Cuan (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix. If it's a neologism from the Pirate Bay about 3D printing, this will explain all of that adequately. --BDD (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix and BDD. Coined by TPB and not obviously in use by anyone else at this point; a WP:NEOLOGISM for sure, but neologisms can be valid redirects. If it were to be discussed in greater detail, the discussion would likely be somewhere more generic like 3D printing or 3D modelling but it isn't currently, and we're not redirecting for the Wikipedia of the future. It's also entirely possible that this will become a notable topic for its own article (though it would likely be "physibles" or whatever the generic term ends up being). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's not like the term has only been used by sketchy sources (here's gizmag.com commenting). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I am not happy with neologisms coined by private firms, but just because I am not happy does not mean they don't exist. If it is in use, it should stay, but there are thousands of words coined by marketing men wowcher for example that are not encylopaedic, and this is not encyclopaedic as the target does not mention this specific term (only in the plural). Si Trew (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

September 1[edit]

2013–14[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. WP:SNOW. --BDD (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously created in error. Implausible search term, and there are 60 NBA and NHL articles alone for this season, never mind any other sports leagues or non-sporting instances where these two years overlap. Resolute 23:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete since the only appropriate action for anything connected to this title is the contents of merging the pages 2013 and 2014, and that isn't happening. Steel1943 (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is a slam dunk, even if you restricted the date range to refer to hockey, instead of to every field of human endeavor dealing with chained multiple years. Ravenswing 23:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete' - I agree completely. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
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.

Jangmadang[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close/wrong forum. I reverted Ravenswing's cut-and-paste move of Ceosad's sandbox since that splits attribution histories, which is against the attribution policy. However, Ceosad, for future reference, if you need to publish an article at a title that already exists, please utilize WP:RMTR; whenever you are ready to publish your draft, feel free to go there and post your request. Until then, since no rationale has been presented to delete the redirect as harmful, I'm going to go ahead and close this discussion. Please feel free to contact me with concerns. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 00:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I want this deleted. I have a half done article about North Korean black markets in my sandbox, but this redirect blocks me from moving it to main space. The targeted article is very bloated, so this content cannot be reasonably added into it. Not to mention that the article, and the targeted section, have virtually nothing on the black markets. Redirect itself would be reasonable, but it is harmful for me. See reason 10 from WP:RFD#DELETE. Ceosad (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: What prevents you from a straight cut-and-paste? Nothing, apparently, because I just did it: [4] Ravenswing 23:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • close since the redirect is made into an article now --Lenticel (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
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.

Cary Price Montreals star goaltender[edit]

Delete - implausible search term. Also, editorializing somewhat. Resolute 22:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete: Quite aside from Resolute's take, just typing "Cary Price" is enough to bring up the proper article in the search box. Ravenswing 00:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Note that only people who have javascript enabled and who are using the internal search box will see search suggestions in this manner and there are many other ways to search and browse Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Resolute. I would consider Cary Price goaltender and even Cary Price Montreal's goaltender as plausible search terms, particularly if there were other notable people by this name, but this is not a good search term. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Rubbish computer 22:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete with WP:SNOWBALL and WP:CONCISE. I would {{nac}} this, but can't actually delete it, so that would be pointless. Si Trew (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

NHL's first multiple-player trade[edit]

Delete as an implausible search term. Also per WP:XY, as there were four players and three season articles this could redirect to equally. Though it could also be declared a Wikipedia Historic Site, since this redirect is 11 years old! Resolute 22:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete: Yeah, but like a broken bottle one finds in the dirt, some historic sites are best plowed over. Obvious failure of XY. Ravenswing 00:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Is there an article or section about player transfers in the NHL? If there is, this is the sort of thing I would expect to be mentioned there - and it is the sort of thing that I'd expect someone to be interested in - it should be redirected there. My search-fu is weak today though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per 58. Rubbish computer 22:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget but as {{R to section}} Billy Coutu#Playing Career, where it explicitly mentioned in the second para as being "the NHL's first multiple-player trade". As James Thurber said in Fables for Our Time and Famous Poems Illustrated, "don't get it right, just get it written". Si Trew (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm surprised we haven't the more WP:CONCISE Fables for Our Time, but I don't want to create it right now as that would confuse the matter. Si Trew (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Etimoni Timuani (footballer)[edit]

Not needed as no other individual by this name. Originally created as a result of birthdate confusion as the individual partakes in two sports. Not required as unlikely to be a plausible search term. Fenix down (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Technology of Command & Conquer[edit]

These terms are not identified at its target page, so readers looking for this information are led here to find nothing in regards to "technology". Steel1943 (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but I have been playing an old shoot em upshoot 'em up on a ZX Spectrum I have here. Something on cassette tape from Mastertronic. I seem to be losing, I think I shall try Paperboy (game). Si Trew (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Other Canadian pioneers in early Hollywood[edit]

It is not clear what "Canadian pioneers in early Hollywood" it is meant to exclude, especially since it currently targets Canadian pioneers in early Hollywood. Steel1943 (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • keep someone searching for this will find what they are looking for at the target article, regardless of what they want to exclude. This would make a poor link from the target article, but that does not mean that it's not a good redirect in other circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I must disagree. Redirects essentially serve as an index to encylopaedia content. If the index is too cluttered, it is harder to search, not easier. One ends up with a surprise (depending on how one searches) when all roads lead to Rome. Judicious paring down of the index is one of our jobs, isn't it? Si Trew (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Miscellaneous information on West Virginia[edit]

There isn't any other information that this redirect presents that West Virginia doesn't since ... the redirect targets West Virginia. Readers looking up this term while looking at West Virginia will be confusingly going back to where they were due to this being a circular reference to itself. Steel1943 (talk) 20:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • weak soft redirect to Wikidata d:Q1371 (the West Virginia item). While the user will find miscellaneous information on West Virginia at the target article, they will be poorly served by a prose article. I don't think that this being a useless search term when search for from exactly one page out of the however many million we currently have, or the many billions of other pages on the internet they could start from is an argument that holds much water. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Strong oppose to Thryduulf's proposal per WP:ASTONISH. There's a good reason why we don't have any soft redirects to Wikidata. A layperson does not have a want for Wikidata and it wouldn't be helpful to them. -- Tavix (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Dark Castle (1984 video game)[edit]

Not mentioned in target article. The inclusion criteria for the list appear to have changed since the redirect was created, such that this game is unlikely ever to be mentioned.

There are many other redirects to the same article (List of Enix games) which may also need review, but let's focus on this one for now. SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Question: what criteria changed? The current selection criterion appears to be "videogames published by Enix". If Dark Castle is a video game published by Enix, it should be included in the list. While it is common for selection criteria to include a requirement for listed items to have articles, it is by no means standard, and this list has a large number of entries with no bluelink. That being said, I'm having trouble verifying that the game actually existed; my results are dominated by Dark Castle, a Macintosh game released in 1986. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
    • My wording was a little sloppy; the problem seems to be less about the actual criteria than the rigor with which they are enforced. There was probably an effort at some point to clean non-notable/redlinked games out of the list, which is also presumably why it switched from an alphabetical format to "console"/"computer"/"online" (thus unfixably breaking the anchor in the redirect). I admit I hadn't really looked at the target article's history that closely; doing that now, I noticed that the current organization seems to have been put in place with this edit, but I still need to find the point at which the list was sorted alphabetically. The talk page appears to have been inactive for several years. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Wakopedia[edit]

Entirely implausible typo. - TheChampionMan1234 02:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep well known synonyms. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC).
  • Delete there seems to be other sites that uses this name. I won't link them here since I don't know how safe they are. Also delete as implausible misspellings. --Lenticel (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as joke and derogatory synonyms for Wikipedia (they are both at the same time both) If we have any other topics by these names, they can be disambiguated. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: If their use is supported by reliable sources they should be kept, otherwise they should be deleted. --Rubbish computer 09:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • keep both. While in some months neither redirect gets more than bot hits, there are months (e.g. December 2014, February and May 2015) where one or both get clearly human levels of views. Reliable sources don't matter for redirects, what matters is whether the terms are used. They're unambiguous and harmless at present, so no reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Rubbish computer 11:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RNEUTRAL. Disparaging terms need significant use in order to have a redirect. I think it would need to be sourced and mentioned in the article in order to keep it. -- Tavix (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lenticel and Tavix - both have good points. If Wackypedia is sufficiently notable for an article, someone can write one; as-is, this is spam, and possibly harmfully confusing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -©2015 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 16:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - It looks like at least one of these are actually in use in the first place by a website that's obviously not Wikipedia. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A trifle annoyed at people demanding references for redirects (again). Try
for starters. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC).
    • (Having said that I would welcome an article on WaCkypedia.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC).
  • Delete both as WP:RFD#D2 with extremely little corresponding WP:RFD#K3 benefit:
    1. It is not particularly useful to redirect every obscure nickname or synonym or typo to a target which is already extremely well-known by its normal name. That's not a reason to delete by itself, but ...
    2. These redirects cross the line into harmfulness when there are actual other topics (whether notable or not) known by those nicknames (as there are in this case). A reader who follows the redirect looking for information about the other topic will be disappointed. Worse, the redirects may mislead readers into thinking the topics are officially related.
See also previous RFDs on Sanic the Hedgehog and Sanic & Taels. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Moderately strong delete (between delete and strong delete) Meaningless pejoratives whose removal will make it no more difficult for readers to find the target article. Compare to the red Obummer. And in fact, these could certainly cause confusion. As noted, Wackypedia is the actual name of another site, and Wakopedia is its own thing too, though I'm really not sure what. Note also that the sources provided don't use "Wakopedia". I would think "Wackopedia" would be the more logical spelling, and it's red. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. One of the terms has been around for a lucky seven years, and the other was published both in The Signpost and on a British news website. If other site(s) with these harmless, funny names become notable and have their own WP articles, then the redirects can be converted. Never let it be said that this enpsychopedia cannot laugh at itself. – Painius  00:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Gutter cleaning[edit]

The target article states that the subject of the article needs cleaning on a few occasions, but doesn't identify specifically what the cleaning is. Also, there are also street gutters and "gutters" in bowling, so even if the subject of the redirect was identified in its target article, the redirect could be seen as ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I could see Gutter vacuum or Gutter sucker redirecting there, but not the nominated redirect. This redirect could give the reader the idea that they are going to locate a concept, not a piece of equipment. Steel1943 (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I've been casting around as well. Street sweeper? But three regulars have three variants, so perhaps Convert to DAB. I'll make a draft for your consideration. Si Trew (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
At Draft:Gutter cleaning. The first three I can source, the last I am trying hard to but this is in the way. Si Trew (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I may have been led up the garden path here. "Gutter sucker" is a good tongue-twister though; fortunately I have only to type it. Si Trew (talk) 21:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd be happy with either that dab or the retarget I suggested above. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Right now, nothing on the draft dab really meets MOS:DABPRIMARY. And I'm not sure how common this phrase is; wikt:gutter cleaning is red (so to speak). With my suburban American background, the phrase makes me think of Rain gutters first; cleaning them is a perennial problem. --BDD (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I actually do not think the disambiguation page draft is helpful in its current state. The draft mentions that "Gutter cleaning is the action of...", etc, but doesn't actually refer to any articles whose subjects are actually referred to as "gutter cleaning". In fact, if anything, the examples listed on the page right now could erroneously be called "Gutter cleaner". Steel1943 (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
    • I would expect to find articles about things that do gutter cleaning on a page called "gutter cleaner" and vice versa, so I really don't think that is a problem. It may though be better to have the dab at Gutter cleaner and repoint this redirect there. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, that makes sense, to put it at cleaner. And if we go for the DAB, I should add Gutta-percha as an outlier. The lede mentions its use in cleaning. I don't wish to add it now, as I don't want to confuse this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 00:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural close, please. I was WP:BOLD and made a DAB of it at Gutter cleaner. No longer in RfD's remit, no longer a redirect. Si Trew (talk) 15:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Next Greek legislative election[edit]

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 [9]. 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)
I know I'm posting while logged out (I lost the login to my account years ago), but I'd like to make a point here that might feed into a broader discussion: I've long found the Wikipedia articles on the "Next [Country] [Body] election" to be a truly useful way to follow political patterns in various countries. Other than the US and UK, I can't find similar repositories in English anywhere else. I'm not opposed to having a discussion on how to handle such articles (for example, there should probably be a standardized convention on whether to refer to a "legislative", "general", "parliamentary", or "federal" election...I think I've seen all three used), but I do think they are both useful and within the scope of Wikipedia.65.124.217.199 (talk) 00:17, 5 September 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)
  • I agree with User:Tavix here. It seems to be argued that the redirect should be kept because people are going to find it useful. But it isn't useful because we don't know excatly when the "next" Greek legislative election will be held but we know when it cannot be held after. If we are to maintain a redirect, then create an article, this is simply speculation about the next election.Curb Chain (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: there is a fundamental difference between those events and the next Greek (and Spanish) elections: predictability and encyclopaedicness. Legislative and similar elections are predictable and there is always encyclopaedic coverage about the next one. Right after the preceding election that is simply the date it will need to be held by, but this date is known and as the date gets closer the encyclopaedic information grows. Political party leadership elections are not predictable, and there is no encyclopaedic coverage of them possible in advance of them. It is not knowable if there will be another Australian constitutional referendum, if there is what it will be about. Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Curb Chain: Just because we don't know the exact date does not mean that the redirect is not useful - someone looking up this (or similar) redirects is going to find the answer "on day month year" and "before day month year" equally useful. I say this with confidence as this has been true for me on several occasions in the past, and will continue to be so in the future. As long as we report the answer to the degree of precision reported in reliable sources (which we do, and which is entirely independent of this redirect) the reader is served. Thryduulf (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
As per my comments on the Spanish election section below. Check naming conventions on future election articles in WP:NCGAL. Also, remind you that we are talking about general elections here; that is, the kind of elections that start parliamentary terms and that have a fixed maximum duration. We are certain about when the "next" general/parliamentary/legislative election would be held at latest. Referendums and internal party leadership elections do not abide on those legal rules, since they are elections of a different kind and are, thus, not comparable. It may be decades before a new given referendum or a new leadership election is held, a time-span not measurable not predictable, but we are sure that a new parliamentary election will be held, at most, within a 3, 4 or 5 year period (depending on the country). Impru20 (talk) 11:54, 26 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)
See my reply to you below (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 24#Next Spanish general election).Curb Chain (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ivanvector and Tavix.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above points. Rubbish computer 18:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The redirect was created when the page was moved after the election was called, and I do not see any harm in keeping it per WP:CHEAP. As far as the redirect becoming outdated, it could always be retargeted to Elections in Greece after the 20th until an article on the next Greek legislative election is created. Furthermore, the page should not be salted as there will be a "next" election in Greece, and until a date for the election is set, "Next Greek legislative election" is the proper name for the article.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I chimed in above arguing for keeping the article, but two points jump to mind. The first is, as TD11060 noted, this discussion will be obsolete in just over two weeks regardless since the September 2015 election will have happened and the then-next election (tentatively 2019, I believe, but quite likely sooner than that given how the polls look) will earn this title. Second, I think it is reasonable to say that a consensus is not likely in that time. I default to preferring a keep, but it strikes me that (with two weeks to go until the election) this debate is akin to rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. I would vociferously oppose WP:SALT for this since there's a prevailing protocol that if an election date is not reasonably fixed, this format is used for other countries and overturning that via a one-shot salting seems a bit "off"; if anything, I'd argue to salt against killing the redirect since otherwise we'll end up re-enacting this drama whenever the next Greek government collapses. 65.124.217.199 (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Maltese Brazilian[edit]

Delete — Maltese immigration to Brazil is not mentioned whatsoever at the target article, nor at Culture of Malta#Maltese emigration and expatriation (Wikipedia's most extensive coverage of the Maltese diaspora). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment This is not exactly a WP:REDLINK situation; the redirect is the result of an non-admin closure of an earlier AFD (arguably out-of-consensus, since all but one participant suggested only outright deletion, not merger or redirection). In any case, I can't see that any content from Maltese Brazilian was ever merged into Immigration to Brazil (there was nothing to merge, not even a population figure), so there shouldn't be copyright issues with deleting this. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per there being no suitable target. Rubbish computer 18:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Immigrants from Brazil to Malta (being a member of the EU) may be notable, especially considering the trade winds and such that would float their boats. However I can't help thinking that "Malteze Brazilian" is the first line of a song, Waltzing Matilda. But only I would ever have thought of that. I am waiting till my billy boils. And she'll come, the Maltese Brazilian with me. Si Trew (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Delete. I can't help but think, though, that this could be a bad way of singing Waltzing Matilda, for which I shall demonstrate.

Maltese Brazilian, Maltese Brazilian
you'll do Brazilian if I malt your tease
and they sat and they sang
as they played upon their honeymoon
you'll come below your Brazilian with me.

Only I would think that, but I have been at too many bad weddings, not all of them my own. I guess it would be like a Brazilian (pubic hair) but in the shape of a Maltese Cross. Si Trew (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

But then, I would say that, cos I own Malta, and Canada too, apparently (except maybe the French bit). Si Trew (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

屋崙[edit]

WP:FORRED. GZWDer (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - directs the readers to what they're looking for, no rationale has been presented for deletion. WilyD 07:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment no it doesn't --Lenticel (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Retarget to Chinatown, Oakland. I think that's the closest target for these symbols given the concentration of people that speaks the Chinese languages within the area. I would like to ask editors who can read the symbols if they are indeed accurate for Oakland (I labelled this as "Weak" because of this issue). --Lenticel (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Google translate translates it as just "Oakland". zh:屋崙 interwikis to Oakland (disambiguation). The difference is that en.wp treats "Oakland, California" as the primary topic for "Oakland", zh.wp has the disambiguation page as the primary. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete ambiguous (could either mean Oakland, California or Auckland, New Zealand; e.g. zh-yue:屋崙 is about the latter) and not suitable for a {{Chinese title disambiguation}}. Does not mean "Chinatown" either. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - As per the arguments stated above, I don't think the redirect is helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - although Oakland has a somewhat significant Chinese population (article says about 9%) other comments above show that this is ambiguous anyway, and not a likely candidate for disambiguation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. Rubbish computer 18:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete since the symbols just means "Oakland" and is vague --Lenticel (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:R#D8. -- Tavix (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

免费[edit]

WP:FORRED. GZWDer (talk) 06:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Not mentioned on target disambiguation, nor on any of the pages linked from it, and the overwhelming majority of the items on that page would not be called "免费" in Chinese. There's also no other suitable target on English Wikipedia which would explain why the user is being redirected there from this title. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Gratis - which should really be mentioned on the Free page, since a reader who writes Free is almost certainly looking for it. WilyD 07:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • comment can any Chinese speaking editors tell us if these symbols mean gratis or libre (probably even both)? --Lenticel (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Hong Konger here. It means "gratis"; there's a separate word for "libre" (wikt:自由). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Thanks 58 for the clarification. We might be better off deleting this entry to pave way for a potential article. We do have a lot of articles that cover how China deals with "libre" like Censorship in China. Perhaps we can make an article that covers "gratis" as well--Lenticel (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I might have a go at that, @Lenticel:. Obviously Gratis is Latin but is used in my London dialect, it is also understood in Hungarian, to mean "free, giveaway, for nothing". I might have a trouble kinda sourcing this, cos slang is hard to source. But I might make a stab of it for your consideration. Si Trew (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Gratis seems to serve the turn quite well. I am not sure that "libre" is so good for an English-speaking audience, what would it mean? And presumably that is the B/V distinction found in modern Spanish e.g. cerveza in Mexican Spanish is is (an English) "B" for the "Z" sound whereas in Spanish SPanish it is an (English) voiced "Th" sound.
I mean, in French, "livre" is apparently any of several sets of defunct currency, whereas I thought it was a book, or is that libre which is a DAB about stuff to do with freedom, but doesn't mention "library", which is a place that lends freely, more or less. (And not to be confused with a Librarie, which is a bookstore: false friend). (Bibliotheque fortunately is red). So you see the V/B confusion there. It's not much related to "livre", pound (in weight and currency). Libro, libra in other Latinate languages, and from which we get Liberty, for example, but not Livery. WP:NOTDIC, and I think that would only serve to confuse.Certainly confused me. Si Trew (talk) 05:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)<up>La lucha continua!
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the redirect has no incoming links. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. Chinese language has no special affinity to the concept of giving things away for free; this is unhelpful to English-language readers. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ivanvector. Rubbish computer 18:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:R#D8. -- Tavix (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

マイクロソフト[edit]

Microsoft is not a Japanese company. GZWDer (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete per WP:RFFL. Not strongly associated with the language in question.Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Changed to weak delete per the retarget suggestion below. The characters listed at the target article below differ slightly, so assuming it is an appropriate target for these foreign characters (not ambiguous, vague, or having other issues), I have no issue with redirecting to Microsoft Japan.Godsy(TALKCONT) 11:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs readers to what they're looking for, which is the whole purpose of a redirect (and necessary to make the project worthwhile at all). No argument has been presented for deletion. WilyD 07:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment no it doesn't --Lenticel (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Microsoft Japan instead. I believe that article is strongly associated with the Japanese language --Lenticel (talk) 07:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Lenticel. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Lenticel. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Lenticel. Rubbish computer 18:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget. I would usually be against these per WP:FORRED but it's there in the lede, though imperfectly because it has both Katakana and Kanji representations and they are not well separated (at least on my screen). I will fix that, without prejudice to this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Duly fixed with this edit. I've taken out the "Co. Ltd" in the infobox as I don't think we usually do that, although I will add back under official_name or some such when I look up the template doc for {{infobox company}}. Of course, these edits are to the proposed retarget article and are not intended to prejudice the discussion about the redirect itself. Si Trew (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
comment. I "fixed" the infoboxes with [this edit], adding the Hiragana under native_name. @Lenticel:, can you check that I haven't completely cocked that up (i.e. copy edit please). Si Trew (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@SimonTrew: Si Trew, I think you should revert "Co. Ltd". It's the closest translation to Kabushiki gaisha which is part of the company's official name--Lenticel (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@Lenticel: yeah I wondered about that. We don't usually refer to companies with their full legal status, do we? And even if we did, "Co. Ltd." is an abbreviation of Limited Company, so we are running around the houses there. I was wondering how best to do that. It is not as if "Co. Ltd." is literally transcribed into the kana, what to do? I shall revert pending your opinion. Si Trew (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
I've put back the "Co. Ltd" in the infoboxes on the name= tag, but didn't roll back or revert technically: here with this edit. I left the "Ltd" without the trailing full stop because, depending on style, if the last letter of the abbreviation is the last letter of its name in full, it should not be stopped. But that depends on your style guide and MOS:PUNC has nothing to say on it. (So "Co." should be stopped but if it were "Cpy", it would not be stopped, according to Fowler, anyway.) At least I didn't entirely cock it up then, I was more worried as there was a pipe character in there cos I think it was a pipe not a Hiragana characterKatakanaMy mistake saying hiragana meant katakana Si Trew (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC), so I removed that. Si Trew (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be some misunderstanding here. The company name does not have "both Katakana and Kanji representations"; it has one Japanese representation which is 日本マイクロソフト株式会社. That name consists of four words: 日本 マイクロソフト 株式 会社 (literally "Japan Microsoft Stock Company"). FWIW, none of those are Hiragana; the second is Katakana and the rest are Kanji, but while a dictionary might find that fact worth mentioning, an encyclopedia shouldn't; it would be like interrupting the lede of Microsoft Incorporated to point out that "Micro" is Greek, "Incorporate" is Latinate, and Soft and -d are Germanic. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Replying briefly because I am translating from French at the mo, I slipped to say Hiragana I meant Katakana. I agree with you that "Co. Ltd" or its transliteration/translation interrupts the flow. I didn't make myself clear that I think it should be in the lede as indeed it is, with its full name, but should not be in the infobox. Indeed, to nobody's surprise Microsoft Incorporated redirects to Microsoft and you can take your pick from Microsoft Inc, Microsoft inc, Microsoft, Inc., Microsoft Inc., Microsoft inc.. (Microsoft anyway is a contraction (linguistics) from microcomputer and software so it may smell Greek but it isn't. Ultimately from Ancient Greek micro, meaning "small", Latin computare, meaning "to count", English soft and English ware, meaning "goods, merchandise" (it's not particularly Germanic but OE? German shafft or English shwa for example arrive by different trains) and then contracted so it is a hybrid word if anything: but it isn't, it's a brand name.)
Somewhere we need to put its legal status: and it's in the lede. I think it is fine just only to be there, but Lenticel suggested I should put it back, so I did. My Japanese is very rusty, so I took Lenticel's advice. Si Trew (talk) 03:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Ah, the plot thins. 株式会社 does indeed go to Kabushiki gaisha, although that's a bit odd to me that that is in kanji not in katakana, an odd mix really I think for an English-speaking audience, but if that it is the right way to write it, that's what we should say. So I am still in a puzzle with how to put the native-name, should I link it thus via 株式会社 (a WP:PIPE would seem even more confusing). Again I state, this is discussing the proposed target not the redirect, so is somewhat off topic. I am wholly in agreement with retargetting it there, but we can do a little cleanup at the target too. Si Trew (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@58.176.246.42: is it OK if I copy-paste our rather uncontroversial comments from your and my talk pages over to here? Si Trew (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw this, {{ping}} doesn't work for IPs. That's fine. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 06:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Aubergine/Eggplant[edit]

Per WP:SUBPAGE; the redirect contains no history as an article, and does not have any incoming links, so the risk of harm if this is to be deleted is low. Steel1943 (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete implausible search term. Either one or the other, can't imagine someone searching for both — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montanabw (talkcontribs) 05:34, 1 September 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Delete. user:FOARP moved the Eggplant article to this "neutral title" in May 2009. The move was reverted 29 minutes later, so incoming links from outside Wikipedia are unlikely. Unfortunately it seems traffic statistics are not available on stats.grok.se for pages with a / in the title. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Does not conform to page name standards and doesn't help users. --Macrakis (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per its implausibility. Rubbish computer 18:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not used anywhere, hits are negligible (there were 24 hits the other day but I guess that was due to this discussion, they usually rumble at one every couple of days from bot activity, I guess). Si Trew (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Nutritious fruits[edit]

This redirect is an WP:NPOV violation, given that "nutritious" is an opinion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm Gumby, dammit![edit]

Apparently, this is a phrase stated by the actor in a skit on Saturday Night Live. However, the phrase targeting the actor himself is probably not helpful. For comparison, this redirect is in Category:Saturday Night Live catchphrases; all other titles in this category are either articles, or redirects to the article of the character who said the phrase (such as a redirect targeting The Church Lady). And I would not recommend retargetting to Gumby since Eddie Murphy portrays a Gumby parody in this skit and not representative of the character Gumby itself. Steel1943 (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Then strike and change your !vote, @CoffeeWithMarkets:. Si Trew (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
So this is all American again, and I shall not remind you of the list of countries that are not the United States but just say that this word was invented from a country that is not the United States. WP:WORLDWIDE.
I have no idea how this came to be primary. Hint: Because there is a WP:USBIAS. Hint: ask Michael Palin, and I have his credit card, which he gave me atg the Proms when I was in the three-and-nines and he was in the stalls, but I think it expired and I doubt he remembers me. I think it probably had expired when he gave it to me... he never gave me his PIN code, the little rotter. Si Trew (talk) 15:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

NHL team draft pick redirects[edit]

Arbitrary break – NHL team draft pick redirects[edit]

Delete per WP:XY and per WP:HOCKEY's consensus that it is not helpful to have individual players redirected to a draft pick article. See also: WP:RFD#Pier-Oliver Pelletier. -- Tavix (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all. per nom, and per at least six other RFDs on the same links. Resolute 02:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all: per nom, and per previous such discussions; this blizzard of implausible redirects constitutes bad faith on the part of the creator. Ravenswing 06:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
    In fairness, these aren't all from Dolovis. Some of the others were done in good faith, but remain just as confusing per WP:XY as the ones created specifically to get first edits. Resolute 13:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator and prior RFDS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:REDLINK and per nom. Whether or not Dolovis created them, these are improper redirects because there is little to no content about these non-notable players at the targets. If they become notable, someone will write about them, but there's little evidence that drafted players are likely to become notable. Of the 12 similar redirects which were nominated previously, 12 were deleted; only one is not currently a redlink. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:REDLINK. -DJSasso (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 18:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. WP:REDLINK does not apply because most of these players are nn. These redirects under discussion have been created over the past 5 years by a number of different editors including myself, User:Alaney2k, User:Canuckian89, User:One95, User:Shootmaster 44, User:Uncleben85, and User:USA1168. What was once considered an acceptable and even helpful edit pursuant to WP:RPURPOSE as a ”sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article”, are now vilified as “bad faith” edits. I don't believe any of these redirects were created in bad faith; and if there is now a consensus that it is wrong for players to be redirected to a list of players drafted by NHL teams, then let's hold a discussion on that point followed, if warranted, by the mass deletion of all such redirects. Dolovis (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Very few if any of these meet the definition of "topics which are described or listed within a wider article". Some are only listed (WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies), some aren't even listed. You can see that there is no consensus supporting creation of these redirects by the number of discussions that there have been on this over the last two years (they're listed above and at ANI) which have all resulted in the redirects being deleted, yet you (and others, granted, but mostly you) keep creating them anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The others created these redirects before we formed the consensus here at RFD that these are not viable redirects. Only Dolovis has been continuing to create such redirects after multiple such deletions. That is where the bad faith comes in. Resolute 00:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

August 31[edit]

(alternate (leaf)[edit]

The paren at the beginning of the title makes this redirect too unlikely of a search term. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as confusing. What type of "alternate" is grouped as "leaf" exactly? --Lenticel (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:R#D5. "(alternate" disambiguated by "(leaf)" doesn't make any sense. Generally improper redirect, so no good place to retarget.Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete fully enclosed but hanging parens, highly unlikely -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unhelpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing and as an implausible search term. Rubbish computer 18:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

2015 explosion[edit]

Delete. There have been many explosions in 2015, and no single explosion is sufficiently more notable than others to warrant having "2015 explosion" redirect to its article. Tdl1060 (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete - per nom. BMK (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment the 2015 Tianjin explosions would probably be the most notable explosion so far this year. I'm actually surprised we don't have an article for explosions by year/decade, seeing as we have Category:Explosions in 2015. I might look into creating one, but until then, I'm fine with whatever consensus develops. -- Tavix (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Jax's second link is kind of what I was looking for, although it is nowhere near complete. -- Tavix (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The 2015 Tianjin explosions is the only explosion in 2015 listed in those articles. While that is arguably the most notable explosion in 2015, there were other notable explosions in 2015 as well, and as such I feel that those articles would be inappropriate targets. If the redirect is to be kept, its target page should be a page that lists all notable explosions in 2015.--Tdl1060 (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Ambiguous.Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong delete WP:BIAS this is not the New York City Wikipedia. There is a world outside of NYC, despite what New Yorkers may believe. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the arguments above CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • weak retarget to Category:Explosions in 2015 which is where anyone searching for this term will find the explosion they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 18:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Clearly not valid as a redirect to a particular explosion. Disambiguation might be better, but as per Ivanvector, agree disambiguation is not good enough. There have been too many explosions in any given year to be worth disambiguating. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I just met you. And this is crazy. So here's my number. Call me maybe.[edit]

Okay, I don't know what the hell all that was, but since there's been a comment on these two that came in the middle of me trying to merge the discussion into another thread, and a weird half-edit-conflict came with it, I've reverted the whole damn thing and am keeping this one separate instead. Apologies for the confusion. Crow recommended listing these two redirects on my talk page which fall afoul of WP:NOTLYRICS and are likely copyright violations; delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

NHL Draft redirects[edit]

Delete per WP:HOCKEY's consensus that it is not helpful to have individual players redirected to their draft article. See also: WP:RFD#Pier-Oliver Pelletier -- Tavix (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all per nom. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. These are proper and useful redirects for NHL drafted, but otherwise nn ice hockey players. Subjects are unlikely to warrant stand-alone articles under GNG or NHOCKEY, therefore meets the purpose of a redirect as sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. Dolovis (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
How are we to guess what someone would be looking for when searching with these terms? Every list that contains a player's name would show up in search results so if anything, these redirects are hindering search, which is the main premise of WP:XY. -- Tavix (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
That would presuppose -- based on God knows what speculation -- that the only thing anyone would know or think of these people is that they were selected in the NHL draft. That is, of course, nonsense -- wouldn't it be at least as likely for them to be associated with the teams for which they starred, and by which they'd be better remembered? Ravenswing 14:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom, per WP:XY and per the numerous previous times redirects of this type have been deleted. Note also there will be many more pointing to single-season team articles, to team draft lists, to award articles for age groups as young as 15-17, etc... Resolute 19:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per XY, and as Resolute states, for the many, many times such implausible redirects that Dolovis has created has been deleted at RfD. Ravenswing 22:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:REDLINK. -DJSasso (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 18:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all - I concur. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Untitled Mike Tyson Biopic[edit]

Delete per "the untitled problem." There should only be redirects of this fashion if it's an official or common name. The target says nothing about the fact that the biopic of Mike Tyson is untitled, and once it gains a title, this will become outdated anyway. -- Tavix (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Retarget to Mike Tyson. HENDAWG229 (talk) 03:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Oscar winner, Martin Scorsese[edit]

Delete as implausible. This reads like this is an official title or something, which it's not. No other Oscar winners have a redirect of this type. There's a note under the redirect that says "about damn time too". -- Tavix (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:HONORIFICS. He is not known by this name in reliable sources, and it's unlikely that anyone would use this for searching. The note was removed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 18:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The Silence (2014 film)[edit]

Delete yet another example of a failed crystal ball. This redirect refers to Silence (2016 film), which is two years off. Silence (disambiguation) lists a lot of films, but none for the year 2014. -- Tavix (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - insufficient history to warrant keeping as a redirect to the revised production date. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • delete. The target article notes that there have been several putative release dates for this film, which may make useful search terms (depending how widely known/used they were) but none were in 2014. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above points. Rubbish computer 18:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Untitled ( Hodgy Beats EP)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per [[WP:CSD#G6. See also longer comment below. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete due to the implausible spacing error. -- Tavix (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - this one appears to be an actual EP called "untitled"; the typo is unambiguous and probably harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The spacing in the disambiguator isn't implausible, but it is odd. If we get rid of this, we can prevent WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS "keep" rationales for similar redirects later. Steel1943 (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete unlikely redirect -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. The page history of the target clearly shows that this was a typo made when moving the article to it's present title that was corrected less than a minute later. It clearly meets the "pages unambiguously created in error" criterion of CSD#G6. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
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.

Untitled (Rebecca Black album)[edit]

Delete as confusing and outdated. Rebecca Black does not have an untitled album. -- Tavix (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - aww, I just had my generic untitled redirect template G7'd. Redirects from "untitled" pages to things which have titles are unhelpful. Redirects from "untitled" pages to artists are a form of nonsense. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as confusing --Lenticel (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • delete per nominator. Redirects from "untitled" to things which have titles may be useful in some circumstances (e.g. if the title is unofficial, or only used in some markets) but not in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 18:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Other Idols in Tirumala[edit]

The redirect is unclear since it does not specify what idols it is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Other Characters in Back to the Future[edit]

The redirect is an unclear circular reference to its target article since it is not clear what characters this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per other editors. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. It's a relic of an old page move, as the history shows. The focus of the separate list that exists now at List of Back to the Future characters was originally only minor characters, with "Other Characters in Back to the Future" as its original title; it was expanded to list all characters a few years later. I'd question this redirect's value as a search term (really the only criteria by which we should be judging it; redirects are just a phrase and have no substance from which anything can be "excluded"), though someone obviously created it in the first place. postdlf (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - regardless of what the reader means to exclude, they're find the result where there directed. There's something inconsistent in an argument that assumes readers are mind-bogglingly dumb, and uses that to justify trying to make it harder to find content. WilyD 07:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WilyD and Postdlf. "Other characters" can be reasonably interpreted to mean minor characters, and minor characters in Back to the Future can be found at this target. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 18:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Postdlf: redirects from page moves are generally useful. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Refine to List of Back to the Future characters#Other characters. If we're going to keep it, it needs to point somewhere where "other" is clearly defined. Otherwise it's (potentially) confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Other Blackadder family residences[edit]

This redirect is confusing since it is not clear what this redirect is meant to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs readers to what they're looking for. Nobody so dumb as to be confused would be capable of language anyways, so there's no need to worry about anyone getting confused. WilyD 07:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, not because it is confusing, but because there is no list in the target of Blackadder family residences (main or other) and so the searcher will not find what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 18:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - is this meant to be a list of residences for Blackadder characters, or a query regarding alternative habitats of various species of the black adder family? Also, I don't see where in the article the residences of the various Blackadders is discussed at all, whether they be the main characters played by Atkinson, his contemporary relatives, nor other members of the Blackadder dynasty who have not appeared in their own series to date. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Blackadder, in the series, did not really have a residence (except in series III where presumably he resided with Prince George, but even then it was not established where that was, and certainly was not Clarence House), and black adders are not known for their assertion of property rights.WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Si Trew (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia/Meetup/Lexington/ArtandFeminism/University of Kentucky[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6 as a page unambiguously created in the wrong namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

No need to keep, no link in GZWDer (talk) 08:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as appears a plausible synonym. Rubbish computer 12:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XNR. While plausible, this particular typo makes it into a cross-namespace redirect out of article space. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CNR, and WP:SUB rules in the namespace that it resides.Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:XNR which is not reader content and improper WP:SUBPAGEing -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Created in error and fixed the same day as creation. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
    • on second thoughts, this is a G6 speedy. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
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.

About watch[edit]

WP:NOTFAQ. GZWDer (talk) 08:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

About world war 1[edit]

WP:NOTFAQ. GZWDer (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 12:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: I have boldly merged these discussions. -- Tavix (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all articles are 'about' the topic -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Did you mean to !vote Keep? Because your argument only seems to support keeping the redirect. WilyD 07:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
      • I mean Ultra strong DELETE this should be nuked, as the only thing Wikipedia is for is to be "about" things, and therefore everything is just about everything. Thus this is useless. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
That argument, ultra strong or not, is essentially WP:NOTHOWTO. We've had loads of these and consens€s seems to be divided.
  • Keep - per the IP, readers are sent to exactly what they're looking for. WilyD 07:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
I must confess my impartility wanes when an editor can't be bothered to refer to another editor except to say "The IP". At least when I disagree with user:WilyD I do so by name. Many IP editors actually have talk pages and stable IP addresses, but I suppose that would be too hard to check. 70.51 has a long history of comments here, but the back end of 70.51's addy does change occasionally. Si Trew (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, implausible search term. -- Tavix (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NOTHOWTO, though I fully expect WilyD will chime in with "no rationale has been stated for deletion", even when a rationale has been stated for deletion. Si Trew (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

About babies[edit]

WP:NOTFAQ. GZWDer (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 12:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - abouts are incapable of producing offspring. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all articles are 'about' the topic; babies already redirects there. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs readers to what they're looking for. Since the article is not a question/answer, and NOTFAQ is about article layout and thus can't be applied to redirects anyways. WilyD 07:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Famous web search engine[edit]

Not mentioned. GZWDer (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as there appears to be no suitable target due to its vagueness. Rubbish computer 12:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: inherently non-neutral (WP:PEACOCK). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Not mentioned where? How about in this news source? This book? 23 hits at Google Scholar? FWSE is a tongue-in-cheek nickname for Google Search that was popular for a couple of years when Google lawyers were trying to discourage people from using Google as a verb. If you wrote "I Googled this" in a news article, you would get a letter from their trademark lawyers telling you that you must never do that again. FWSE became a way to tell your readers what you did, without getting cease-and-desist letters and while thumbing your nose at them. Also, the redirect exists in part because of the dab page FWSE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WhatamIdoing. This is one of those cases where a painfully promotional name is picked up by reliable sources, and as such it's useful here and points where it should. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WhatamIdoing and Ivanvector. This term is used extensively within New Scientist Magazine Feedback pages Pahazzard (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Google isn't the only famous web search engine. WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a "New Scientist" glossary. WP:NEOLOGISM New Scientist internal neologism jargon should not be used to mislead readers as to having only a single famous web search engine. The search results used to "keep" this redirect only show that the superlative is used in conjunction with Google, when it is about Google, but it is merely used in conjunction as a superlative. "A famous web search engine", and "Google ... the famous web search engine" or "The famous web search engine ... Google". Indeed, one would think this should refer to Baidu, BING, Altavista, WorldWideWebWorm or Yahoo, depending on region, context or period. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WhatamIdoing. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Reading murder books tryin' to stay hip[edit]

CSD G1 GoldenRing (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've merged these discussions since nom's rationale is the same and three subsequent comments could have (maybe were) copy-pasted between the discussions (mine was). Feel free to revert of course. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedias in other languages[edit]

I recently moved the Wikipedia page (an essay) that was at the title of this redirect to its new title; I did this since the title of the redirect does not match the scope of the page. The target page is about differences between this Wikipedia and other Wikipedias; it's not a list of Wikipedias in other languages. On this Wikipedia, the page that lists other Wikipedias is in the article space: List of Wikipedias. So, because of this, the redirect directing to its current target could be considered misleading. Right now, in lieu of suggesting that List of Wikipedias be moved to the "Wikipedia:" namespace, in regards to this redirect, I would say delete since its target article doesn't explain the specific request as stated in the title of this redirect, or weak retarget to List of Wikipedias since that would be the most helpful target (but "weak" since that would in turn make this redirect a WP:CNR, which could be seen as misleading or unhelpful in itself.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete due to its vagueness and there appearing to be no suitable target. Rubbish computer 12:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as a standard {{R from move}}. The target existed at this location from creation in 2007 until yesterday, has incomming links and gets over 50 hits a month most months. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It may be a bit early to gauge this title's usefulness via page views (since yes, it was just moved yesterday), but in this case, to use this title's "incoming links" as rationale to keep is a bit bogus. To explain, here's a breakdown of the 9 incoming links to this redirect: 2 are related to this nomination (a result of this discussion being open), 1 is a result of me stating on the previous RFD day that I think there is an issue with the target page previously being at the redirect's title, 3 are in the "User:" namespace utilized in ways that do not require that the title remain (2 are there due to an editor creating some sort of list of a couple of categories in 2008 with probably a hundred examples which they have not maintained, and 1 is of an editor putting a huge list of what seems to be random links in a sandbox page and hasn't edited since 2013), 2 are on WikiProject archives (where there are red links present), and 1 is of the essay creator announcing on the Village pump in 2007 that they created the essay. The last three can be piped if need be so the archives don't lose their history, but in my mind, the links are still intentional so it is not completely necessary; if any of those three need to be fixed, it would be the creator's mention at the village pump. That, and ... If this term is still being searched, wouldn't it make more sense to direct readers to a page that actually contains the information they are looking for if they are searching the title, referencing my "weak retarget to List of Wikipedias" vote above? Steel1943 (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. It wasn't a good title for that essay, but I think it'd be harmful to move that long-standing title somewhere else unless there's a much better target (and I don't think the proposed retarget is a good one). -- Tavix (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

August 30[edit]

Other Wikipedias[edit]

Unclear what is excluded (all Wikipedia editions are included in the target) - TheChampionMan1234 23:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. It's a confusing circular reference to its target article. (However, very weak target to Wikipedia:Wikipedias in other languages, but I may just end up nominating that essay for WP:MFD for lack of helpfulness, or renaming it since I do not think the current scope of the essay meets the title. That, and it would be a WP:CNR, which are usually unhelpful due to misleading readers, such as this one probably would if it were a CNR.) (Revoked this statement since the situation of this page has changed since I made this statement. Steel1943 (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)) Steel1943 (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague. --Lenticel (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 12:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep since it lists all Wikipedias, it should also list whatever 'other' is wanted. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - whatever other wikipedias they're looking for, they'll find it there (and from context, they're almost certainly looking for versions other than English Wikipedia - But a reader can't reasonably object to English Wikipedia also being listed there). WilyD 07:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WilyD and 70.51.202.113. Whichever other Wikipedia they are looking for they will find it at this target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Other than what? Unless "other" is defined, it's confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Election 08[edit]

Delete as vague because this is a WP:RECENTISM violation. This could just as equally refer to a Election of 1908 or Election of 1808 (for the second one) or older '08 elections on the first one (arguably as far back as 508 BC, when Athenian democracy was established). -- Tavix (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Very confusing due to ambiguous dates on both, and lack of a specific government's election on the former. Steel1943 (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Rubbish computer 21:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague "08" can mean 1908, 2008, 1808 etc. --Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I concur. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - a recentism. Ambiguous as to the century.Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Other 2004 Republican Presidential Candidates[edit]

The redirect's title does not make clear what candidates this redirect is meant to exclude. Otherwise, the reference is a confusing circular reference to itself. Steel1943 (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Republican Party presidential primaries, 2004 which has the information on the handful of people who contested the Republican presidential nomination against a sitting president. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -©2015 Compassionate727(Talk)(Contributions) 16:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 17:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Ívanvector. "Other candidates" seems a likely search term, WP:RFD:K2. In (horse) racing terms, "others", means all those not in the place bet, so one has first, second and others, or first second, third and others (depending on the size of the field). You can count me as one of the others). Si Trew (talk) 22:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Ivanvector. Given 2004 saw a single successful Republican candidate for president it is likely that people will search for who any other candidates were. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Ivanvector. Whatever the reader is looking for is going to be there. WilyD 09:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • RTPIV All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC).
  • That has to be the laziest !vote I've ever seen. -- Tavix (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Republican Party presidential primaries, 2004. I'm not thoroughly convinced that deleting this would do more harm than good, as the problem with "other" redirects does apply here too. But it does seem fairly plausible that a reader using this term would be looking for candidates "other" than the obvious one—cf. also-ran. Also, it does date to early 2004. I might look more harshly on it if someone created it last week. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, to add more confusion: 2004 Republican Presidential Candidates and 2004 Republican presidential candidates do not exist (the nominated redirect without the word "Other" in its title.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I've created those redirects as they are clearly useful search terms with no ambiguity over the correct target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Questions:
    • @Tavix: I can't quite tell: were there Republican party candidates for President in those elections? There don't seem to have been in Malawi, but there was in Namibia. What about others?
    • @Thryduulf: If there are Republican party candidates for President in other countries' elections, then don't the redirects you created suffer from the same WP:WORLDWIDE problem?
Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I control+F'd "Republican" and got a hit, but yeah, it looks like a Republican candidate was just fielded in the Assembly election, not the presidential election. But does it really matter? As long as there is an "other" candidate anywhere, the "other" problem is in effect. By other, do you mean "other than American candidates" (ie: "Republican presidential candidates other than the American election"?) It's possible to construe it that way, so you can't say that someone will find what they are looking for at the proposed retarget. -- Tavix (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
That's all true, but if Namibia is the only other country with Republican presidential candidates in 2004, then this could be solved with hatnotes. The U.S. Republican Party is likely to be a primary topic for English-language readers, versus Namibia's Republican Party. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but that's assuming it's a plausible search term to begin with. I don't think it is. -- Tavix (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

August 29[edit]

Team Sarah[edit]

This term is not mentioned in the target article. Through search engines, the top result does relate to a topic with strong ties to the subject of this article (a group that seems to promote the subject of the target article ... yet their site requires a login and password to see anything) ... most of the rest of the results are for a music group from the Philipines that were on a show called The Voice. So, I'd say delete for probably being a WP:PROMO for a third party related to the target, and WP:REDLINK for the music group. Steel1943 (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Just for background info, the team is called as such because they are coached/led by singer/actress Sarah Geronimo. --Lenticel (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - It's not a helpful target. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete it's usually Team Palin. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 13:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Obscure term that is not a likely search phrase. - MrX 21:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - other issues aside, simply Sarah is very vague.Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Palintology[edit]

The term is not mentioned in the target article. All results show this to be some kind of meme or joke in regards to the subject of the target article. So ... delete for essentially being a WP:BLP violation as a redirect ... or very weak retarget to Paleontology as a misspelling. Steel1943 (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 13:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - not a plausible misspelling. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Super Weak Retarget to Paleontology, torn about its plausibility, probably not likely (hence the super weak).Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or retarget. It wouldn't surprise me if "palintology" was a phonetic rendering of "palaeontology" in some accent (a southern US drawl perhaps) but I don't know that. Either way, the current target is not appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Considering that in US English it is "Palentology" ( → Paleontology) (and you have Noah Webster to blame for that) it is just a mere slip, twixt a cup or a leap (you have Shakespeare to blame for that? Macbeth III.iv I think, Mrs. Macbeth being a nagging wife like mine). WP:NOTDIC, [[WP>RFD#D2 confusing]]. Si Trew (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

逻辑[edit]

Logic is not especially Chinese. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Logic in China, the topic with an affinity for Chinese -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Retarget to Logic in China per anon. Unfortunately I'm not sure if the symbols do say "Logic". --Lenticel (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment zh:逻辑 leads to the logic article on Chinese Wikipedia (it backlinks to en:Logic ) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Logic in China unless this does not say logic. Rubbish computer 13:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs the reader to the content they're looking for. Do not retarget to Logic in China, a suggestion which is, frankly, racist bullshit. WilyD 07:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete no suggested target contains any information to tell the reader why they are being redirected there. (OTOH it might be possible to expand logic in China to discuss, encyclopedically, the various historical terminology for logic in China.) 58.176.246.42 (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:NOTDIC, and not a translation dictionary, though I wish it said so at those guidenotes so we need not endlessly repeat ourselves here. This is the English Wikipedia. Now I speak four or five languages not very well but I don't speak or read Chinese. Look it up in Chinese Wikipedia, there is one. WP:ENGLISH. WP:TITLE. WP:COMMONNAME. Do I have to spell it out? Si Trew (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

College logic[edit]

Term not used in article. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete college course names should not redirect to topic articles -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 13:35, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • delete as vague. There's a lot of subjects taught within college logic courses --Lenticel (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I tried to look for Collegiate (a DAB to some schools, as if schools had any logic) and going around the fences the school of philosophy of Plato and Aristotle for example, who took a collegiate approach. Platonic logic is red, but even were it not, it would seem a far stretch, as Collegiate does? Aristotle, in the Metaphysics, generally boils down to a reductio ad absurdem argument, but then he didn't know how many teeth his wife had. Del it, then. Si Trew (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Simply not a helpful redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Islamick[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Implausible misspelling. Islamic means "of or relating to Islam" and "ick" doesn't. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - It's an old spelling. See these Google Books results - Example: "While Amana's fate hangs in the balance, local pundits are already aware that the issue of rearing Islamick fundamentalism could have a direct bearing on local politics come the general election." WhisperToMe (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WTM's findings --Lenticel (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WTM. Rubbish computer 13:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep wikt:-ick is a variant spelling for wikt:-ic -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - plausible spelling. WilyD 07:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
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.

Motor City (2014 film)[edit]

Delete per WP:R#D2. The target contains no mentions of this film and Motor City (disambiguation) doesn't have any entries for films of this name. -- Tavix (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete for the redirect that mentions a year, weak keep for the other. IMDb lists a film of this name as "In Development" [10]. Since I don't have IMDbpro access, I can't see any details, but assuming good faith on the part of the creator, I assume the target is a reasonable one, and the film has simply been delayed. So, the redirect with a year is clearly invalid at this point, but either of WP:R#K3 (a stretch, but not impossible) or WP:R#K7 could apply to the other redirect. Xtifr tälk 09:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
That's not how it works. You're just assuming a connection and we shouldn't do that. Unless there is sourced material in the article on that film, it'll be confusing and/or speculatory. Anyone looking for information on the film will be disappointed because nothing exists there and it's a WP:CRYSTAL violation. When/if this film starts production, it'd be super easy to write an article on the subject, so let's wait until then. See also: WP:REDLINK. -- Tavix (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Ayy lmao[edit]

Know Your Meme confirms that this is an Internet meme, but it's probably not a notable one, and it's not discussed at the target article. BDD (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete to encourage article creation I personally consider Know Your Meme to be a reliable source, although Know Your Meme has had more coverage on more clearly notable memes than this one. It may be possible to find more coverage on other websites. So I favor deleting this redirect to encourage article creation since I think it might be notable. --Mr. Guye (talk) 22:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Encouraging article creation is usually considered a reason to keep a redirect. (Note: that's not my !vote, merely part of my observation.) WP:R#K7: Anyone can edit a redirect; not everyone can create a new page. Xtifr tälk 09:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Xtifr: In this case it'd be an argument for deletion since the target contains no information on the subject. See WP:R#D10. -- Tavix (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Challenge (internet)[edit]

I suppose these "challenges" are a type of meme, but there's no discussion of them at the target article. There's a decent Challenges category that suggests to me an actual article on this topic could be written. BDD (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I would like to make a new section in List of Internet phenomena called "challenges" and populate that section with the category mentioned above. However, that list is getting pretty massive (approaching 200kB). This might be better suited for that talk page, but that page should either a) be split into a few different lists or b) purged of the "non-notable" items and only contain items that have articles. -- Tavix (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to List of Internet phenomena#Challenges. I went ahead and boldly implemented my above comment (b). -- Tavix (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix. Rubbish computer 13:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Tavix. If that wasn't such a clear target, I would have considered captcha as a target. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget, but to challenge-response authentication, to which challenge-response and challenge response redirect (but not Challenge-Response nor Challenge-Response). Sorry to stop it snowing... well done to User:Tavix for creating that list, but I don't think this is quite what people would be looking for. Perhaps if it is, we couléd hatnote my suggestion there? Si Trew (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Post-2009 Pacific hurricane seasons[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete all as uncontroversial housekeeping. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


Delete all as outdated redirects that would now be confusing. The target doesn't contain a list of this sort, and it hasn't since the year listed. -- Tavix (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support deleting all of them. It was a temporary solution. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all - No longer needed.Jason Rees (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete – What the Hink and JR said. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
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.

On-line drama addiction[edit]

I suppose you could say some trolls have this, but it's not a commonly used phrase; it doesn't appear at all at the target article. BDD (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

To anarchize[edit]

Unclear what this is supposed to be referring to. BDD (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • retarget to Anarchy. This seems to be its infinitive verb form --Lenticel (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Anarchy since we've had people advocating to anarchize things for over a century before the concept of internet trolling was even invented. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per above. Rubbish computer 21:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Anarchism. I'm alright with anarchy as well, but the former is seems to describe actually "Anarchizing", as opposed the latter which seems to describe more the word itself.Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOUN. I did some checking on common verbs:
to beCopula (linguistics)
to doTime management (I have an opinion about that.)
to play red.
to live a Chinese book.
to die red.
to join red.
to leave red.
to say red.
to really, really, say very hard otherwise I will start crying red.
to hear red.
to see red.
to smell red.
to touch red.
WP:NOUN , WP:NOTDIC and "to" as the infinitive in English is just one of those things. Most foreign language dictionaries if you have concordances use the infinitive form, but no English dictionary lists the whole lot under "T" for "To" (nor Tea for Two for that matter.) Copula (linguistics) makes a fist of it, but To do is ridiculous. It was Descartes, wasn't it, who said to do is to be. And Rosseau said to be is to do. Frank Sinatra said do be do be do...

Si Trew (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Alternative versions of Thor[edit]

This is a similar problem of unnecessary disambiguation to that below. Again, I think these should go to a title like Thor in popular culture, but lacking that, I'm not sure what to do with these. Neither Thor#Modern influence nor Norse mythology in popular culture seem like very good retargeting options. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete WP:BIAS Wikipedia is not the Marvel Encyclopedia. Thor is not a Marvel invention. This is clearly prejudiced against non-Marvel topics -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per 67. Rubbish computer 21:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per anon --Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I indirectly created the redirect when I originally moved the page from Alternative versions of Thor to Alternative versions of Thor (Marvel Comics). However, the idea behind the page move is line with the rationales listed above. The title needed to be disambiguated to clearly define the scope of the article, the Marvel Comics Thor. I agree with @BDD: for the need of a Thor in popular culture article, to list the other incarnations of Thor.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think I really like the idea of simply deleting these and leaving the target article titled as is. We typically shouldn't have titles like "Foo (bar)" if "Foo" is red. --BDD (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Thursday. Si Trew (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Thor in other media[edit]

Outside of category names, it's unusual to see disambiguators in child articles. In these cases, there's unnecessary disambiguation, which is especially problematic. I understand the logic here, though. We really could use a Thor in popular culture article, but for now, I recommend retargeting these to Norse mythology in popular culture or moving the longer title over the redirects and retargeting the second item there. I'm tempted to favor the moving, but retargeting probably makes more sense in the long run. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete or REtarget WP:BIAS Wikipedia is not the Marvel Encyclopedia. Thor is not a Marvel invention. This is clearly prejudiced against non-Marvel topics -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Retarget to Thor#Modern_influence. Not exactly the best target but at least our readers can gain some info about Thor in media and film there. --Lenticel (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Lenticel. Rubbish computer 21:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per my rationale in the other discussion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Women in law[edit]

WP:BIAS. Hat tip to This is Paul for drawing attention to this in a similar RfD. BDD (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Lquilter, it was Lady lawyer (discussion). Still ongoing as of now. --BDD (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete WP:Systematic bias. This is not the US Wikipedia. Women exist outside the United States. Law exists outside the United States. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete to encourage article creation --Lenticel (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete noticed this because it was mentioned at Lady lawyer. I was thinking the same thing as Rubbish computer above.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I would much prefer we have a "women in law" article that focuses generally and not just in the US. So delete without prejudice for creation of a new article. --Lquilter (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
That would be WP:RNEUTRAL, contrary. Would you suggest we also have Men in law, then? Le alone that we have Mother in law, and Sister in law ridiculously redirexts to Sibling-in-law, for fucks sake, I am going to delete that, no RS. These were red when I started this discussion at RfD and if I find that another editor has been making them on the sly, their contributions are about as much use as a snake in an arse kickikng competition.
Mother-in-law I have marked to section.
Sister-in-law was red.
A DAB it if anything. Now, there is no point saying essentiall WP:FORRED unless you want WilyD up your tail for "no good reason has been presented for deletion" even when one has but you have not explicitly said so. I say DAB it. It could mean the historical role of women not having the vote, suffragette movement (haven't checked if that is R yet etc). Could be the whole thing about Wome's suffrage (again haven't checked yet, on purpose). Could be Fenűminism at which at a DAB I doubt we should branch into its various forms (AND STOP HITTING ME OUCH WIFE GET OFF ME)
In the alternative, who's gonna write the article, Cherie Booth? Probably me, cos I have a copy of The Female Eunuch on my bookshelf, and have the privilege of Germaine Greer completely ignoring me on Parker's Piece. Bloody hell, I bought her book. Si Trew (talk) 08:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • OK let's start.


I am sorry I didn't realise Wikipedia is probably also WP:SEXIST cos most editors are male. On the whole, they try to stop hunting wildebeest and edit intelligently. A woman trying to WP:PUSHPOV is not what I want to find, "LadyLawyer", aka {{ping|Lquitter]]. Now, with the gramps, the grandmother has two different places it could go, and the poor old grandpa has nothing to go to. Did I ever say this was simple? Si Trew (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I would also add Women in Love to thart DAB. Many cultures do not have the English 'W' and pronounce it V. Si Trew (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
With extreme prejudice I have to say that with this edit here at RfD, User:lquilter removed all my comments. Whether he or she likes them, they are for discussion. With extreme prejudice I think lquilter did wrong to remove them from the discussion. Si Trew (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The Rock Poster Art of Todd Slater[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was WP:BOLD-ly restoring article. This is essentially a "wrong forum" close. TheLongTone (the editor who converted this article to a redirect), if you have an issue with the state of this content, I would recommend nominating it for WP:AFD. As it stands, due to lack of coverage at the targeting regards to identifying the redirect, the redirect could be seen as unhelpful. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I request that the redirect be deleted and the article it replaced be reinstated. The article was removed by user @TheLongTone without engaging in Talk first. Attempts at reasonable discussion via Talk page have been met with disrespectful attitude and no attempt to discuss. Ukebloke (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

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.

Other Government Agency[edit]

The redirect is unclear what "government agency" it is meant to exclude. It is a misleading circular reference to its target article. Steel1943 (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 17:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - whatever other government agency they're looking for, the reader will find it at the target. We are writing an encyclopaedia so readers can us it, to those who've forgotten. WilyD 07:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Will they, Wily? The target article isn't a list, has no information about government agencies in the great majority of the world's countries. If you want to play a game where you name agencies mentioned there and I name agencies not mentioned there—well, I wouldn't recommend that you play with any sort of wager. --BDD (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, the article is sort of a list - probably, they'll have to navigate to a sub-page or two deep, as is common with all sorts of searches. It's just how Wikipedia is organised. Personally, I find it much more navigable than single, enormous articles. WilyD 15:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WilyD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. We can't assume that the "other government agency" someone is looking for is on that page. -- Tavix (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. And what other other government agency may they like to find? Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Si, I'm happy to play the game I offered to WilyD above with you. I'll start with Direction générale de la statistique et des études économiques. Your turn. --BDD (talk) 13:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking of Department of administrative affairs (and others, but not Department of Administrative Affairs) → Yes, Minister. But Quango is possible. Your turn. Si Trew (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
We should take this to the talk page if we're really going to do this. I'll give you a hint, though—I'm looking at Category:Government agencies by country, which has god only knows how many articles in its 72 subcategories. There are approximately 20 specific government agencies named at the target article, so there are dozens, if not hundreds, of "other" government agencies a reader could be searching for. And Quango, by the way, is a type of government agency, not an agency itself. --BDD (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Damn, you have thrown the shuttlecock back into my wicket then. Indeed, "other" is meaningless and I think that is kinda WP:CONSENSUS here by now, but somebody had to hit the nail on the thumb. Types of Government Agency and List of Types of Government Agency are both red, and I don't think we need to start discussing type theory do we? Poor old Bertie Russell got a bit confused with it all, but he only invented it to try to get out of the trouble with infinities in set theory. I can assure you there is no such thing as infinity, it is turtles all the way down. Si Trew (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@BDD: I agree with you, more seriously, this should be on a talk page somewhere, but which page would you suggest? Talk:Other Government Agency would seem the bleeding obvious, but that is a bit kinda sub judice when the redirect is here for discussion, and were it to be deleted, so would its talk page. But I'll happily follow there and quite happy if you delete or move this discussion to there, as long as we leave a pointer from here, which I am sure you will do. Si Trew (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Kobato[edit]

Shall I convert this redirect page into a two-topic disambiguation page consisting of just Kobato. and Kobato Station? George Ho (talk) 04:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Huh. Do we know what the station was named after? --BDD (talk) 04:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment there are three topics, the anime, the manga, the station, and wiktionary wikt:鸊/wikt:鵻 (wikt:こばと/wikt:kobato); Two just happen to be covered by a single article, because of weird WPANIME conventions on not making articles, even though the rest of Wikipedia have separate articles for comics and TV cartoons. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - While having a disambiguation page that separates out the anime, the manga, and the station... that seems right to me. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
CoffeeWithMarkets, could you clarify? Do you want to keep the redirect as is and have a Kobato (disambiguation) created, or would you prefer to disambiguate the base title? --BDD (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. Rubbish computer 17:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Move over R the article at Kobato. to Kobato as WP:PRIMARY (and then delete the R with the stop). I can't see that the trailing stop (be it in English or kana) is actually part of the name, and a gsearch for example brings up several results without it (Wikipedia here being the first, but that's no surprise). F'rexample kobato.wikia.com/wiki/Kobato_Hanato doesn't use the stop neither a kana stop nor English one. @Lenticel:, what do you think? Si Trew (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Dabify to Kobato. and Kobato Station. Of course, it can also be resolved with a hatnote at Kobato.. --Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Administrative city[edit]

Generic term that is now redirected to Cities of South Korea. Rationale is unclear. Think it should be deleted. Savonneux (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep and refine to Cities of South Korea#Administrative city, or disambiguate if there's any other topic in Wikipedia called "administrative city". Redirects don't need to be preemptively disambiguated if there's no other topic by the same name. This is the common and official translation of "행정시". 58.176.246.42 (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I just meant that it is hopelessly vague and it doesn't seem to refer to anything on the page it redirects to. Of note also is that "administrative city" seems to refer specifically to capitals and the like, per Encyclopaedia Britannica, so it would be deleted as a WP:DICDEF on here pretty fast. Translation thing maybe?--Savonneux (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Refine. "Administrative city" is a specific type of subdivision in South Korea that is not apparently used elsewhere. Many places have an administrative capital that would make a good hatnote target if it wasn't a red link. This is comparable to Adminstrative region (a specific type of subdivision in Brazil) and Administration county (a former specific type of subdivision in the UK). Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Refine to Cities of South Korea#Administrative city per above points. Rubbish computer 13:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Huh. Someone unfamiliar with South Korea's system of designating cities would probably be ASTONISHed at this, as I was. I guess I would expect something discussing the idea of a city as an established administrative unit, as opposed to just a bunch of people and buildings together. That said, this isn't a term I'd search for, and it seems implausible overall, so perhaps readers using this would indeed be looking for the South Korean concept. --BDD (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • If we have anything discussing that idea then I'd certainly consider linking to it either a dab or via a hatnote, but I haven't found anything. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Very weak retarget to Capital city since that is where most political states' administration is located. (Seriously, very weak.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment per BDD, this should not be a redirect, either it should be a stub article or a set index or something -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Aaaaaa[edit]

I will take and add WP:PROMO Si Trew (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Same as 'Aaaaaa'. Vincent60030 (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Vincent60030 (talk) 11:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC) I think this redirect should be deleted since there is already the shortened form Aaaaa. So, this redirect should be 'merged' into the other redirect. Vincent60030 (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Vincent60030 (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete with nom. Aaaaa also goes there, and could perhaps be added to the nom. Si Trew (talk) 07:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well, I think that Aaaaa redirect is also a possible search option since it is very close to Aaaaa! because ppl normally don't use exclamation marks to search for something. So, I think only this one will be deleted and further submissions will be declined leaving only 'Aaaaa!' and 'Aaaaa'. Vincent60030 (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. We also have Aaaaaa and Aaaaaaa (but not Aaaaaaaaa). I limited my comments to when I thought it was useful to keep. We have not Aah! but Aah → DAB at AAH, for example. Aha also → AHA, a DAB, but of course is a completely different band from A-ha). Si Trew (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I knocked the two together. Hope that is OK. Added another, too. A bit WP:PROMO to have all these redirects to one book. Si Trew (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
We have AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA for example. Needless DAB, promo. The plot thins. Si Trew (talk) 11:27, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Aaaaaaa and keep the longer one (because redirecting from the title without punctuation is a common form of {{R from stylization}}) and Aaaaaa (because Steam, a major game retailer, uses six "A"s here so it would be {{R from alternate capitalization}}). --66.87.124.119 (talk) 14:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I won't !vote here because I'm WP:INVOLVED, but I agree with the IP above. We should only have redirects that are legitimate alternate capitalization/stylizing of names of the game that are documented in reliable sources (and I think Steam is okay since WP:COMMONNAME only talks about "reliable English-language sources" not independent sources). If I were to vote, I would vote to keep delete Aaaaaaa and keep the others. If we're not going on sources, we'd have to have redirects from all 20 varients ranging from Aaaaaa to Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 15:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete the non-capitalized redirects; keep AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA as a legitimate alternate title. WP:PROMO doesn't apply here - if the redirect title were Greatest game ever then PROMO would apply, but titles are not promotional merely by existing. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but these are not titles (are they?): if AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA!!! is the title of the book and "a reckless disregard for gravity" is the subtitle, then the topic should be moved to reflect that: we don't generally list things with their subtitles (is this WP:COMMONNAME? I mean we do have Lines written a few miles above Tintern Abbey but not in all its possible variants of capitalization, and we don't have Lines written a few miles above Tintern Abbey while Revisiting the Banks of The Wye during a tour, 13 July 1798 even though it was originally published with that title.
Perhaps my reasoning is rather circular: the book is not called "Aaaaaaa" in any form of capitalisation, or anything like it. So the redirects to it, I argue, are promotional because they redirect to one book whose title is nothing like what the redirect says. Now, I am not claiming they are intentionally promotional, I am simply saying they have that effect. But I can see why you would say that PROMO don't apply and you are probably right: I'm quite happy to strike that part of my argument. If not, I still see WP:COMMONNAME comming into play. Si Trew (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
According to the article, the video game (not book) is properly titled as it appears here, i.e. it is not a title-subtitle thing. The article also mentions in the lede that Aaaaa! (six letter A's total) is a proper shortened title. Based on that I think we can call Aaaaaa a {{R from alternate punctuation}}. I think we can keep AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA for the same reason; although the article doesn't call it a proper short title, it's a natural short title given the hyphen. The other redirects with numbers of letters A other than six should be deleted, unless a better target is available. My comment above is struck because I can't work out a change to it without disrupting the thread that follows, so I'll restate below. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I always wanted to be first in the dictionary, but I found it such Aardvark. (Someone had to do it.) Si Trew (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep If one of the first two is a typical shortened name, that's obviously valid, and I don't expect readers to have perfect knowledge of how many repeated characters to include. The third, though a bit bizarre, doesn't seem ambiguous. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Kenneth Peter Townend (1921–2001)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This redirect is from a title that wouldn't likely ever be accessed. It is simply clutter in the article graph. Kiwi128 (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep WP:CHEAP -- the redirect is accurate, and a common way to write people out in the world at large is in this manner -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as a harmless redirect, given that the "disambiguator" is the period of years which the subject was alive. Steel1943 (talk)|
  • Weak Keep - While this is of marginal use, redirects are cheap. I don't think keeping this hurts anything. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per above reasons. Rubbish computer 11:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - plausible search term. WilyD 07:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
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.

IPad Pro[edit]

There is no such thing as an iPad Pro, as As11ley stated in the edit summary for revision 669499089. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Dark Invasion[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close on the first redirect, since Captain Assassin! wrote an article on the book. Retarget the second redirect there since it covers the potential film. Consider this withdrawn. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:R#D2. There is no mention of this film at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - The book Dark Invasion is notable enough to have an article of its own. The film is just a project right now and falls under WP:CRYSTAL.
Making a note here that the above comment was added by me. Since there's now an article for the book, I'm fine with a Retarget. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep both as I've added content in the book article and redirect the film article to that. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 02:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Captain Assassin! Rubbish computer 11:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
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.

August 28[edit]

M. Night Shyamalanadingdong[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was both speedy deleted per criterion G10 by different administrators. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steel1943 (talkcontribs) 19:54, 29 August 2015

Delete per WP:R#D3 because this is a disparaging redirect only meant to ridicule this director's name and/or his films. Note that ding dong is a pejorative that means "an idiot". -- Tavix (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: I noticed you deleted one of these and not the other. If you think the other one to be G10, could you delete it so this can be closed? If not, could you explain why you believe them to be different? Thanks. -- Tavix (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per WP:G10, although this is probably already about to take place. Rubbish computer 17:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
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.

Hitman for Hire[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus on the first one, essentially, so retarget to Contract killing. Feel free to nominate that one separately. Delete the others, straightforwardly. --BDD (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:R#D2. No mentions of this film at the target article. -- Tavix (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I had also considered bounty hunter but wasn't sure if it was a well enough established term. -- Tavix (talk) 05:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per above and as Hitman for Hire's capitalisation suggests it can only refer to a specific film, rather than contract killing in general. Rubbish computer 17:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Title case capitalization frequently appear as redirects though, since the world at large uses title case, while Wikipedia uses sentence case. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget "Hitman For Hire" and delete the other two per 67.70.32.190. We do not require correct capitalisation of search terms. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
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.

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? (2014 film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:R#D2. There is a 1962 film and a 1991 film, but nothing from 2014 or 2015. -- Tavix (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 17:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as housekeeping, as such films do not exist. Rubbish computer 17:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete normally. These do not meet any speedy deletion criteria as far as I can tell. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
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.

2017 Stanley Cup playoffs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:R#D2. Someone searching for this would want specific information about the 2017 Stanley Cup playoffs. However, they would be disappointed because the target article doesn't provide any of this information. It's better to keep this red so we don't get anyone's hopes up in the meantime. -- Tavix (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. I was on the fence about nominating this one myself. It is really just another of Dolovis' bad faith "get the first edit so I can claim I created the article" edits, and more of his typical unnecessary time wasting. Resolute 22:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Problems with the creator aside, there is a pretty strong consensus here that redirects of that type are not helpful. There are a few 2016/7 redirects that have gone through RFD recently and they've all been closed as delete. For example: 2016 Australian Open, 2016 French Open, 2016 New York Yankees season, 2017 Indian Premier League, 2017 AFC Champions League, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Toronto Maple Leafs. Ha! Not likely. Delete per nom. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I was debating about nominating it myself. Just one of a long line of pathetic first edit gathering for Dolovis. -DJSasso (talk) 12:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: The 2016 version has been added to the nomination. -- Tavix (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rubbish computer 17:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, let's be patient, the 2015-16 season (let alone the 2016-17 season), hasn't even started yet. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete the 2017 article, maybe consider leaving the 2016 article as it is. We did leave last season's ECHL playoffs as a re-direct during the year leading up to it. Deadman137 (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
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.

Pier-Olivier Pelletier[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Delete per WP:XY. Multiple potential targets with no way to determine what the reader would be expecting to find. Yet another bad faith creation of Dolovis (talk · contribs), who has wasted a tremendous amount of community time with similar redirects, all inevitably deleted. Also nominating Chris Durand (ice hockey) for the same reason. Resolute 22:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per previous consensus. -- Tavix (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete yet again. Starting to consider asking for a redirect creation ban for him. -DJSasso (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I think it is becoming plainly obvious that a page creation ban is necessary. His non-redirect pages are no better. Resolute 21:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Rubbish computer 17:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: per above. I'd absolutely be happy to see a page creation ban slapped on him, because this nonsense got ridiculous years ago. This isn't any attempt to improve the encyclopedia; this is a manic rush to Game High Score for article "creation." Ravenswing 02:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
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.

Pennsylvanien[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to Pennsylvanian per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 19:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Arguably, there is a connection between German and Pennsylvania. But I think it might make more sense to treat this as a misspelling of Pennsylvanian and retarget there. That page, of course, does link to Pennsylvania. Thoughts? BDD (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, even if there are other Pennsylvanias (I don't know) I think this is likely to be the most well-known usage among English speakers, so WORLDWIDE isn't an issue. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
...I think we both misread BDD's nomination statement... Steel1943 (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
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.

Star Trek Expanded Universe[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was restore article. --BDD (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This redirect is not mentioned in the target article. Per the article's history, it seems that the redirect was formally an article that was blanked/redirected for essentially being a WP:NOTWIKIA violation. Steel1943 (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a descriptive term for what the content of the article describes - see Expanded universe for what an expanded universe is. It lists Star Trek as one of the two most prominent examples. Thryduulf (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, per the target article and the article you referenced, that is not the case: the article Star Trek spin-off fiction lists declared "non-canon" works, but per the article Expanded universe, that term "expanded universe" refers to "canon" works. Per this comparison, the nominated redirect refers to the opposite concept as presented in its target, and thus is treading a fine line in regards to misinterpretation. Steel1943 (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - the exact title might not be mentioned, but it's an interchangable term for the same thing. WilyD 09:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems clear that Star Trek has an expanded universe. I suggest further discussion address the questions of the likeliness of this as a search term and whether the target article addresses what a reader would be seeking with this term. Which other pages are relevant, if any?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore this revision of the article (as an alternative to deletion per WP:REDLINK) since the subject seems to clearly be notable. The article needs references, though. It appears to have survived a VfD and an AfD at some point, but ended up being merged some time later possibly against consensus. The revision I selected seems to be the newest before a small group of editors started tearing the article apart, leading eventually to redirection. I don't think this was a WP:NOTWIKIA violation; as Thryduulf says this is one of the most prominent examples of canonical extra content, the other being Star Wars expanded universe which has a decent article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Restore and then move to Star Trek expanded universe per MOS:CAPS. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore per Ivanvector. Rubbish computer 17:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore per Ivanvector - a good find. This supercedes my "keep" recommendation above. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
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.

Other storylines in Star Trek[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Redirects' titles are unclear on what Star Trek storylines they are intended to exclude. Steel1943 (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep I think it's fairly clear that it is non-canon stories. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC).
...Unless the reader is at the time looking at these redirects' current target, then wants to look up "Other storylines in Star Trek", then arrives back at that page. These redirects have the potential to create confusing circular references to itself. Steel1943 (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague. "non-canon" ≠ "other" and we can't assume that is the connection someone wants to make. -- Tavix (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Data (Star Trek)#Spot, which is clearly the best of the minor storylines in all of the Star Trek series. No, I'm not serious; delete per Tavix. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as this appears to vague to have a suitable target, and appears implausible outside the context of searching within a Wikipedia article. Rubbish computer 17:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
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.

Other use[edit]

I'm not sure if there is any good retargetting option for this in the article space. I can only see this redirect being useful as a WP:CNR, but it may be better to serve readers by having it deleted. Steel1943 (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

  • keep - "other use" is a plausible search term/synonym for any of the meanings of "disambiguation", particularly given the frequency of it's use in Wikipedia hatnotes. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Rubbish computer 14:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague. I'm sensing a Wikipedia bias here. "Other use" can mean to use something in a different/abnormal/additional way (eg: recycling would be an "other use" for some material). If we want it pointing to a vague disambiguation page that doesn't contain the term, I'd suggest a retarget to use, but it'd be better off deleting it because we'd have no idea what someone would be looking for. -- Tavix (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
When does this vagueness bother you or anyone else? -DePiep (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep: Someone types "other use" into the search bar. A redirect forces them to the page Disambiguation (disambiguation). How do we know that is what they want? It's confusing, especially because there isn't any mention of "other use" there so they'll end up disappointed or frustrated. There are several other things that "other use" could refer to and we can't know what someone would want. -- Tavix (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
"A redirect forces them" - No, it leads them to that page. That is how redirects help. Now AFAIK, "disambiguation" is a synonym for "other use", so the reader is helped out :-). And here is the check: if "other use" does have other meanings, we should have a page Other use (disambiguation). -DePiep (talk) 19:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@DePiep: In Wikipedia, other use means disambiguation, but that's not always the case elsewhere. I gave an example in my deletion rationale. The problem with Other use (disambiguation) is that it would read like a dictionary, by defining all possible meanings and we don't do that per WP:NOTDIC. It does force them to that page because there aren't any other options given. If this were deleted, it would take someone to a search page, they would find what they're looking for, and move on with their life without being confused or frustrated that they were pigeonholed into an irrelevant disambiguation. -- Tavix (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
If Wikipedia has no other definitions defined for "Other use", then you point is moot: there is no confusion. If there are other meanings, as you state, then the dab page is the way to link to them. WP does not have to cater for non-encyclopedic possible other meanings. IOW, that "frustration" is caused by the fact that an other expected (or possible) meaning is not present in WP. Not the fault of the redirect. (This also answers the WP:nodict: indeed. But a dab page is not a dictionary, it does wikilink). -DePiep (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
How does that make my point moot? There is confusion because the term is vague. That's what I'm saying. If there were other ARTICLES, then you link them with a disambiguation. However, the case we have here is that there are other DEFINITIONS of the term. You don't create a disambiguation for that, per WP:NOTDIC. I distinguish between the terms "vague" and "ambiguous". When something is "ambiguous", it means there are multiple meanings or interpretions. You can fix this and make it unambiguous with a disambiguation page. When something is "vague", it's unclear and imprecise, and a disambiguation couldn't help fix that. -- Tavix (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
What vagueness are you talking about? -DePiep (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
"Other use" has other uses besides "disambiguation" and we can't assume someone is looking for "disambiguation" when they're actually looking for an other use of "other use". -- Tavix (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
So I can close the circle: if those other meanings are encyclopedic (=in WP), then go WP:DAB. If not present in WP, then not relevant and not an argument. (Third option: you know of other meanings, not in WP: irrelevant, not a DICT). -DePiep (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Close, but not quite. If not present in WP, then it shouldn't be in a dab (WP:DABMENTION) and therefore should be deleted due to confusion (WP:R#D2) because there's no mention of the term in the dab. -- Tavix (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. No harm, no competing target, good for google. Sure "dabisabugit" is the perfect correct term, but not the most known term. -DePiep (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Everything in article space, including redirects, should be focused on the general reader. "Other use" to mean disambiguation is an encyclopedia-builder-focused redirect. In an encyclopedia about wrenches, "other use" might redirect somewhere that discusses conking someone on the head with a wrench. In an encyclopedia about encyclopedias, "other use" might redirect to disambiguation. In a general-purpose encyclopedia, it would not redirect anywhere. It would be deleted. Flying Jazz (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Flying Jazz who has hit the nail on the head with another nail to nail it in with (an other use of nails). "Other use" means everything, if we leave aside WP:NAVELGAZING. I don't see how this helps anyone find anything. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

New army sword[edit]

Not mentioned in target article, and I'm unable to find any references via search engines that ties this redirect's phrase with any specific subject. Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @BDD: Dang, you beat me to it! I was about to make this nomination "magically disappear" after I noticed this myself, but ahh ... can't do that now! Anyways, I'll keep this open since the verdict may be out on this being a proper translation, so we shall see. Steel1943 (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't mind if you want to make it disappear. I think this is probably legitimate. I was going to add Neo army sword, but was less certain of that one. A quick search shows that it is used, however, though not a great deal. --BDD (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I actually have the same concern about the "army vs. military" translation myself. In fact, I'll go ahead and bundle Neo army sword with this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep "new army sword" - hmm, I was going to point to Japanese sword#New swords. Guntō seems to be any sword of inferior quality mass-produced for army/military use, so I think "army" and "military" are interchangeable here whether the Japanese words are or not. There are different words for naval swords, for example. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
...But delete "neo army sword" - that's clearly invented. The prefix "neo-" is well out of place in a discussion of Japanese things. Stats show it's not in use. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe retarget "neo army sword" to Neo (The Matrix)#Powers and abilities where it discusses Neo's ability to stop a sword with the edge of his hand. That's pretty far-flung, though, and as I recall the sword he stopped was a comically-oversized claymore and not anything remotely Japanese. But it's been some time since I saw the movie. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "neo army sword" -wikipedia returns very few results, but a couple look like reliable sources. I really don't know any Japanese, so I don't know if the prefix "neo" might be a better translation than just "new". I think these two should probably match each other. --BDD (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

How the universe was created[edit]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:51, 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. This particular answer may not be unambiguous, but it redirects to a general article that covers all possible answers, which is appropriate. ~ RobTalk 14:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as a reasonable redirect. The redirect itself is not an FAQ . -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 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)
  • Double keep. Even if NOTFAQ did apply to redirects, "How the universe was created" is a (nontechnical) synonym for "cosmogony", and is distinct from the question "How was the universe created?" FourViolas (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Stong Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. That aside, this term addresses "any model concerning the coming-into-existence", not the "how" specifically.Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:49, 9 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)
  • Keep It looks like the target article is about how the universe was created. Theories, at least. --BDD (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Chronology of the universe, which describes in as much detail as we would be likely to provide here how the universe was created according to prevailing scientific consensus. The redirect isn't study of how the universe was created. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The Big Bang. Malamockq (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY since I don't believe there to be one target suitable for this query. -- Tavix (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:CHEAP. WP:NOTFAQ seems to me to refer to content, not titles. It says, "Wikipedia should not list Frequently Asked Questions." This is a potential (if somewhat unlikely) search term, not a list. And I see no other arguments raised, so I have to default to WP:CHEAP. I do agree that The Big Bang is a reasonable alternative target, but Cosmogeny seems broader, and indeed, lists BBT right up at the top of the article as the prevailing Cosmogeny today. On the other hand, Chronology of the universe only touches on the topic, and seems far less appropriate to me. Xtifr tälk 09:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I prefer to retarget since cosmogony describes the study of the origin of the universe, but does not describe the universe's formation (as we currently know it) except with a link to Big Bang, so it does not address "how the universe was created". It would work fine if we retargeted to Big Bang also. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

How radiation affects Perceived temperature[edit]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:53, 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. ~ RobTalk 14:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep plausible search terminology. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:23, 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 16:34, 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 09:11, 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(TALKCONT) 03:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    • This redirect is not a question, it's merely a rephrasing of the title. How could NOTFAQ possibly be relevant to something that isn't a question, and doesn't involve questions in any way? WilyD 16:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Strange capitalization, but since the target article has a descriptive name, we should be generous with redirects to it. --BDD (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps "radiation" is vague in the phrasing of the redirect, but that's only matching the article title. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely, but that doesn't affect my argument. It's possible that there are heating effects from other forms of radiation (in fact I think that we have articles about some of them) but this target does not address them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that might be a problem with the article though. Maybe an WP:AFD is in order? WP:NOT-FOR-GETTING-OTHER-PEOPLE-TO-DO-YOUR-HOMEWORK... -- Tavix (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as this does not appear to be phrased as a question. Rubbish computer 17:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  •  Delete. Without the odd capitalization, I might argue to keep as a plausible search term if I could convince myself the target was a reasonable one. But as it is, the question doesn't arise. Xtifr tälk 09:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

How internet use affects the human brain[edit]

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

  • Keep because this does not appear to be posed as a question, but rather as a statement. If it was How does internet use affect the human brain?, I would say Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 12:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: seems plausible enough. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: An interrogative pronoun, phrase, or word should not be used in a title in a scholarly encyclopedia, IMHO. Perhaps they are permissible in a children's encyclopedia or simple-english work when the actual subject matter may be less than obvious to the audience. Beyond that it seems those titles only convey that the authors aren't sure of their capability to pick a proper subject matter. These redirected titles should be deleted, they are remnants of article history, not intentional alternate titles. Kbrose (talk) 14:33, 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. ~ RobTalk 14:57, 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. (If a question mark was added to the end of this redirect, it would be a question missing the word "do". It could have been possible that the question mark was unintentionally omitted from this title.) 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. If it was a different redirect, it might be a question, but it's this redirect, and it's not a question, making the invocation of the unrelated NOTFAQ doubly bizarre. Please familiarise yourself with policies before invoking them, your failure to do makes discussion of this redirect difficult. WilyD 16:29, 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 09:06, 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(TALKCONT) 03:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, aids searching which is what redirects are for. Also harmless and cheap. Siuenti (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep That's what the target article is about. I don't see a problem. --BDD (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - as opposed to my rationale in the discussion below, narrowing the scope of the query from "humans" to "the human brain" makes this target fairly accurate. Not a slam dunk, but plausible. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think a similar argument applies here. The way it's phrased seem to me to imply physiological, rather than psychological, effects. Or at least to be somewhat ambiguous and potentially misleading. But I'm not entirely sure, which is why I'm abstaining. Xtifr tälk 10:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

How internet use affects humans[edit]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep - unambiguously directs the reader to the content they're looking for. Since WP:NOTFAQ is about article content, and redirects have no content, I can only assume it's linking was an egregious error, rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead. WilyD 12:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as this appears to be a statement rather than a question; if it said How does internet use affect humans? I would propose deletion per WP:NOTFAQ. --Rubbish computer 13:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as plausible. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as per previous entry. Kbrose (talk) 14:36, 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. ~ RobTalk 14:57, 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. (If the word "does" was added to the redirect, it would be a question. It could have been possible that this word was accidentally omitted.) 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 16:26, 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 unambigious that it cannot. So, again, I implore you to read NOTFAQ before invoking it. WilyD 09:05, 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(TALKCONT) 03:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Although this redirect includes the word "How", it's not even a question. It's simply a rephrasing of the title into more ordinary language. Since FAQ is totally inapplicable, can you explain why you invoked it to delete this redirect, which does not involve any question in any way, shape, or form? WilyD 16:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @WilyD: The combination explosion that would result from phrasing every title, section title, or piece of info from an article that people might be looking for in this manner in a "How", "What", "Where", etc. form would be insane. It's similar to the spirit of WP:NOTFAQ in nature. Wikipedia has a search engine, these type of redirects are not necessary.Godsy(TALKCONT) 08:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
        • The number of pages and redirects on Wikipedia is going to be large regardless. Nothing is necessary - we can choose to be slightly dickish to our readership in exchange for no encyclopaedic benefit. But why would we want to? Why write an encyclopaedia and deliberately make it hard to find what you're looking for? WilyD 09:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
          • @WilyD: We clearly fundamentally disagree. I'm not going to spend the time having basically the same discussion with you on multiple August 7 RfD's. If you have any further inquiries about my rationales that you would like answered concerning the issue at hand regarding multiple entries on this page, feel free to post on my talk page, and I'll reply there. Regards,Godsy(TALKCONT) 09:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
            • This isn't for my benefit. The point of this board to ensure redirects exist that get readers to the content they're looking for. Hiding relevant discussions isn't going to be helpful. This is the place to discuss whether we should move readers who are looking for this content along for the content, or take away their guide, so they flounder in frustration and helplessness. If there's a compelling need for the encyclopaedia to treat this readers with such contempt, everyone should know what it is. WilyD 09:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The target article definitely describes how internet use affects humans. Granted, the target article is about psychological effects only, but that may be all there is to say anyway. I can't really imagine the internet specifically having any physiological effects that would differ from computer use generally. --BDD (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - the target only details one of many ways that internet/technology use affect humans. What about cultural, financial, economic, political, sociological effects? It's simply not anywhere near as narrow as this target. Because of how vague this is, I can't imagine that we have a better target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ivanvector. That's a really good point—I was still just thinking in terms of biology, but you're right, of course. Sociology of the Internet is also relevant, and perhaps other topics. We shouldn't just choose one, and this isn't a good candidate for disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY since I don't believe there to be one target suitable for this query. -- Tavix (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

How directness of sunlight causes warmer weather[edit]

Wikipedia is not a QA site. GZWDer (talk) 05:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep per my point at #How internet use affects humans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubbish computer (talkcontribs) 12:45, 7 August 2015
  • Keep as plausible. Compassionate727 (talk) 13:59, 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. ~ RobTalk 14:58, 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)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ and Steel1943. Not elaborating on each individually as so many have been listed of this type on this date.Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Especially since the target article has a descriptive name, we should be generous with redirects to it. This isn't really a matter of a FAQ: the article describes "how directness of sunlight causes warmer weather". There's no query, "How [does] directness of sunlight [cause] warmer weather?" Pedantic, perhaps, but an important distinction in my book. --BDD (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - this seems reasonable. I mean, there are other factors influencing sunlight's impact on climate, like clouds or the greenhouse effect, but those aren't "directness" factors really. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Cochrane Database Syst Rev[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 4#Cochrane Database Syst Rev

市区重建局[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 4#市区重建局

Tucking in (parenting, food)[edit]

Delete both per WP:NOUN, recently created (today) by User:Neelix as part of yesterday's discussion atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 5#Tuck in, but since Tucking in is now a DAB page there is no need to disambiguate this way. Si Trew (talk) 05:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll try to find some WP:RS for the food sense. However, WP:NOTDIC. Tucking in is not mentioned at the bedtime article either, beyond a "declaration" (not really a definition) in the lede. Si Trew (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
And looking at that, "tucking in" is not synonymous with bedtime, but refers more specifically to bed-making particularly while a person is in the bed. So I'm going to remove that definition from the lede. Si Trew (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I've made a number of changes at Bedtime since this was listed, in particular I have renamed section "Etymology" since it wasn't, and linked a few things to more specific articles. diff here. Si Trew (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} is appropriate: it's not that Tucking in is an article (DAB pages aren't articles, are they?) nor that this redirects to that page. Si Trew (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I referenced the wrong Rcat tag. I fixed it above. Steel1943 (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I doff my hat to you: I wasn't sure, but anyone who admits a mistake (and leaves the evidence for all to see) is what Wikipedia is all about. I am not sure there is a hat-doffing emoji. Si Trew (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Steel: no comment on the redirect, but see Cambridge Dictionaries for eating. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep both per above points: the second one per NikkiMaria's source. --Rubbish computer 19:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep both - Bedtime is the time in which a parent tucks a child into bed. Bed-making occurs when there is no one in the bed. These two redirects should be readded to the Tucking in disambiguation page. Neelix (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I actually think that Tucking in should point to Bedtime with a hatnote referring to Eating if need be. (I'm going to state this on the other ongoing discussion.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete both. The disambiguation was rejected in the other RFD and these seem like implausible search terms the way they are disambiguated. -- Tavix (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep the first; it's a strange disambiguator, but I suppose that's what someone would be looking for. Delete the second, as no form of "tucking in" is mentioned at the target article. --BDD (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget. Tuck shop#Etymology has "Tuck into" in the food sense (not "tuck in" or "tucking in", though). Si Trew (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Qantas.jp[edit]

Same rationale per previous discussion - TheChampionMan1234 23:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong delete. This is not the official website of Qantas: the official website is "qantas.com.au" and that's the website that appears in the article. Since this is not the official website, it isn't mentioned at the the target, making it confusing at best. These are extremely implausible search terms. Who would search this website in Wikipedia? Since the website already says "Qantas", they would already know that it's Qantas, so a general article on the airline wouldn't be helpful. It would make sense if we had Qantas in Japan, for example, but that's not the case here. WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:RFD#D8 also applies. -- Tavix (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs readers to what they're looking for, no rationale presented for deletion. The actual website(s) redirect to quantas.com.au, so it's no more confusing than real life (and really, one would be hard pressed to suggest a reason it's confusing at all). WilyD 08:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per WilyD - these are all entirely harmless and unambiguously direct people to the content they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • How do you know that's the content they're looking for? The target doesn't mention any of these websites or any of these countries referred to by the TLDs, so someone looking for specific content on these websites or countries are going to be disappointed. -- Tavix (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep as these appear to be plausible synonyms. Rubbish computer 12:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
@Rubbish computer: Why do you think that? It seems entirely implausible to me. Even if, in the off chance someone were to type "qantas.jp," they would already knows about Qantas but would probably be looking for specific information about Qantas in Japan or that website itself, which we don't have. -- Tavix (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Tavix: It was viewed 4 times in about 5 weeks before it was first discussed, so I feel it is of use to some people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubbish computer (talkcontribs) 16:02, 20 August 2015
  • Really? Those stats are bot levels. These don't actually have use. -- Tavix (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, but I support my decision. Rubbish computer 17:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Rubbish computer, I'd like to ask you once more to reconsider. The views you cited may show that someone is searching for that term, but they do not tell us if we satisfied their needs—since we don't discuss Qantas operations in those countries, there's every reason to believe we did not. --BDD (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @BDD: Fair enough. Rubbish computer 13:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete wikipedia is not a random collection of web addresses that redirect to the owners, as these sites are not notable they are not mentioned in the target they dont add anything to the encyclopedia. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep harmless. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC).
Rich, is qantas.de really harmless to the reader searching for information about Qantas in Germany? Sure, it's not going to cause them physical harm or anything, but that's not a topic we have information on. If you think about it, a reader could get the impression that Wikipedia teases readers and suggests we have coverage where we don't, thus hurting the project's credibility. That's pretty harmful. --BDD (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Arguably if we had blue-links, say from List of Qantas websites to Qantas.de then that would hold water.
However people seem to forget that redirects have multiple functions:
  1. As place-holders for potential articles
  2. As an adjunct to categorization
  3. Preventing the creation of forks (and, to some extent, other undesired content)
  4. To route an internal link from an alternative name to an article
  5. To route an internal link from a primary name to a section of an article
  6. To route an internal link from an alternative name to a section of an article 0
7-9 The same for links from outside en:Wikipeida, in websites, databases, documents, emails and books
10-12. The same for items typed into the search bar with the "go" functionality
13-15. The same for items typed into the search bar with the "search" functionality
16-18. The same for items generated by agents.
In the above "alternative name" is a loose description which includes subsidiary topics, intimately related topics notable for their relation with the primary topic and so forth.
Now it is certainly true that if one wants to answer the question "What is 'Qantas.de' " today's edition of Wikipedia does not explicitly answer that question, but I it certainly provides enough information to enable most people to realise "Oh! It's a website of this airline Qantas, in whatever country 'de' stands for." So that is useful. It also provides all the other functionality0
The argument that we don't directly mention the website "http://qantas.de", although we cover the overarching topic of Qantas, might seem attractive. But I haven't seen anyone offering to monitor the Qantas or successor pages and re-introduce the redirect when the subject is mentioned there, and remove it when the mention is removed, for eternity. Indeed one of the things that makes little sense about a lot of RfDs is that the claimed problem is often easier to fix than nominating the redirect.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC).
I don't think we need a dedicated "monitor" for those purposes. As I've mentioned before, maintaining redirects does take work, but it's worth it if we're going to have redirects that are functional and helpful to readers. Much better to have content about Qantas in Germany and no "qantas.de" redirect than vice versa, precisely because it's easier to create the latter than the former. --BDD (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tavix, unless we specifically discuss these websites or Qantas operation in any of those countries. --BDD (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion and its precedent seem to be heading in different directions, so I'm cautious...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per the precedent listed above, which I agree with. The subject of the redirects are not specifically identified at the target by their corresponding geographic regions, so call this a WP:REDLINK deletion, if you will. (However, I have an idea in the making that may change my mind ... call it something to resolve the "REDLINK" concern. If I don't add more to this discussion, assume it didn't happen and my rationale stands.) (I explored this option, and I changed my mind. Steel1943 (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)) Steel1943 (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above reasons. Rubbish computer 13:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Fromagier[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. Deryck C. 22:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:FORRED; cheesemaking (technically, "cheesemaker") is not a concept that is exclusive to French-speaking cultures. Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak keep per my comments at #Dinosaurier - there's a not-very-prominent trend of adding -ier to English words (or words borrowed from French) to create a word for a person with a particular taste for a subject. A fromagier (from fromage) could easily be a cheese connoisseur; a sommelier (from bête de somme, this is a fun one) is a wine expert; a pannier (from pain) is not a person but related to bread otherwise; and so on. I would also argue (again, weakly) that cheesemaking is indeed a notable characteristic of French culture, and certainly of Québec culture. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector: I probably should have mentioned that also, the spelling might also be incorrect in the redirect. From what I am finding, the correct spelling is "fromager": "fromagier" may be a different word completely, but I am not for certain. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, reading what you said, it seems like this redirect could be wrong as well since it seems like a "fromager" is a cheesemaker and a "fromagier" is a cheese connoisseur, which are two different roles. Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It is not a real French word; the French words would be fromager or fromagère for a cheese maker (or merchant). Although -ier is a common suffix for professions. Also for fruit trees, apparently. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Interestingly, researching a different thread here turned up turophile, which is a word for a cheese connoisseur derived from Greek. I don't know how that influences this discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - directs the readers to the topic they're looking for. Since FORRED doesn't provide an arguments for deletion or retargetting, I'm unclear why it's linked - I can only assume it's an error. I would (semi-seriously) caution against telling any French people that cheesemaking is not exclusive to France, as they're liable to take offence. WilyD 08:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That's some good advice. I'm not sure who that is directed towards though because I clearly didn't do that. I would highly recommend reading WP:FORRED thoroughly since this is at least the second or third time such a comment has been made implying an accusation of the such. Steel1943 (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I've read FORRED, it doesn't provide any reasons it would be beneficial to Wikipedia to delete this redirect. Perhaps "rationalisations", but even that's generous to the total absence of reasoning going on there. WilyD 08:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Fromager as a plausible misspelling --Lenticel (talk) 07:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Fromager per Lenticel. --BDD (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment slightly unrelated, but the region of Fromager is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as it is not that well known outside the Ivory Coast, perhaps, wikt:fromager says it is a English word, which slightly makes me to vote week keep for this redirect, perhaps a hatnote at Fromager or a dab page is better? - TheChampionMan1234 05:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep (note: I previously !voted "weak keep", this comment is expanding) - I don't know why I didn't do it before, but searching "fromagier" brings up many results for French cheesemakers and cheesemaking in English. French Wiktionary gives it as a synonym (not a misspelling) for fromager (cheesemaker), so among other things my previous "not a real French word" comment was inaccurate. And, as noted previously, cheesemaking is a notable facet of French culture. I think keeping the target is better than targeting List of French cheeses (where French cheese targets) but there you have that option as well. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ivanvector. I think retargeting to Fromager would be a WP:SURPRISE, especially given its (relative) obscurity. -- Tavix (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ivanvector. Canuck89 (what's up?) 03:33, September 1, 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above, and that English (at least British English) does use a lot of French terms related to food and food making (particularly high status cuisine, which is perhaps unsurprising given the history of the English language and its interaction with Norman French) and so I can easily see this being used in English for a pretentious cheesemaker. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
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.

U mad[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close. I've converted this into a short article. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Likely to make a reader mad, as it's not used or discussed at the target article. --BDD (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Y.U. Mad a rap song. to Vic Mensa#Singles. Perhaps a plausible search term and "typo" of sorts. There is a song titled "U Mad" by Vic Mensa (apparently), so directing U mad to it seems reasonable.Godsy(TALKCONT) 06:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • retarget per Godsy. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Godsy: seems way too vague to refer to trolling, as it could refer to teasing or bullying. Rubbish computer 14:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The phrase 'U mad?', or often 'U mad, bro?' is indeed associated with internet trolling/bullying 'culture' and pictographic memes or whatever that stuff is called. Due to the overlap between using an iconic troll picture (in many cases) for the purpose of teasing rather than spreading disinformation and other stuff usually attributed to internet trolling it's quite understandable why somebody would create such a redirect, and why other people would disagree. Actually it's better described as an Internet meme. It becomes pretty evident when you search Google pictures for 'u mad troll' or 'u mad bro' etc. Generally, there are plenty other websites which discuss countless internet memes of doubtful notability in detail, and unless reliable sources start referencing them Wikipedia shouldn't bother too much, too soon. However, some memes like the famous All your base are belong to us got more than enough attention to get their own article. As for 'U mad?', and please forgive me for using http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/u-mad as a source, it seems to have been around since 2003 and is still widespread - that's quite something in the world of internet memes, where a lot of them tend to get short-lived popularity for a few months or a bit longer, then eventually become outright unpopular because regular users of forums/channels/imageboards etc. become tired of reposting the same thing. I think the persistence of this 'U mad?' thing for more than a decade could easily warrant an article inside Internet memes (I mean the category, don't know how to link to that page), then it would make sense to ambiguate between the meme and the rap song(s). As for notability of the meme, that's mostly original research on my part because I've been interested in internet (sub)cultures for decades, so don't put too much weight into my opinion. Rh73 (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Good idea. I think a U mad article could be feasible—KYM documents its usage on The O'Reilly Factor, which IMO gives it much more of a real-world impact than your average meme. My inclination would be to try an article first, which could potentially be merged elsewhere if it's not judged to be independently notable. --BDD (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, usage on that tv show seems to have originated the meme (I wouldn't always trust knowyourmeme, but this one looks well-sourced), which then became persistent on its own. And it predates that rap single from 2015 by far. Just wanted to bring that up so that a future article doesn't get dismissed right away based on a retarget decided now. Rh73 (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - The term could plausibly direct either to the internet meme page, to Cam'ron (since he's the guy that more or less invented the meme), or to any of the artists with songs having the title (looks like there's a lot of them, from Brokencyde to Vic Mensa). I guess a disambiguation page could be created, but I feel more like the text should just be red. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
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.

Democratic[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retarget to Democrat. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

"Democratic" can refer to democracy generally, but my search results show the term used much more frequently to refer to a Democratic Party, most notably the Democratic Party (United States). I don't think there's a primary target for this (and if there it, it'd probably be the party page), so it should be retargeted to Democrat, which is a disambiguation that lists both targets (and then some). -- Tavix (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)