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.

Note: If you just want to replace an unprotected redirect with an article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into articles is wholly encouraged. Be bold.

Note: If you want to move a page but a redirect is preventing this, do not list it here. Place a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests.

Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as the only reason to delete a redirect. Redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted too, so it's not a necessary condition either. (See § When should we delete a redirect? for more information.)


Before listing a redirect for discussion[edit]

Before listing a redirect for discussion, please familiarize yourself with the following:

The guiding principles of RfD[edit]

  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page 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. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is cheap since the deletion coding takes up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • The default result of any RfD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination.
  • 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 at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article. However, for more difficult cases, this page can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another page's talk page don't need to be listed here, as anyone can simply remove the redirect by blanking the page. G6 speedy deletion may be appropriate in such cases.
  • Try to consider whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader when discussing.

When should we delete a redirect?[edit]


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 "" 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.


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 potential 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.

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. 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]


Just like 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]

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.
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|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.
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]

July 2[edit]

July 1[edit]

Contradiction in terms[edit]

Reverse the redirect. WP:NOTENGLISH. A bit of a reductio ad absurdem on my part. Si Trew (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And we can't even get that right. It is -em, not -um, for reduction. Sheesh. I only did metalwork. Si Trew (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Spaceballs 3[edit]

Spaceballs will probably never have a sequel. It's fine to have Spaceballs 2 redirect to Spaceballs#Sequel and animated series, but this just doesn't work. BDD (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Rick Moranis has publicly stated a proposed sequel to Spaceballs would have been called "Spaceballs 3: The Search for Spaceballs 2" [1]; which is already in the sequel section as "Spaceballs III", so why a textual search you performed may not have found it. -- (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

List of PG-12 (Japan)-rated movies[edit]

I can't imagine we'd ever have such an article. There's no such list, or anything like it, at the target article. BDD (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete: The title of the redirect isn't strongly related to the target. Compassionate727 (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


There are a bunch of things named Tector, but none seem notable enough for a standalone article. I drafted a dab at Draft:Tector, and it already looks pretty dumb even though I only made it through the first two pages of search results. This had 9 hits last month, so it's probably not a very likely search term anyway, but when it is searched, I'm kind of thinking search results may be the best option. BDD (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Create {disambig|surname|given name} page per BDD's draft, which contains many possible search targets which meet MOS:DABMENTION. Nothing to be gained for readers by not making it easy for them. Boleyn (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. I agree that it might be "dumb", but it's certainly useful for someone searching for it. That draft is better than search results because every usage of the term is on one page, instead of scattered through pages of search results. I've seen a few disambiguations that don't have any entries notable enough for a standalone article pass through an AfD, so this one should too if challenged. Examples include: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie Collins, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Move with You (2nd nomination), etc. -- Tavix (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


This emoji seems ambiguous, considering that at least for me, this icon looks like a pagoda. Steel1943 (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I think of pagodas as less pyramidal than this, though there are counterexamples on that article. As long as we mostly use Unicode redirects, I don't find this one particularly objectionable, but I'd be open to just getting rid of all of them. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I want to soft redirect it per my rationale at WP:RFD#👯, but I had to wade through a gambit of Wiktionary policy to get there. (Fair warning: I've never used Wiktionary, so I might not know what I'm talking about.) wikt:🏯 was actually deleted last week by Kephir with the deletion rationale "Unattested character with no definition other than its Unicode name." That seems weird to me because I feel like a unicode definition would pass wikt:WT:ATTEST because it's verified through Unicode, and unicode is in widespread use. So I went to their deletion area, wikt:Wiktionary:Requests for deletion (which is ironically abbreviated RFD), and couldn't find any emoji related requests for deletion. Next, I went to wikt:WT:DELETE, which lists reasons why a page might be speedy deleted (which I'm assuming to mean without an RFD), and I'm not seeing any reasons there why that page might be deleted. So, I decided to be bold and recreate it using the same format as wikt:🔞 under the rationale that it contains more than just a unicode definition and requested an RFD there if someone still thinks it should be deleted. (It looks like you can just create a page again if it gets deleted per WT:DELETE#Undeletion.) -- Tavix (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • For now, my stance on this emoji is keep because it is defined as a Japanese castle. -- Tavix (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • There is a criteria where it would qualify for speedy deletion: as an implausible type (or other type of redirect that no one is actually likely to search for)(See WP:CSD R3). Compassionate727 (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Compassionate727: My comment above regarding speedy deletion had to do with Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. If you're referring to this redirect, CSD R3 doesn't apply as it isn't recently created and it's not implausible (344 hits in 90 days isn't implausible IMO). -- Tavix (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
No, it is a criterion, or "there are criteria". Criteria is plural, Or do I have to take my big clunking fist to persuade you so? Si Trew (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Could we not, perhaps, redirect all of our emoji to Emoji? bd2412 T 19:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It'd be more helpful, IMO, to take them somewhere that defines the emoji, whether that is through a redirect to Japanese castle in this case, or a soft redirect to a wiktionary page that defines it. I'm assuming most people already know that they are emojis, so a redirect there probably wouldn't be helpful. -- Tavix (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: Who's actually going to try to type an emoji into the search engine anyway? Compassionate727 (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I was wondering that. Perhaps some smartphones suggest them to you? I don't know, but my cheapo Lenovo smartphone with Android displayed the few before. Some idiot at Google adding them, I suspect. Fonts (rather typefaces but that is the common word nowadays) don't have colours, as I pointed out earlier. 23:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


This emoji's current target is specific to the film age ratings system in Japan. (For those of you who cannot see this nominated character, it's the number 18 with a circle around it with a slash through the middle.) This current target is probably not the world-wide view of what this symbol represents, let alone what it represents to the majority of this Wikipedia's readers, given that the English Wikipedia is intended for English readers/speakers. The best alternative target that I can think of off the top of my head is Age of majority, but I would think there has to be a better target out there somewhere. Steel1943 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Soft redirect to wikt:🔞 per my analysis at WP:RFD#👯. This emoji actually has a pretty good entry because it contains a lot more than just a definition. -- Tavix (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Who's actually going to try to type an emoji into the search engine anyway? Compassionate727 (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment if there is an article on age restriction, it could target that -- (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can't see it (thanks for describing it), but strangely we don't have Age restriction label or anything close to it. We do have British Board of Film Classification but not Hayes Act, have I spelt that wrong Hays Act, all seem a bit wide of the mark. Si Trew (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Snyder Avenue[edit]

Synder Avenue isn't related to the target, except for the fact that the target is named after it. Not really worthy of a redirect, in my opinion. Compassionate727 (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. Harmless. Si Trew (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Locust Street (Philadelphia)[edit]

Locust Street isn't very strongly related to the target of the redirect, Rittenhouse Square. Compassionate727 (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Open Letter (J-ay Z song)[edit]

I just retargeted Open Letter (song) over to Magna Carta Holy Grail but I think this one should be deleted. It's not a plausible version of his name, especially since it's embedded as unnecessary disambiguation in a song that only appears as a bonus track. Note that J-ay Z doesn't exist. -- Tavix (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Special distinctions of Nauru[edit]

Remnants of an old trivia page. It should have been deleted instead of redirected, so let's get this one right now. -- Tavix (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak keep as harmless. Created in 2003, but its hits are well below bot noise level (averaging one every three days, roughly). Si Trew (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Current events/May 2002[edit]

Subpages are disallowed in the article namespace. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep all. That applies only to articles, not to redirects. Further these are very old redirects (which we normally keep) resulting from page moves (which we normally keep) from when Wikipedia changed from using subpages to categories. They're doing no harm and will break potentially break incoming links if deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Big Hero 7[edit]

There is not a sequel announced yet, officially or un-officially. They are saying "it is possible." And if it is possible then the title is not confirmed yet. Captain Assassin! «TCG» 17:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak keep as a {{R from typo}}, since "7" is right next to "6" so clearly a possible typo -- (talk) 04:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • delete per nom, until officially confirmed. I'm not convinced about it being a likely typo - that's like saying we should put a hatnote at Shrek 3 in case they meant to go to Shrek 2 etc. Mdann52 (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • There is no Big Hero 5 film though, so it isn't part of a series, it would just be a simple typo, instead of trying to find an entry in a film series by plugging in numbers. -- (talk) 05:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Given that this is the exact same link CosmicEmperor posted on his talk page, I find it very likely that this is a sock. --BDD (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - the indef'd editor has been using their talk page to WP:EVADE their block, yes. I did not check the links they posted so that I would not be helping to circumvent the block, however I did my own search, and I find that there is a lot of speculation about an unconfirmed sequel for this film in the works, and it is almost universally referred to by this title. Since some of the speculation is reliably sourced in the first film's article, we should keep this, or refine target to Big Hero 6 (film)#Sequel. Ivanvector (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Poor, Sisters of the, of St. Francis[edit]

Bizarre word salad of a redirect. Nothing links here, and it is an extremely implausible thing to type into a searchbar. Reyk YO! 07:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: CSD R3 only applies to "recently created" redirects. This one has been around since 2008. -- Tavix (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, well then. I didn't check about that. (I mainly do the New Pages Patrol, where everything you encounter is recent enough for R3.) Compassionate727 (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
No problem, just letting you know! Cheers. -- Tavix (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

June 30[edit]


Originally targeted cosplay; was redirected by Gorobay (courtesy ping). On desktop and Android this appears as the head of a woman wearing bunny ears; as I understand it the iOS version shows two women dancing in leotards and bunny ears. Emojipedia calls this emoji Woman With Bunny Ears (link shows different appearances). I suggest retargeting to Moe anthropomorphism#Animals, which is the current target of Kemonomimi, which this emoji is supposedly intended to depict. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete It sounds like there are legitimately two topics this could refer to. I know we tend to keep Unicode symbols and such as redirects like this, but that makes them essentially just function as Easter eggs. If someone puts, say, a Unicode snowman into the search box, how do we know they want what the symbol represents rather than the symbol itself? Trying to keep this one straight just doesn't feel worth it to me. --BDD (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per BDD. I'm of the opinion that Emoji should only be redirected somewhere if there is an obvious target. For some (most?) of them, there is an obvious target, but I don't think that's the case here. -- Tavix (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The stats are well above bot levels in my opinion: it has been viewed 344 times in the last 90 days. I'm against a disambiguation per WP:DABMENTION (it's not mentioned anywhere). HOWEVER, it is defined at Wiktionary as "woman with bunny ears." I think it should be soft redirected there (wikt:👯), and someone can use that definition to make whatever conclusions they want from it. -- Tavix (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate to the Unicode code block, Playboy bunny, and usagi cosplay; and wiktinoary -- (talk) 05:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The fact that I can't see these on my Windows 7 desktop means I have no way to decide. The fact I can't see these on my Windows 7 desktop (since I haven't whatever font necessary to be installed) means other readers, perhaps many, can't see them either. (The Playboy bunny is, by the way, a copyright logo.) In short, I don't think that emoji meets WP:TITLE: WP:EMOJI doesn't exist (nor MOS:EMOJI): Perhaps one should.
Technically it can't be part of a font since fonts don't have colours. It's a grapheme that has been just given a fucking space in the Unicode 01 plane. How it is rendered as a glyph is entirely up to your browser and that is not helpful to Wikipedia. One of the great things of Wikipedia is Keep it Simple, Stupid and this is just trying to do fancy bits that are, in my opinion, undesirable. Si Trew (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Si Trew, the closest related guideline to a "WP:EMOJI" is Wikipedia:UNICODE. I don't think it's what you are looking for, but it seems to be all we have in regards to unicode emojis. Steel1943 (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate. Seems that there are multiple possible targets that could be reasonably searched by this emoji: why hinder readers by leading them to a search page that may not be helpful by deleting this title? Also, it's worth noting that Bunny girl currently redirects to Playboy Bunny (So, I'm also weak keep for that reason; most sources I have found seen to match this emoji with the term "Women with bunny ears", which some sources say is the Japanese term for "Playboy Bunny".) Steel1943 (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Keep - Perhaps I'm wrong here but surely no one actually searches this place with an emoji ? ... I personally see no point in it nor do I believe it's useful in the slightest. –Davey2010Talk 16:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Davey2010: Sometimes, these redirects help readers identify a emoji; probably one of the most useful emoji redirects is 🍠 considering that I would have no idea what it is just by looking at it. Steel1943 (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
But see, that's absurd. Who says that's a sweet potato? Maybe that's the official definition, but it could just as easily depict a regular potato, or probably some other tubers as well. And if you know it's the Unicode for a sweet potato, 🍠 doesn't help you. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Well it's actually a "roasted sweet potato," not just a "sweet potato" as the redirect would imply. Is this a problem? Maybe a soft redirect to wikt:🍠 would help clear this up? (thinking aloud here) -- Tavix (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Well I stand corrected, These - 😂 😭 - both are redirected so it kinda makes sense just to redirect this, I still believe it's pointless but hey ho. –Davey2010Talk 17:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, what we think of as a potato is a sweet potato. (See Bryson, Made in America (book). Si Trew (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


Nominating this one separately from the other Kafir redirects (see: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 30#Non-Muslim). I think this is vague, especially because disbeliever isn't equivalent to Kafir (you can be a disbeliever in a lot of different things, for example). -- Tavix (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak retarget to faith given the implied religious context, i.e. a "believer" is someone who is part of a religion or believes in a deity or particular belief system, contrasted with a disbeliever who is anyone who doesn't. The usage is certainly not limited to Islam. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak retarget to Infidel, which seems like a close enough synonym. Unbeliever redirects there as well. Interestingly, "disbeliever" is only used there in an Islamic context. But again, synonyms. --BDD (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Yep, that's better than mine. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. UnbelieverInfidel (let's face it any fule kno that means unfaithful, literally). "Dis-" according to my old OED says that it is a prefix having privative force, i.e. removal rather than nonexistence, so this is WP:RFD#D5 nonsense on those linguistic grounds. Si Trew (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Belief as a {{R from antonym}} of believer -- this is not an Islamic topic, nor is it even a religious topic, since belief does not require religion, as you can believe in a project, a lucky charm, etc. and disbelievers do not believe in the that. -- (talk) 05:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget per 70.51. That seems a good call. I think tagging with {{R from opposite}} (or {{R from antonym}}) would be excessive if we did. Si Trew (talk) 09:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Disbelief is a German heavy metal band, with a hatnote to Wiktionary: we'd probably need to change the hatnote when we get consensus. Si Trew (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, we have Nonbeliever as an article. That may be better yet. ("Shun the nonbeliever!") --BDD (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It's rather a stub, though, but when we get consensus we should add all of the them to {{Irreligion sidebar}}. I disagree that just not believing in something is the same thing as actively rejecting the belief in that thing, which is why "dis-" and "un-" (or "ir-") mean different things. F'rexample, to be disinterested (having no bias, no vested interest) and uninterested (bored) are different things. 20:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Pain in the arse[edit]

Alt spelling of Pain in the ass at MfD - see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_30#Pain_in_the ass where suggest this is included. Widefox; talk 20:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Soft redirect to wikt:Pain in the arse, pending someone writing an article about either variation of this idiom. Per previous discussion linked by nom. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentWaitChanged Si Trew (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC). This should go to wherever Pain in the ass goes, as an {{R from alternate spelling}}. British English distinguishes between your behind, and a donkey. When Shakespeare wrote in Twelfth Night, "Methinks I was beloved of an ass", that is a donkey, not a bottom. Si Trew (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Pain in the ass; assuming that becomes an article or disambiguation page -- (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait for the result at Pain in the ass before proceeding with this one. Honestly, it should have been included in that other rationale for consistency. If ass is soft redirected, so should this one. If an article is created there, this should be retargeted there, etc. -- Tavix (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait per Tarvix - We should wait till whatever outcome the other one gets otherwise it's gonna end up getting confusing. –Davey2010Talk 16:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Minister of Social Affairs[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 Withdrawn. WP:BOLDly, I am just going to retarget as Tavix said. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete. No ministers or ministries of Social Affairs are listed thereon. Neither the word "social" nor "affair"(s) appears at the target. WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense, WP:SURPRISE. Si Trew (talk) 19:22, 30 June 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.


Ridiculous POV. A kafir (lit. disbeliever) is not necesarily a non-Muslim or even a Muslim depending on context, and not every single faith which is "unislamic" should be tied to Islam here so the opposite argument is not suitable for inclusion. 92slim (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator.Godsy(TALKCONT) 00:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep No, this is precisely what a kafir is. Quoting from the article: "An Arabic term used in an Islamic doctrinal sense [...] The term refers to a person who rejects or disbelieves in God and the religious truth revealed through the mission of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad". This looks pretty much like a definition of "non-Muslim" to me...--The Theosophist (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "Whether a Jew or a Christian is a kafir is disputed", so clearly not everyone buys into the idea that non-Muslim = Kafir. Still, we might say "close enough" since the target article explains the varying definitions. --BDD (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • delete kafir means non-muslim, but non-muslim does not mean kafir. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 17:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm an apathist. Si Trew (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment. I think I put this elsewhere and better also, but UnbelieverInfidel. Si Trew (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment. I am just doing my usual cryptic thingy stuff, but any chance that Unbeliever is a slang for Unilever. I certainly don't believe them when the say that their powder washes "three shades whiter" (an allusion to Fifty Shades of Grey?). My name is not dropped in spectroscopic circles, nor am I a household word where detergent agents foregather, but I am led to believe from those in the know that "shade" is not a standard unit of measure. (sings) I'm an Unmonkee... Si Trew (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Redirects don't need to be synonyms, they can be loosely related. In this case it's perfect to have a redirect which helps a reader, unless a better target or a new article is created.--Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 20:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    Well then, Retargert to the DAB at Kaffir. I'm well aware some people can't spell and you are right to point that out, but an R to DAB will do everyone proud. Si Trew (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Social affairs[edit]

I recently fulfilled a WP:AFC/R request from 88Connor88 to redirect Social Affairs to Social work. I did so, but I think both of these would be better off retargeted to Social issue, since "affair" has a political connotation. Compare to International affairs, which redirects to International relations. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Convert to DAB. We have at Minister of Social Affairs but that → List of health departments and ministries. We also have (which are not listed on that list, nor any other ministers or ministrys):
It's a start. Si Trew (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
That's a good argument for dabifying Minister of Social Affairs, Ministry of Social Affairs, or a similar title. Those could be referred to simply as "Social Affairs", I suppose, but a page with that title that just lists ministries would be at least a bit ASTONISHing. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate this can also refer to the social life of a person (their social affairs, with a private social secretary to manage it if they're socialites) -- (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
"What have you done?" cried Christine
You've wrecked the whole party machine!
To lie in the nude
Could be considered rude
But to lie in the House is obscene!

Pain in the ass[edit]

We don't redirect pain in the head to headache etc. This sends readers to the medical article Rectal pain with a hatnote to wiktionary! Surely this is WP:SLANG, and deletion and removal of the cross wiki hatnote (which isn't valid) is the correct way per SLANG, NOTHOWTO etc? Widefox; talk 12:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete, as the creator of this redirect, I can assure that there never was a serious reason for its existence. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Yup, was thinking the same, wiktionary redirect or salting (as SLANG). Ass pain, Arse pain, Bottom pain are all available for those needing a PITA. Widefox; talk 15:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Also buttocks pain. Do we have enough pictures in our buttocks article? Just in case our readers don't know what they look like Wbm1058 (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they need a wiktionary PITA, this is currently just a WP PITA. Widefox; talk 17:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate to annoyance, the current target, and a wiktionary link, and anything else that comes up -- (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    Support disambiguation. We could also include a link to Frustration in the dab, though, from the pictures on that article, it seems pain in the head should redirect there. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose disambiguation as we would be disambiguating different "definitions" of the phrase and we don't do that per WP:NOTDIC. If we want to give them a dictionary definition, we should soft redirect it to the Wiktionary entry. Besides, most of these suggestions wouldn't be valid dab entries as "pain in the ass" isn't mentioned in most (all?) of these instances (WP:DABMENTION).-- Tavix (talk) 15:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose disambiguation as well - dabs are not meant to serve as catalogues of possible meanings for unencyclopedic epithets. In fact I'm changing my !vote to delete since this is not explained in any articles here, and I oppose soft redirecting as well per WP:NOTDICT. Ivanvector (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think WP:NOTDICT says the opposite of what you're suggesting. Check out Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Pointers to Wiktionary (there should be a shortcut to this...). The bottom part of that describes this situation perfectly. If we delete it, we are encouraging someone to recreate it sometime down the road, and we don't want that. A soft redirect helps prevent that from happening while offering some information on the subject. Of course, we could delete and salt it, but I just don't think that's helpful. -- Tavix (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Okay, you've got a point there. Soft redirect as Tavix suggests. No dab. Ivanvector (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose disambiguation - see WP:SLANG / WP:NOTDIC. The use for navigating articles is incorrect due to slang. That aside, we have maybe 1 or 2 articles so fails WP:TWODABS (a wikt link isn't an article). Widefox; talk 17:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, I have a question for you "NOTDIC" hardliners. See Talk:Right (disambiguation), then explain to me why we should pull "right", that is, the singular form of rights, which is linked to from hundreds of articles, off of primary topic, because of the "NOTDIC" opposite of left (direction). We don't even have an article on the topic. If someone wants to know the meaning of the opposite of left, they can look it up in a dictionary. The only relevant article is relative direction, and having "left", right", "up" and "down" redirects to that topic is only encouraging editors to create WP:OVERLINKS. We could delete all of these redirects, as anyone looking for the encyclopedic topic, as opposed to dictionary definitions, will search on "directions" or something generic of that sort, not a specific direction. So explain to me what I'm not getting here. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I think WP:DABRELATED would cover this. "Right" is described at Relative direction; whereas "pain in the ass" is not mentioned in any article that has been suggested for a potential dab page. -- Tavix (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:WHATABOUTX / WP:OFFTOPIC means I only have to think about PITA (or one PITA at a time). Widefox; talk 22:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    OK, then we can just update the lead of rectal pain: "Rectal pain, sometimes colloquially called pain in the ass, pain in the arse, anal pain, pain in the butt, or pain in the buttocks, is the symptom of pain in the area of the rectum. Many people incorrectly refer to any symptom occurring around the anal-rectal area as "hemorrhoids", so that is another colloquial term for rectal pain." Voila, now they're all mentioned in the article. – Wbm1058 (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    I think the point is that "pain in the ass" is not off-topic (the more common "annoyance" meaning is), but rather that the secondary, and more literal, meaning of the term is on-topic. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This does have the potential to become an encyclopedic topic. Google Ngrams shows that the term was not in use prior to circa 1930. Who coined the term, and how was it first used? Why did the rate of use increase dramatically after 1960? An encyclopedic article would answer these questions. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
    Actually, rather than slang, this may better be called an idiom. We do have many articles on those, see Category:English-language idioms. Again, we could make this a dab until someone writes an article about the primary topic. Examples of idioms which are dabs: Eager beaver, Kill or be killed, Go native and Hot tip. – Wbm1058 (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Wbm1058 probably has a point here. The difference, I think, is that all of the dabs here give a brief definition followed by specific examples of title usage (i.e. Eager Beaver Baseball Association, Kill or Be Killed (film), Go Native (company), Hot Tip (film)). We don't have the same sorts of title matches for "pain in the ass", we would instead be listing things which might be considered pains in the ass. Still opposed to disambiguation, but is soft redirect with possibilities a thing? Ivanvector (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Idiom or slang aside - whatever the utility of having an article (the idiom or notable slang - wikt says it is both) in WP or a mention in List of English-language idioms, the standard procedure of disambiguation applies - write the article first and after it may be a valid dab entry per WP:MOSDAB / disambiguation (or WP:DABMENTION respectively). Until then, it is not a valid entry in the dab (PITA), and is a Wikt issue. I've added it to the wikt link there.
Regarding the WP:WHATABOUTX dabs: Eager beaver, Kill or be killed, Hot tip Go native are wrecks that I'm fixing. Part of that will be to use wikt links to replace idiom definitions from the intros, images, WP:PTMs per WP:MOSDAB. Widefox; talk 17:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There appears to be consensus against keeping or disambiguating, which leaves soft redirecting and deleting as options. Which of those will work better depends on the likelihood that this title could support an article on the idiom.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - soft redirecting is preferable to deletion (WP:PRESERVE), given the lack of strong consensus one way or the other, pending creation of an article if anyone wants to try. Ivanvector (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nobody mentioned Pain in the arse yet. One twonieToonie to the quid on where that goes? (No cheating.) Si Trew (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Soft redirecting causes more harm than good. With those, we haven't even a trace of what people actually end up at, and so no way to make our lofty decisions. I note that in my short time here at RfD, almost all soft redirects have been essentially others saying "I can't be bothered to find a better target". Si Trew (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The better target is wikt:Pain in the ass (or wikt:Pain in the arse). We can't hard-redirect to Wiktionary, so soft redirect. Is your "not a trace" argument about stats? The tool keeps stats for soft redirects. ก็็็็็็็็็็็็็ʕ•͡ᴥ•ʔ ก้้้้้้้้้้้ Ivanvector (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
My argument was indeed about not having stats on it. I've no doubt you are right or you would not have said so: therefore I follow you. There is a polar bear in the way. Si Trew (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I should have given you an example. So I will: Jesusian - stats. As a bonus, it's a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Ivanvector (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment MfDed Pain in the arse with link to this discussion. Suggest they are both the same, so should be treated the same and included here. Widefox; talk 20:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree, they should both be the same per WP:ENGVAR, and it's best to stick our heads out here and let our "arse" follow, I think we are all agreed on that? Si Trew (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As there's no article yet, is there a consensus for a soft reirect? Widefox; talk 20:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see so. Si Trew (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment. At interviews I was conducting, I invented an acronym "HITA" to mean "Hole in the air"– a phrase George Orwell used about Neville Chamberlain. So I would ask "Are you a big hitter" as a signal to my partner interviewer that he (invariably a he) was a hole in the air, an oxygen thief. The interview would conclude promptly and politely. Similarly with PITA, one can always happen to have some Greek-style bread handy. Si Trew (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


I am not very sure of what that was meant to be. The Theosophist (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Looks like the transcription for some Asian language for the US (is "miguo" in transcibed Chinese, for example). Delete for no special affinity. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D8 as this is an obscure synonym without significant use. -- Tavix (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Gook per Lenticel. That's a better solution than deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • delete as a redirect from non-English. Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Integrity (mathematics)[edit]

No-brainer retarget to Integer. The Theosophist (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete I don't see any instances of using "integrity" to mean (numerical) integer-ness. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 11:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep A commutative ring having at least two elements and bereft of divisors of zero is called an integer ring (or an integrity domain).<ref>Ioan Purdea, Gheorghe Pic, ''Tratat de algebră modernă'', Vol. 1, Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste România, București, 1977, p. 219</ref> Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Should this target to integral domain then? Ivanvector (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Integrity (disambiguation). I have thought about this time and again since it was listed, but have really not come to much conclusion. "Integral" should, linguistically, be the adjective for something that is an integer, but whenever I have used it in mathematical discussions (in real life, and my maths is limited mainly to symbolic logic and stuff like that, and still have to kinda draw pictures for anything more complicated than subtending the angle A) then it is genuinely confusing to people who assume I mean integration (mathematics)Integral.
The ref that User talk:Tgeorgescu gives is of little relevance to an English-speaking audience. Assuming as I do that mathematics is kinda the nearest thing one gets to truth, in the sense that once an axiom is proven then it is proven forever, then I am sure it is a good book: but not helpful. The sticking point is how to disambiguate the various English language derivations of the word "integer" (integral, integrity, integration, and so on).
They may be differentiated (linguistically differentiated: not differentiation (mathematics)Derivative) in Romanian, which has the usual Latinate rules, but are ambiguous in English (the title in Romanian I presume is Modern Treatise on Algebra or Treatise on Modern Algebra, that doesn't take a lot of doing except to know which is modern, the algebra or the treatise: that is a similar kind of ambiguity we have with this redirect in English).
If as I suggest it is retargeted to the DAB, we can add a section "Mathematics" and fill in many of the good suggestions and others found here. My reason for not saying an outright delete, is that I can imagine sciency or mathematicky people with some knowledge having a clue to type "Integrity (mathematics)" to get a specific DAB on its various meanings in various mathematical fields: that would be the perfect solution, but let's do it at the main DAB first, then split it out later, if we need to (WP:NOTFINISHED). Si Trew (talk)
  • I'm going to go out on a limb and say retarget to Integral domain, based on Tgeorgescu's description matching the lede of that article. To Si's point: the "integer" and variations in this context refer to integer (a whole number) and not to integration (mathematics) which is definitely a distinct mathematical concept; let's not confuse them. I'm no expert but I have done some university-level calculus. Integrity, I believe (if I understand correctly), refers to the property of being (or not being) an integer, and is not related to integration/differentiation at all. As for commutative rings, that's beyond my knowledge. Ivanvector (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not happy with that, @Ivanvector:. Perhaps my modesty was too much. I know a commutative ring when I see one, if you've ever wired a ring circuit it is pretty much the same, only you have volts and amps instead of tokens running around arcs in graph theory. One might as well throw it at Modulo arithmetic for that matter, or at least Modulus. Si Trew (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
My modesty prevailed as usual. I worked for eighteen months doing the stuff your mobile phone works with, at the back end, with oscilloscopes and stuff, so I am well aware of what an IQ domain is, which is essentially on the scope you put Q on the vertical axis and I on the horizontal axis, as complex numbers, and you get a lovely pattern. (Described at In-phase and quadrature components, which is why it is I and Q.) And it's hard to describe but mathematicians kinda think like that. Ask them to make change out of a fiver and they can't, but give them 6i3q and they can immediately imagine it. I just have Stroud, Ken (1988). Engineering Mathematics (3rd ed.).  Si Trew (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


Implausible. The Theosophist (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually Si, WP:NCBRITPEER says we do use titles in most cases. I might be more upset with this if there weren't so many names in common that need WP:NATURAL disambiguation anyway. --BDD (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I take that back: it's the obvious way to disambiguate. What I was floundering towards is that WP:COMMONNAME is still in play, so that is still at Elizabeth II (to disambiguate from Elizabeth I but not at Dei Gratia Regina Fidei Defensor Elizabeth Secondus for example, even though that's how it appears (abbreviated) on every British (and Canadian) coin. (Also oddly, to me – and I am no monarchist – HMQ as an abbreviation for "Her Majesty the Queen" is red, and HMK → a contested GNG stub at Hindu Makkal Katchi). Si Trew (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
That would only make sense ifHer Majesty The Queen existed, which it does ( → Style_of_the_British_sovereign, as does His Majesty The King. I am your wery umble servant, Si Trew (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Should we keep the redirect, or retarget it to DAB George Hamilton Gordon?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Do I hear the sound of a vermic tin-can opener? Lord Aberdeen and Earl Aberdeen both → Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair, where the lede mentions that that title was created for John Hamilton-Gordon, 7th Earl of Aberdeen. Yet I would have thought "Lord Aberdeen" would be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the sometime Prime Minister (and "Earl Aberdeen" likewise, does an Earl trump a Lord and a Marquess trump both, I am never sure?). I think we should follow the lines of BDD's reasoning, wherever that leads us. Si Trew (talk) 13:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I may be in over my head here; I don't know the British peerage system this well. Does it make sense for the Earldom of Aberdeeen to be discussed on a page nominally about a marquess...ship(?)? Especially since it looks like there were at least seven Earls of Aberdeen before the newer title was created. (Side note: I may never see "marquess" without thinking it's a feminine title first.) I'll check with our local experts to see if they can weigh in here. --BDD (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
So Progress is a feminine thing, then, since the male thing would be a Prog? Marionette is probably weirdist like that, linguistically: but then "ette" is not so much feminine as diminutives (translators into English have great trouble with this, with languages that have that distinction: "little darling" and so on from Russian language, so Little Nell would be roughly Nellette or something like that, back translated. It is not so much feminine, the "-ette", as diminutive, but has come kinda to mean so in English: Cosette is not a small Cos, but casette is a small case. Si Trew (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
An Earl is a Lord kinda by "inheritance" in the object oriented sense (I don't mean in the sense that he inherits his title, but that earls are subsets of lords, almost anyone is a lord, but only some are earls). Marquesses are kinda really hoi polloi as far as the aristocracy goes, and no, the feminine is Marquess (and various others as cognates), not to be confused with her husband the marquis' homophonic cognate marquee (DAB), though some of them wear blouses big enough that the mistake with a marquee (tent) is easy to make. With me so far? Peerage of the United Kingdom will put you into your misery. Si Trew (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. @BDD: is it good form to continue a discussion after relisting, in the bit before the relisting? (You started so I continued.) I know in theory the dates should pick it all out, but I tend to kinda draw a line under it when the line is drawn for relisting. Similarly, I tend to regard any !vote I have made before the relisting as not requiring me explicitly to strike it if I change my mind. What would be your (and others') opinion on it? This is a bit off-topic of course and better for the talk page, but I mention it here first. It came to my notice because WP's notification said that BDD had pinged me but I couldn't see any such comment below the relisting line. Si Trew (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's fine to let the timestamps speak for themselves. And a good closer should notice if you have two votes, but I think it's always best practice to strike an older one. --BDD (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@BDD: I'll go along with that, at least I know where I stand. I think this comment and our replies should be moved out of here to WT:RFD: I'm happy to do it but happy for you to, saving you replying here. Si Trew (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep with the current target, for consistency and agreement with George Hamilton Gordon Aberdeen, pending a new discussion about the proper target for all of the Aberdeen redirects mentioned here. Personally I think we should go with status quo unless and until experts on peerage weigh in, because we're clearly just guessing. Ivanvector (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Typical. I put in the Queen, BDD follows with the King, but User:Ivanvector trumps: to which I submissively agree. I did actually look for {{WikiProject Monarchy}} and so on but couldn't find anything where we could ping them: What do you have? Si Trew (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • delete as implausible typo. Mangoe (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


Weak delete. I'm WP:SURPRISEd that it goes where it does (WP:RFD#D2 confusing). Also fails WP:NOUN (it's an adjective) and is an WP:ORPHAN (though of course that does not rule it out as a redirect, but is perhaps indicative): nothing links there (except things related to this discussion) though stats say it gets hits above noise level (about three a day on average, with a spike to 23 on 14 May, for some reason). It is quite old, though (2009).

We could retarget it as {{R from opposite}} to Availability, which is what the R Available targets.

Or as a more-specific target about telephony, we do have Busy signal (to which Br. Eng. Engaged tone redirects) but I think there is (or was before voicemail etc.) a distinction between the line being in use, and it being unavailable due to a fault, been disconnected, nonexistent number, etc. Line unavailable, Unavailable tone and Unavailable signal, Unavailable message are all red. Si Trew (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Unobtainable tone (the usual phrase in the U.K.) and Unobtainable signal are also red. Si Trew (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Busy toneBusy signal — adding only for completeness, nothing wrong with it. Si Trew (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

June 29[edit]


There is no mention of this pun in the article. The Theosophist (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Neither do we have "Samcam" but SamCam → his wife Samantha Cameron and it is kinda well known (I think) that they did these web broadcasts. only God and the ballot box knows why, nevertheless it is not WP:RS. Si Trew (talk) 10:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello Simon, I missed you! It looks like we do have SamCam...--The Theosophist (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment. Well that's nice that you missed me, I took a bit of a break as there was something contentious I wanted to step aside from... all resolved amicably I am sure but felt i step aside. With your strike, I am not sure now what your intention is to do with it. Si Trew (talk) 10:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
You see, I wrote it after you had noticed that there was such a page, but I had not noticed that you had.--The Theosophist (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Backwards runs history until reels the mind. Do you wnat to add SamCam to the nomination? Si Trew (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Rich, what makes you say this is the correct target? It sounds like this is the name of a website. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
It is (or rather was) - a website of David Cameron. It could be elevated to an article in its own right, there seem to be plenty of sources, or redirect to a more specific page such as "Political campaign tools of David Cameron" if there were one. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC).
  • Comment, Webcameron was David Cameron's one time official website (see here and here), while SamCam is a nickname used for his wife. This is Paul (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
You're probably right, as usual, that SamCam is not named for the webcam but just a good journalistic short-cut. A quick search shows it is used for webcams by Sam's Chowder House though, a presumably non-notable US restaurant chain. Si Trew (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Could be a bit confusing for those outside the UK I suppose. As for Webcameron I think that should probably have its own article if enough info can be found, especially as the Tories seem to have distanced themselves from it in more recent times. I'll see what I can find, and whatever happens here, if there's enough stuff I'll write something. This is Paul (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Since it's not mentioned at the target article, the redirect amounts to little more than an Easter egg for people already familiar with the term. For others, it would confuse; delete for that reason or WP:REDLINK. --BDD (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - SamCam's been mentioned in various news sources which is why it's known but I don't think I've ever heard of "WebCameron" before and I very much doubt anyone else has either. Implausible. –Davey2010Talk 16:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Geisha Montes[edit]

User:MRDU08 moved the article Geisha Montes de Oca to "Geisha Montes" mistakenly. The surname of Geisha’s father and her patriline is "Montes de Oca", not "Montes". If a person types "Geisha Mont..." on the Search, it will appear inmediately "Geisha Montes de Oca", so this re-direct is not needed. Nacho (Talk page) ★ 20:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep as harmless. There does not seem to be another notable (or even non-notable) "Geisha Montes". In the meantime without prejudice I mark as {{R from incorrect name}}. Si Trew (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


This was created with the note: "Obsolete form according to Oxford English Dictionary." However, I don't see the value of redirecting this to a disambiguation page that doesn't contain any entries using this spelling. Delete per WP:RFD#D8 because it is "a novel or very obscure synonym" for "sixth." -- Tavix (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per Tavix - I get the same results. If there are reliable sources for the history of this obsolete spelling, then I suggest it be added to our article 6 (number) and this redirected there. However, I didn't find any. Furthermore, I think the interpretation might be inaccurate. I found a passage from a Middle English Dictionary: "This endenture y made at Exeter the xiij day of Jun, the ȝere of Kyng Harry the zyxst the furste." And another: "How Kynge Herry the Sexyth..Ys trewe Kynge of Fraunce." Perhaps the medieval English were not consistent spellers? Or much more likely I don't know what I'm talking about. Ivanvector (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The mediaeval English were certainly inconsistent spellers: it was not considered very important. And it lasted a long time after the middle ages: no great importance was put on spelling until the 18th century, really.[Zyxst 1] Si Trew (talk) 07:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally I imagine "furste" above is meant in the sense of cognate German Fürst since he has just been called the sixth. See that "the" is so spelled, not with thorn (letter) (Þ, þ) which we commonly and wrongly transliterate as "y, Y" ("Ye olde") – although that may just be a transliteration into the modern English alphabet without thorn (letter) – yet I, Y and J are somewhat interchangeable ("This" but "Kynge") and the King's name is spelled (or spelt) in two different ways. And all that just from two very short examples. Si Trew (talk) 07:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
My interpretation of the first phrase is "this endenture is made at Exeter the sixth day of June, in the first year of King [Henry] the Sixth" which would be 1421 I suppose; contrasted with year of our Lord. But again, I'm no scholar of Mediæval English. Ivanvector (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC This is the Modern English Language Wikipedia, not the Middle English language Wikipedia, for which carries a different language code enm (note, is not the same as -- (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as all above. I have a feeling this is here just for Scrabble fans: WP:NOTDIC. We don't have Zyxt fortunately, and neither is in my (1994) OSW.[Zyxst 2] We do have zyzzyva, a tropical American weevil,[Zyxst 3] and that is possible to play in Scrabble using two blanks: that's not listed in my OSW either. Zzz. Si Trew (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. ^ McCrum, Robert; MacNeil, Robert; Cran, William (1992). "Middle English". The Story of English (Revised ed.). Faber and Faber. pp. 79, 83, 87–91. ISBN 0-571-16443-9. 
  2. ^ Schwarz, Catherine, ed. (1994). Official Scrabble Words (3rd ed.). Chambers. ISBN 0-550-19044-9. 
  3. ^ "What is the absolute last word in any dictionary?". Retrieved 30 June 2015. 

Wal-Mart Knowledge Management[edit]

Delete as confusing; the article doesn't mention this concept at all. -- Tavix (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


Delete per WP:RFD#D8 because this is a "novel or very obscure synonym for an article name." -- Tavix (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per Tavix and WP:RFD#D8. This is a Chinese name, and even though "鋼琴" translates to "piano," we don't usually create redirects unless there's a connection between the language the redirect is written in and the target page. The piano was invented in Italy, so it's doubtful it has a connection to Chinese. SONIC678|Let’s hang out here 00:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete It's not "novel or obscure": 鋼琴 has been in standard modern Chinese for some good long while. It is true that there is no special affinity with Chinese for general pianos. Unless there is a Chinese book/film/song/album that uses that as the exact title, then we can retarget to that. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 04:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. This topic has little affinity for the language of this term, being a general topic of European origins -- (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as obscure synonym. Pianos are also not native to Chinese culture. --Lenticel (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
They're not native to English cuture either, until some idiot from Germany whacked one across the channel, a few years ago, what happened with that,we ended up with bloody Wagner and the Prince Regent and the Royal Albert Hall and Tomorrow Belongs To MeCabinet (musical). Now that is a good song, Oh fatherland fatherland show us the sights are children are waiting to see/ Or glory our future escapes our sin/Tomorrow beongs to me.
Now, I ask you, what have the Germans ever done for us. Well okay forget the Georgian architecture, forget the dutch draining the fens, forget Beethoven and all that lot, but WHAT HAVE THE GERMANS EVER DONE FOR US?. Volkswagen?s. Müller? They come over here with there silly accents and... oh dear... OK they did give me a BMW. Si Trew (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I was umming and arring on this one. Piano is a shortend form of pianoforte, soft and loud, literally, in Italian. So it is not English either, yet nobody would dispute (I think) that piano is an english word, especially if you dropped one on his foot. ("Do you know the piano is broken? Well, you hum it and I'll play it). Si Trew (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

2016 in Pakistan[edit]

The target article contains no information on "201x in Pakistan" which makes these redirects unhelpful and misleading. Someone searching for this would want to find specific information about that year in Pakistan, but would be disappointed to find that we don't have any. -- Tavix (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Nyuyok Siti[edit]

Delete as an implausible search term. I'm not getting any evidence that this is a foreign language, this just looks like an extremely bad way to spell New York City. WP:RFD#D8 applies. -- Tavix (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @Tavix:. Yes, perhaps that was a bad choice of criterion: this more an ad-hoc orthography into English (I'm just playing detective here, I don't know Hangul/Hanji/Korean so I am not qualified to say if this meets any standard for Romanization of Korean.)
As you know, my view is that since redirects exist in article namespace – so that it's hard to tell from many angles if a link is a redirect or an article – then they should generally follow WP:TITLE, with obvious exceptions for slips such as {{R from typo}} and {{R from misspelling}}. However, there are things like this that are not simply slips, so I'd find it hard to draw a firm dividing line. It's less certain whether any particular {{R from foreign}} is useful, for example (and I was translating an article with a French-language title, affichiste, yesterday afternoon, so was probably under the influence of that).
In short, we are in the unfortunate position of the policeman who believes an offence has been committed but cannot make any law fit the crime, so is required to invent his own. Si Trew (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate the research, Simon. Since it's a romanization, that's probably why my translator didn't pick it up. I was thinking more along the lines of 70.51 and thinking it was an attempt at spelling it with a Brooklyn accent. -- Tavix (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment is this an attempt to spell it with the pronunciation of Brooklyn English? -- (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Does a Brooklyn accent count as WP:RFOREIGN? Si Trew (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't think it does, since people have been keeping eye dialect spellings; but since you've discovered this isn't some weird attempt at Brooklyn English, but actually Korean, it fails WP:NOTDIC, Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary, and this is a native English language topic. So.. Delete -- (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I did actually have my tongue in my cheek when I wrote that. I know it is an R to New York City English, as indeed is Bronx accent and several others. It was once New Amsterdam, (That's why they had to name it twice) but never mind, Cornelius Vermuyden turns in his grave once more... Si Trew (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm adding it now. Thanks for checking. -- Tavix (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, was I mistaken? In Korean it goes to New York State, not New York. But I'm sure you must be right. Si Trew (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The Capital of the Sun Belt[edit]

Neither the articles on Houston or the Sun Belt make this claim, and I'm honestly having a hard time finding usage of it anywhere. Searching for "Capital of the Sun Belt" gives me only 6 hits. -- Tavix (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget as {{R to section}} to Nicknames of Houston#Capital of the Sunbelt, where it's referenced. I lived there for two years in the late 90s and can't recall it being called that, but I'm not omniscient. Checking variations (Tavix probably already did this), fortunately we haven't:
Si Trew (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit of a liar, the reference gives as "Golden buckle on the Sun Belt", not "Golden buckle of the Sunbelt" as was at my proposed target – I've fixed that. The reference (New York Times) doesn't say "capital" at all. Si Trew (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, none of those sources reference Houston as a "Capital of the Sunbelt." I'm not sure it's a notable nickname, especially with how few ghits I'm getting. For now, I'll put a {{disputed}} tag over that section pending the outcome of this discussion. (I'm not disputing the nickname "Golden Buckle on the Sun Belt", just the Capital one) -- Tavix (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment One of the 8 ghits I get for "capital of the sun belt" is a New York Times piece that refers to Los Angeles in that manner. (source). So if anything, it's vague. -- Tavix (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I've added numerous references to the article to support the claim. I can find many, many more. Postoak (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Postoak. I appreciate it. I've figured out that my problem was that I was searching for "Sun Belt" (two words) when the actual nickname is "Sunbelt" (one word). I get 12,000 hits searching for it that way which makes a lot more sense. I've removed the disputed tag (although a few of those sources were unreliable). Since there are sources that mention other cities as the "Capital of the Sun( )belt", I still think it's vague as a redirect (although as an entry to Nicknames of Houston, it's definitely okay). -- Tavix (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
And thanks Postoak but what do we do? It's in the target I gave, as a section title for Captial of the Sunbelt, but erroneous. Do we delete that section? That is out of our remit: but patently as far as I and Postoak can see, Houston is not the capital of the sunbelt, and California seems more likely. What to do? Si Trew (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I WP:BOLDly removed the unsourced attribution to the Sun Belt in the article that I suggested, and renamed the section to "Golden Buckle of the Sun Belt", with this edit. "Golden Buckle" is referenced, although hanging by a thread. I think these can both now go Delete, then. Si Trew (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I reverted your edit. Check out Postoak's references that were added, the nickname is definitely used. The confusion came from me searching for "Capital of the Sun Belt" and getting 8 ghits when the nickname is actually "Capital of the Sunbelt" (12,000 ghits). -- Tavix (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


I am doubting the usefulness of this redirect. A Google search reveals less than 1,000 ghits and I can't find a single notable usage of the term. I highly doubt someone searching for this will want to be taken to a general article on flowers. It's not mentioned at the targeted article and there are no incoming links. Delete as we are not a dictionary. -- Tavix (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: I just added Flowerdy to the discussion. The stats mentioned in the rationale only apply to Floweredy. -- Tavix (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm not sure what you mean by notable usage; Wikipedia's guidelines on nobility relate to topic coverage and are not relevant to this discussion. A Google Books search reveals plenty of hits for both of these spellings of the term, used grammatically and in appropriate context. This is a valid word, just like Floral, and both are appropriate redirects to the Flower article. Neelix (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't mean notable in the WP:NOTABLE (wiki-legal) sense, I mean it literally as in: "worthy of note." Also, this is a much different word than "floral." Floral is used 35 times at Flower whereas the words that I nominated aren't used at all. It's a very obscure word, a Google books search only gave me 126 results (which includes forms like Flower Edy). WP:RFD#D8 would apply here. -- Tavix (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was wondering whether Flowerdew was a possible retarget. But resonance with Cowardly , and that cowards (dissenters) in wars are often given (and made to wear) white flowers, also put me off that suggestion. Si Trew (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Well I picked a beautiful pink rose today, to put in my buttonhole, so the world is at peace, now. Si Trew (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Untitled AR Murugadoss project[edit]

Outdated redirect, this project is no longer untitled. -- Tavix (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete it's not untitled any more -- (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense. No links except for this discussion and the move in 2014; hits average about 1 13 a day: but three or four some days, which is above noise level. Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

William Bill Wilson, Jr.: A Life of Servitude[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 Speedily deleted by User:Shirt58. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

this is not a name that people will search for to find this person, and the word "servitude" is incorrect (should be "service") and is actually a disparaging term, though the article creator obviously didnt intend that. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed I left the redirect after renaming the article but it is clearly not required. Theroadislong (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per WP:G7, then (and WP:RFD#D8). Was only created two days ago. Si Trew (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Have nom'd for CSD, I was hoping User:Theroadislong would do that. @Theroadislong: is his name really William Bill Wilson? I mean, he has a first and middle name the same: Bill Bill Jr.? References don't indicate that. Is he not William ("Bill") Wilson Jr.? Bill Wilson → the name DAB at William Wilson, but he's not mentioned there. Si Trew (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've marked the target as {{copyvio}}. Si Trew (talk) 08:39, 30 June 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.

Interesting Facts of the Bible[edit]

Facts from the Bible aren't necessarily interesting. In fact, the article on the Bible doesn't even mention the word "facts". -- Tavix (talk) 14:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Moreover, leaving our own Bible article aside, a concordance here shows that "fact" is only used once in the entire King James Bible, and even then that's in the Apocrypha. "Interesting" doesn't appear at all. But that would be an interesting (or not) fact about the Bible. Si Trew (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOTFAQ this is a FAQ-list name-like title, and Wikipedia is not a FAQ repository, so should not contain titles simulating titles of FAQ lists -- (talk) 05:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ, with 70.51. Si Trew (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
But it's nice to know that there is only one fact in the King James Bible, and even that's apocryphal, and not interesting. Si Trew (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - unlike all of you, I find the fact that there is only one fact in the King James Bible, and that it is apparently the fact that the Jews and Greeks in Cilicia were upset about Onias being slain without cause, quite interesting indeed. Or maybe it's just interesting that someone in antiquity bothered to write it down at all. But neither these meta-fact about facts (or lack thereof), nor the fact itself, are much of any encyclopedic value. Ivanvector (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
No, even E. L. Wisty wasn't interested in it. But I'm glad you did the work to make our position clear, being the singular factotum. Si Trew (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Blank redirect999[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 Speedily deleted both by User:Drmies. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this is nonsense. -- Tavix (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Pinging Eleventhblock who created these redirects apparently as placeholders while moving pages; there may be others. My guess is these all fall under WP:G6. Ivanvector (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete housekeeping cleanup -- (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Nominated both for WP:G6 housekeeping at WP:CSD; WP:G7 plays since author agrees they are part of a three point turn and hir the kerb (or curb). Recently created, WP:RFD#D8 novel or obscure synonym. Si Trew (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment xf back to here both Rs are for G6, G7, and WPD#D8 novel or obscure. Si Trew (talk) 19:36, 30 June 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.


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. I've never seen a G8 on an interwiki link before, but it seems perfectly cromulent here. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The linked Wiktionary entry was deleted. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per WP:G8 because this is a redirect to an invalid target. Jc86035, I'll tag it for you. -- Tavix (talk) 14:30, 29 June 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.

Robert Gardener (disambiguation)[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 Huon. Procedural close. (non-admin closure) Ivanvector (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Accidental creation by me - spelled wrong PamD 10:18, 29 June 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.


Very unlikely redirect. Not a standard or real term. I cannot find any results on Google scholar other than "Be-tween brain", where "-" is used for a new line.

Although listed on dictionary ([2]) this is a potentially frustrating redirect for readers, the majority of whom will expect something on adolescent development (See tween).

I propose deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

We discussed this one on Wiktionary too. It is a real term, though perhaps dated, and always seems to begin with an apostrophe, i.e. 'tweenbrain. A Google Books search finds some usage. Equinox (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


An indisposition currently redirects to disease. In the past, it has redirected to illness and sickness. Aside from arguments over whether other types of ill health (say, broken bones) can constitute indisposition, the term is also used to cover people who are unwilling to do something, which is a different kettle of fish altogether. I propose we replace the redirect with a disambig, an article, or a cross-wiki link to (which I note doesn't include my alternative definition). Dweller (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I've created a Draft:Indisposition DAB, but in doing so, I'm weakly inclined to retarget this to the DAB at Sickness and add the meaning for "disposition away from" there. Si Trew (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
(I've now added the sense of the word that SimonTrew mentions.) Equinox (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@Equinox: where? I don't see it at Sickness, nor anything similar on your contributions for today. Si Trew (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Under "indisposition" at Wiktionary. Equinox (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, OK, thanks. Si Trew (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete or disambiguate it can also be the state of being indisposed (including the meaning of using the W.C.) -- (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Can it? The major dictionaries online (, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Oxford), don't define it thus (you mean unavailable bizarrely → Caller ID?), and even if they did, WP:NOTDIC. Si Trew (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I've often heard it used as a polite euphemism for people in the loo or bath etc. --Dweller (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
What would be an impolite euphemism? That's either redundant or, in its negative, a contradiction in termsContradictio in terminis (Should be reversed, those two, per WP:USEENGLISH). (euphemism is Greek, not Latin, before some other mobile vulgusOchlocracy points that out. I only did metalwork at school.) And "I've often heard" is not RS. I do think it was a Victorian euphemism, and Punch (magazine) would probably be a good RS for that kind of thing, but without RS, we are nothing. Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

June 28[edit]

The News-Dispatch (Jeannette, PA)[edit]

Not mentioned in the target article; WP:RDEL#10 applies. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

This page is about the newspaper based in Michigan City, Indiana. For the Valley News Dispatch published in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, see Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
We have Valley News Dispatch that redirects there, created on 18 Jan 2009 by User:Dissolve. So the hatnote was more complicated than it needed to be, and with this edit I have changed it to:
This page is about the newspaper based in Michigan City, Indiana. For the newspaper published in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, see Valley News Dispatch.
Without prejudice to that discussion, I've made that an R to section Pittsburgh Tribune-Review#Kent State and the Pulitzer and added a courtesy comment at the target. However, I am not sure that the Valley News Dispatch serves Jeannette, PA: its parent paper certainly does. But since it's not mentioned specifically at the target, it is also WP:RFD#D2 confusing and WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense. We don't have News Dispatch, The News Dispatch or Valley News-Dispatch as {{R from alternative punctuation}}, nor for that matter The News-Dispatch (Michigan City, IN) nor The News Dispatch (Michigan City, Indiana).
Jeanette is 30 miles from Pittsburgh, whether that counts as a suburb I am not qualified to say: but certainly the article doesn't. Si Trew (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Two different periodicals. The News-Dispatch (Jeannette, PA) became defunct in 1981.[3] Valley News Dispatch is still published and serves the Alle-Kiski Valley, made up of Tarentum and New Kensington. dissolvetalk 10:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


These are unnecessary redirects. Three of them, namely 2002.11, 2002.12, and 2006.04, redirect to a month in the wrong year. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete per GeoffreyT2000. The correct format is mm-yyyy, not yyyy-mm; and 2002.11, 2002.12, and 2006.04 redirect to November 2006, December 2006, and April 2004 respectively (these are redirects to months in the wrong years). SONIC678 |Let’s hang out here 01:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak keep seems reasonable search terms. Correct the erroneous redirects to point to the right months. -- (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, we have collation orders for that. WP:MOSNUM would grind its teeth at this. Why not have 1976.03 then? I suppose it is the User:Thryduulf argument that "it shouldn't be created but if it has been, it shouldn't be deleted". (Paraphrasing Thryduulf). But MOS:NUM applies and WP:TITLE to. Sorry to grind the same stone, but why should titles have a Get out of Jail Free card when content hasn't? These are not just useless, but harmful and blocking searches for common terms like 2006.16 (kilohertz). Si Trew (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Adam's wine[edit]

Delete as vague and due to it not being mentioned at the target. It seems to be an obscure synonym for water and/or a Liquor store in Brooklyn. -- Tavix (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep- Water is sometimes called Adam's ale or Adam's wine. This epithet refers to the fact that the biblical Adam had only water to drink. If this is deleted I think Adam's Ale should go as well. My keep is weak because this term is generally used for humor, and in most cases it would be better to simply refer to water.Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Retarget to Temperance movement. It seems that the biblical connotations aren't just for joke. The Temperance movement have religious roots. It seems that their statement about water boils down to "hey if water's good enough for Adam then it ought to be good enough for you". Unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with Western history to confidently include this entry in said article.--Lenticel (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


Useless redirect. Unlikely to be searched. GZWDer (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete, WP:RFD#D7 broken, target does not exist. Any possible retarget e.g. to California Air Resources Board would be WP:CNR, will take as CSD WP:G8. No internal links, oddly has peak of 4 hits on 24 May 2005, otherwise at bot noise level. Si Trew (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment. The target is actually a {{Double soft redirect}} to "m:Global bans and m:WMF Global Ban Policy". Si Trew (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment. Ah, which is why there are the stats for 24 May 2015 when it was only created on 25 June 2015, i.e. four days ago, as is a bit perverse in giving stats for the target when there are notices in place on the R page. WP:RFD#D8 kicks in as well then, which again suggests taking to CSD if recently created. Si Trew (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I created this redirect when someone mentioned the phrase "SanFranBan" in a discussion and I had no idea what they were talking about. I did, quite literally, search for this. Obviously this redirect is not useful to our readers, but may be useful for some editors. Redirects are cheap. HiDrNick! 13:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, disparaging neologism with very little currency. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only visible on forums and self-published content. Not even one hit on a truly reliable and independent source to make it stick. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless I missed it, "SanFranBan" isn't mentioned at either target. In Wiki context, this seems like either a topic ban of San Francisco related topics, or a ban of everyone from San Francisco; neither one of those seem likely to happen. Especially since that's unrelated to a global ban, I think this redirect is confusing at best. -- Tavix (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Principle of continuity[edit]

The target does not discuss the concept. Taku (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Mission: Impossible VI[edit]

Not announced yet. No proper confirmation (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete all as misleading and a WP:CRYSTAL violation. The target is the 5th film in the series, not the 6th. (I believe that the nominator meant to add that point ... because I almost voted "keep" until I saw what the issue truly is.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't 100% agree with "retargetting" this redirect as mentioned below, but it's enough to neutralize my previous opinion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Lucy 2[edit]

Not confirmed. (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • We don't know when (or if) Lucy 2 will come out, so let's keep this redirect for the time being, and expand it into an article when-and if-Lucy 2 comes out. SONIC678 |Let’s hang out here 21:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Misleading, a WP:CRYSTAL violation, and possibly ambiguous, given the amount of subjects on Lucy (disambiguation), especially given that Lucy (film) targets the disambiguation page, and none of the films listed there are in the same film series. Steel1943 (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Steel1943 - "Lucy 2" can refer to anything but either way it's too early atm, No objections to recreation once more stuff crops up. –Davey2010Talk 00:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2 confusing, WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense, WP:RFD#D8 bad target. If the 2014 film was not Lucy 2, then it's not really CRYSTAL but just plain wrong. (There is a vague, non-RS mention of a sequel in section Lucy (2014 film)#Graphic novel and sequel, but not as "Lucy 2"). Si Trew (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Country Brand Index[edit]

Article no longer mentions this index. This WP:TOP100 article was merged into Nation branding, but the only content about it in that article was a primary-sourced copyvio. Removing it left an empty redirect loop which I've just cut. FutureBrand do not seem to be a notable organisation. McGeddon (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

List of girl groups[edit]

I recently removed all vocal groups from List of all-female bands because they didn't meet the list criteria. A girl group is not the same as an all-female band, according to the latter article. Another option is turning List of girl groups into a separate article, although an article of that title was deleted in 2007. Random86 (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment so exactly where is the information for all-female vocal groups now? -- (talk) 06:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Looks like they disappeared with User:Random86's sequence of edits between 23 June and today. I think we should restore version 668306530 and keep this or at least, do as Random86 suggests, and create a separate list (nobody's stopping anyone turning the redirect into an article). Si Trew (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - a not-recent edit at all-female band defines a girl group as distinct from an all-female band, supposedly on the basis of whether or not its members play instruments, though also that this definition is not universal (and thus potentially POV). I'm with Si on this one, we should revert Random86's edits, but without prejudice against creating a new List of girl groups based on the existence of these distinctions. If someone else wants to punt that to AfD well that's their choice; the eight-year-old AfD ignored the (maybe more recent) guideline that lists and categories are not automatically redundant. Ivanvector (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm willing to create a new List of girl groups page with the groups I removed. If my edits on List of all-female bands are reverted, the lead section there will have to be removed. All-female band doesn't discuss girl groups, so should the list article? Random86 (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I think we have rough consensus here that the information removed from the target should go somewhere, rather than be deleted. Over the last day or so I obtained a copy of the old deleted list from a friendly administrator, and I've posted a question over at WP:AN about having the old version restored so that the content that Random86 removed could be added to it instead. The question is about whether it's technically possible, not a request to actually have it done, and not meant to bias this discussion. If you're interested, have a look. At any rate if we go this way, it would not be necessary to revert the deletion, we can just pull the info from the page history. Ivanvector (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Turn it into a list with the content User:Random86 removed from List of all-female bands.--Cattus talk 11:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

June 27[edit]

Memoria pichilemina[edit]

Delete due to self-promotion by User:Diego Grez who created both the redirect and the web-site "Memoria pichilemina". Memoria pichilemina has no links to it and was previously an article that got deleted. —Sietecolores (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep and redirect to Pichilemu#Media. I've got nothing else to say than you guys (you know who, Sietecolores) should stop this "campaign" against my "self-promoted" websites. Oh dear, I need so much that promotion!!!! (Sure, thing). Diego Grez (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I consider that Diego Grez vote have little weight in the light he has WP:COI with Memoria pichilemina. And to you Diego Grez, there no campaign against you. There is a general campaign in Wikipedia against irrelevant content and self-promotion. By the way just discovered a very similar redirect that should be deleted along this it is Memoria Pichilemina (capital letter). –Sietecolores (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
It is up to admins to decide whether my comment has "little weight" or not. Your allegations that I have been making self-promotion are plain stupid. Regards, --Diego Grez (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well if you don't need the promotion why are you so keen to have it kept? It's not up to admins, anyway, it is up to consensus by the entire community. Si Trew (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep both capitalizations. Mentioned at target, and referenced – although the url and archiveurl (Wayback Machine) are reversed in the reference (108), and the reference is WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, but both are live. Seems an unlikely search term for an English-speaking audience, especially considering the conjugation, but harmless. Si Trew (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

List of Pakistani heads of state or government[edit]

Redirects to List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan. It obviously can't point to that and to List of Presidents of Pakistan and to Governor-General of Pakistan. No way can this redirect do what it claims to do. Bazj (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:XY. There's truly no way to know which of these subjects a reader would be searching. --BDD (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
    • LessSi Trew (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Strongly annoyed comment. Who suggested delete? I can't see it, cos the nominator didn't. I don't see how User:BDD can say "per XY" when User:XY did not suggest a delete. I shall remind you once more, this is redirecrts for discussion, whatever your bot says, not deletion. Si Trew (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Read it again SimonTrew, it says per WP:XY not "per XY". And, for clarity, while a diambiguation page is a possibility, disambiguating a deliberately ambiguous title is pointless. I agree with BDD that Delete is the only realistic option. Bazj (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Fair play, there, User:Bazj: I hadn't noticed that: my mistake. I think essentially WP:TWODABS, which I'm surprised User:BDD didn't mention, but am still not quite sure on this one. . Si Trew (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that; you're absolutely right. Ivanvector, agreed? --BDD (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me, but I disagree, per WP:SNOW. The restored list is a mess, and somewhat indiscriminate since "head of state" and "head of government" are overlapping roles in the context of Pakistan. There are always two, and their terms are not the same, so we can't even really list them side-by-side. If we reorganize the list, we would have a list of heads of state and a separate list of heads of government. Except we already have both of those, so this is redundant. Punting it back to Afd is pointless bureaucracy; this should just be deleted. Ivanvector (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Disagree with restarting discussion. The list that's been restored is a mush of two lists, numbered as if it's one, and no easy way of differentiating the two roles (HoS v HoG) or the three positions (GG, Pres, PM) and their relationship to each other at the time. I've re-added the discussion notice which should not be removed unilaterally before the discussion is over. Bazj (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural close per Chilling. This should he handled through a new AfD -- (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
In the interest of consensus, and because we don't have one here, I agree. Send it back to AfD. Ivanvector (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll go along with that. We're not discussing the redirect but the content of its target, so this is beyond our jurisdiction here. Si Trew (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


These redirects, among all the other ones listed, could all be deleted. It doesn't really serve any purpose. It's the equivalent of listing every single hamburger variety possible and having it redirect to the page "hamburger." On top of that, none of these redirects are cited so they could just as easily be made up. Those looking for Chè varieties will undoubtedly just go directly to the article instead. I didn't list the other 67 as it seemed too tedious. (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Question: Is this the "other 67" redirects you're referring to? Tavix| Talk  19:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • ^Yes (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep all. I just counted ~75 varieties of Che on that page. If redirects are mentioned and discussed on a page, they should be kept and I'm assuming they all are. Also, this isn't the right forum to deal with sourcing problems. -- Tavix (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Tavix. --BDD (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this is leaning towards keep, but want to give ourselves an extra week to allow more responses.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 13:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Charles de Gaulle (grandson)[edit]

I think we can all see the intent here, but this is nonsense disambiguation. Every person named Charles de Gaulle is a grandson—presumably to four different people. BDD (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - I did a search to see if maybe the title "grandson" is notable in this usage, but it doesn't seem to be, so it's just ambiguous disambiguation. Ivanvector (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep presumably this is a person named CdG who is the grandson of a person named CdG, from the formulation of the title. So it is working as advertised. Since this isn't the actual title of the article, the article having a precision title, there's no worries about the title of the article. We could always point it to the Charles de Gaulle dab page. "petit-fils du general" seems to be widely used. -- (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The proper analogy, I think, would be with Winston Churchill (grandson) -> Winston_Churchill (1940-2010). I believe their two grandfathers had a little disagreement occasionally. Si Trew (talk) 23:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - are we assuming that this is Charles de Gaulle who is a grandson, or a grandson of Charles de Gaulle? And which Charles de Gaulle (or other person) is the grandfather? Or grandson? This is confusing and improbable. Ivanvector (talk) 14:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The assumption is that the person is named CdG and is the grandson of a man named CdG; just like any other similar usage in regular language (ie. The Elder, The Younger, "(uncle)", "(nephew)" ) -- (talk) 05:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as vague and confusing. If you'd want to disambiguate it this way, it would have to be Charles de Gaulle (grandson of Charles de Gaulle) but that's still a little ridiculous. -- Tavix (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Why? Patently Charles de Gaulle, the chap who was the sometime president of France, is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. No doubt he was somebody's grandson: in fact, his grandfather was Julien Phillipe de Gaulle on his father's side, as is said in Henri de Gaulle, his father's, article. His uncle was Charles de Gaulle (poet), but we don't have Charles de Gaulle (uncle) nor Charles de Gaulle (nephew): This is used for disambiguation, and that is all. It's not a question of having to take an absolute point in some genealogical coordinate system and work off that, but what makes WP:COMMONSENSE. Hence my analogy where Winston Churchill is the old Edwardian duffer who was not very good in the Boer war, as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and thus Winston Churchill (grandson) to disambiguate. What you are really arguing is whether CDG the Elder or Winston the Elder should be PRIMARYTOPIC. If they are, by consensus, then we have to disambiguate the others somehow, and this seems a WP:NATURAL way to do it and still be WP:CONCISE. Si Trew (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
It's definitely not natural disambiguation. Parenthetical disambiguation never is—excluding, of course, topics whose names include parentheses, such as Was (Not Was). "Charles de Gaulle (grandson)" communicates "Charles de Gaulle, a grandson" like "Charles de Gaulle (poet)" communicates "Charles de Gaulle, a poet". The Charles de Gaulle is clearly the PRIMARYTOPIC, and that's part of why this is problematic—he's the most notable Charles de Gaulle who was a grandson, just as he's the most notable Charles de Gaulle who was a politician. (Charles de Gaulle (politician) doesn't exist, but if it did, it would redirect to him as {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}.) That's what I mean when I say this is nonsense disambiguation. (Side note: I came across a biography disambiguated with (person) once. He wasn't a primary topic, but everything else of that name wasn't a person. Still, I think it ended up getting renamed.) --BDD (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/April 1, 2005[edit]

These redirects were created from page moves done by Waldir and should be deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Question - are these breaking anything? They certainly don't seem useful, but if they're not actively harmful to something then there isn't a pressing need to delete. On the other hand it doesn't seem like it would harm anything if they were gone, either. The stats tool seems unable to process these pages, and none have incoming links other than maintenance stuff. Ivanvector (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - for neatness' sake, I'd rather have them deleted than existing, if neither option harms the encyclopedia. However, I can't recall why I didn't seek to delete the redirects when I moved the pages. Probably there was no special reason, but I'm not 100% sure. In User:Waldir/DateMatrix#2005 I do have a note about April 2005, but it doesn't seem related... Waldir talk 00:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Certainly unnecessary, but harmless and unambiguous. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 12:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong neutral - I don't think it really matters one way or the other what we do with these, you guys. Delete per no consensus at Rfd? Ivanvector (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Corporare Headquarters[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 redirect boldly retargeted. (non-admin closure) oknazevad (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Retarget to corporate headquarters as a {{R from typo}}. The current target does not have a "corporare", but it does have a "corporate" , so this is a typo for "corporate headquarters", which we already have a general article on. This is clearly not a special Star Trek topic, so the Star Trek category, and Star Trek wikiproject banner should be stripped when this is retargetted. -- (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Retarget No idea why this this redirecting to the 2009 Star Trek film at all. Miyagawa (talk) 09:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Be bold and retarget. No need for this RfD. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget is fine. I applaud the IP editor's desire for discussion and consensus, but this probably doesn't need a discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Boldly go to its new target. No discussion needed. oknazevad (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes check.svg Done. Decided just to do it. There really is absolutely no relevance to the film to justify the old redirect; it is not in anyway a named location in the film. oknazevad (talk) 19:35, 27 June 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.

Pardew Shuffle[edit]

Delete. Term is not mentioned in the article, and it does not appear to refer to anything in the article.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, possibly a WP:BLP issue. Ivanvector (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - not mentioned in the article itself. Fenix down (talk) 07:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - never heard of this, not needed, BLP issues. GiantSnowman 13:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Swanee Shuffle[edit]

Delete. Term is not mentioned in the article, and it does not appear to refer to anything in the article.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  04:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Untitled Third Rihanna Album[edit]

Outdated redirect, this album definitely has a title. -- Tavix (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete since it's no longer a plausible synonym. --Lenticel (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. No links in articles. Stats are averaging about 1 a day, including the peak of the last few days no doubt caused by this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. We should have a speedy criterion for "upcoming untitled album" redirects. Ivanvector (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

June 26[edit]

Pubic transportation[edit]

Per the reasoning at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008 December 13#Pubic goods→Public good; even if it's theoretically a plausible typo it's not being used at all, has a high risk of being the target of disruption, and is also misleading because the phrase obviously has no relation to the target. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. This is a somewhat reasonable typo, but we don't need jokes about the transportation of the pubis. (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per the linked previous discussion. I'm inclined to think it's a plausible misspelling, but I tend to agree it would be better to delete this one. Ivanvector (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep {{R from typo}} -- quite plausible mispelling -- (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


where should this go? (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Electoral Reform Services[edit]

Very misleading. The Electoral Reform Society has nothing to do with Electoral Reform Services. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 15:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Almost by definition they have no interest in electoral reform: it's a separation of concerns that the Society does the "electoral reform" bit and the company does the "services" bit. Actually I think my IET members' ballot and my Nationwide Building Society members' ballot are both done by them, they do quite a lot of that kind of thing. Si Trew (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • delete per WP:REDLINK. Actually there is a link, per [4] "The Electoral Reform Society, which was established in 1884 as an autonomous campaigning organisation with no shareholders, originally set up Electoral Reform Services Limited in the mid-1980s to run ballots and elections and to provide related services. The Society still holds a minority shareholding in the Company and is funded by a dividend but Electoral Reform Services has complete financial and operational independence from the Society or any other organisation." This information should be on both articles, and they should be linked by "not to be confused with" hatnotes, but the redirect is misleading. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Refine to section. It is used by a WP:RS, in the FT, once:
as well as plenty of cross-links at the websites of both the Electoral Reform Society and Electoral Reform Services. I don't see how User:Wilbysuffolk comes to the conclusion they are not related. It's mentioned at the target. Without prejudice, I'm marking it as {{R to section}}, to section Electoral_Reform_Society#Related_organisations for now. Si Trew (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


Ambigous and unneeded redirect. Also WP:FORRED. GZWDer (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:FORRED per nom. Ivanvector (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ivanvector and WP:FORRED. This redirect is a Chinese redirect. Even though it translates to "Blur," we don't usually create redirects in other languages unless there's a connection between the language and the target. This redirect would be appropriate if there is a Chinese band called Blur, but the band Blur is an English band, so there's no connection between it and Chinese. SONIC678 |Let’s hang out here 17:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The Chinese article seems to suggest it's a legitimate name for it, but the disambiguation page doesn't mention it. This could be a literal translation rather than the band's actual Chinese name. Adam9007 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
    • @Adam9007: zh:模糊zh:含糊 is a stub on the concept of "vagueness", not a disambiguation page. I've added a hatnote for disambiguation. Deryck C. 12:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, you're right; I don't know why I thought it was a disambiguation (the style?). But the point remains; until you added the hatnote, it redirected to a page that had no mention of it, seemingly a totally different subject. Adam9007 (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to The Magic Whip, which actually uses this term, and is featured on the album cover art -- (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • As the creator of this redirect, i can’t see how it could possibly be “ambiguous and unneeded”. The cover of their latest album quite clearly states it to be “魔鞭” by the band “模糊”. That you can’t read the script is rather irrelevant. I could imagine someone who does know Chinese searching for this after seeing the cover. � (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep (1st choice) or retarget (2nd choice) to The Magic Whip. That 模糊 魔鞭 is on the album cover is definitive proof of specific affinity between this Chinese-language phrase and the band, so WP:FORRED clearly doesn't apply. zh.wp has accepted 模糊 as a correct Chinese name of the band (it was added in Feb 2015 and never reverted) so I would prefer to keep the redirect as is. Deryck C. 17:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Deryck. I would even go a step further and say that this should be mentioned somewhere at that article, perhaps in The Magic Whip section? -- Tavix (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


If we need to keep this redirect, King v. Burwell seems to be a better target (since the term was coined in the dissent in that case). RJaguar3 | u | t 03:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Brian Babin. He's currently introducing a bill actually called the "SCOTUScare Act of 2015" in the legislature, [5], which is both an obvious and a stupid political stunt. Honestly there are two things that bewilder me about American politics: guns, and resistance to universal health care. Boggles the mind. Ivanvector (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete SCOTUS-care v SCOTUS-scare; scare from/of/by SCOTUS also sometimes uses this spelling -- (talk) 05:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep It should point to the ACA page as that is what it refers to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


I considered tagging this CSD R3, because to me, it's totally implausible (I have no idea what this character is, let alone how to type it!). This was originally a redirect to Extraterrestrial life, but now redirects to Space Invaders. I don't see what this has to do with the game, and I think it's an implausible redirect to Extraterrestrial life. I notice a similar discussion resulting in keep. Extraterrestrial life maybe, but Space Invaders? Adam9007 (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Nah, we should keep this one. The emoji itself is a clear reference to the aliens from Space Invaders. Most of the other emojis redirect to something too, since they're easily accessible with an iPhone keyboard, and useful to those who don't know what certain emojis represent. Will(B) 02:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete unless a better target is suggested; this isn't one of the Space Invaders characters, and as far as I can tell there are no Space Invaders emoji. Ivanvector (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I think it should either be deleted or retargeted. Space Invaders isn't the first thing that comes to mind when I see this character. It says here it's known as a Space Invaders emoji, but also as a video game monster emoji (not Space Invaders-specific). If this is the this case, maybe Mob_(video_gaming) would be more appropriate? (though not all appear like they do in this character) Adam9007 (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
      • No, this emoji definitely refers to Space Invaders specifically; it's a widely-recognized symbol, in the gaming community at least. Just look at the image in the Gameplay section of the Space Invaders article—the monster sprite for one of the species is identical to this particular emoji. (There are other alien species in the image as well, but the one represented by the emoji is by far the most recognizable.) Will(B) 12:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
        • (By the way, I'd be looking up links to back up my point, but I'm typing on a phone right now so it's not particularly convenient right now.) Will(B) 13:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • None of the characters look even remotely like this emoji to me. I see here what looks like a goomba with comically large eyes or wings protruding from its head. Is it a font issue? Out of curiosity, I just tried looking up this page on my Android and got an image that looks like the head of a grey alien, which is a very long way from the Space Invaders aliens. If I do an image search for "space invaders emoji" I see ones that look like this, which is certainly a Space Invader but it's not what I see here, and on other pages I see that emoji listed alongside the grey emoji, suggesting that they are separate characters. Can someone with an iPhone look up this page and report what they see? Ivanvector (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. On my missus' android smartphone thingy, it comes up as a red octopus-like icon with yellow antennae, green eyes and a black nose or mouth. On my Windows 7 version of Mozilla Firefox, it comes up as unrecognized character, as it does on Google Chrome for Windows 7. That is WP:RFD#D2 confusing for a large number of readers. (Heaven knows how one would input it.) Apparently it is U+01F47E ALIEN MONSTER[6] but WP:ARTICLETITLE rather prefers WP:COMMONNAME, WP:USEENGLISH. Si Trew (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment. It's only "identical to" some other icon if one's glyphs and fonts are the same as those intended by the author. That need not be the case, QED above. Si Trew (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Extraterrestrial life. It's typical here for emoji to redirect to the things that they symbolize, and I think that it's clear from the above that this is meant to be an "alien monster". Similar emoji redirects include 👽Extraterrestrial life, 👺Tengu, 🐲Dragon, 👯Playboy Bunny, and 💀Human skull symbolism. For at least some of us it is not one of the Space Invaders aliens, so leaving as-is makes it a 🍏 to 🍊 redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I see this the same way it appears in Si's link, though maybe that's just the way my browser (Chrome on W7) is rendering both of them? I see an alien face with pointy teeth and eye stalks, which is not a Space Invaders alien as far as I know. As I recently commented, I think we should rethink the present consensus on these Unicode and symbol redirects. If there's a slam-dunk, no-brainer, unambiguous target, fine. Otherwise, these are just Easter eggs, unnecessary for navigation and potentially confusing. --BDD (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

June 25[edit]

Sir David Cameron[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 David Young Cameron (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Delete: He doesn't have a knighthood. If he does get one (which I doubt), then this redirect can be easily recreated. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - He's never been referred to as "Sir" and it's unlikely anyone will refer to him as such, Although I do refer to him as another word but unfortunately I can't repeat that here. –Davey2010Talk 22:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per BDD - Looking at the stats below it does seem alot of people use the redirect so it is for now atleast serving a purpose ... even if it is incorrect, Guess there's no harm in keeping & adding the "R from inc name" template to it. –Davey2010Talk 15:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Retarget - I decide to weak Keep and then something better pops up ... I literally give up now Face-grin.svg. –Davey2010Talk 17:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Redirects are cheap; why not satisfy these readers who may have thought that he is knighted. Whether he actually is or not doesn't matter. Rcsprinter123 (natter) @ 22:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete False; WP:BLP. Ivanvector (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC).
  • Delete as confusing. It's an obscure synonym at best. --Lenticel (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment When I checked the redirects to this article I noticed this one but decided not to nominate it because I thought that some people could be mistaken, believing that he is, indeed, a knight. Now I am a bit split...--The Theosophist (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and tag with {{R from incorrect name}}. Completely plausible error. Many important British people have a "Sir" designation, and the PM is a pretty important person. Not saying I would make the mistake, but it's very easy to imagine a reader doing so. BLP would concern me if this were in the article or if it were negative, but neither of those are the case. --BDD (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I believe in useful {{R from incorrect name}}s, but this isn't one of them. This redirect could leas someone who isn't familiar with how Wikipedia works to believe that since this redirect led them here, the redirect's target has been given the title "Sir". In other words, the redirect is possibly harmful due to promoting false information. Steel1943 (talk) 15:32, 26 June 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.

IKEA nesting instinct[edit]

I nominated this separately from Remaining Men Together since this one was reportedly merged, though looking over the target article, that doesn't seem to be the case. IKEA wasn't mentioned at all at the time, and it still isn't. BDD (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - was WP:OR and probably a WP:COPYVIO as a standalone article and those issues would remain if it were to be merged. Someone can recreate this article if someone can find a notable scholarly analysis of this phenomenon that isn't just a review of the book, or the book itself. Ivanvector (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Remaining Men Together[edit]

Non-notable concept not discussed at the target article, nor that of the film adaptation. BDD (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

New River, Nanjing[edit]

Improper literal redirect which is much unlikely to be searched. GZWDer (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Per nom. No need to keep this.  Philg88 talk 16:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:XY. Chinese place names are often translated literally rather than phonetically (e.g. Pearl River, Yellow River). But within Nanjing there's both 上新河 and 秦淮新河, so this redirect is ambiguous and should be deleted. Deryck C. 17:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • @Deryck Chan: If this is ambiguous, would it be better to disambiguate it? I noticed that there aren't any Chinese places listed at New River, but should there be? -- Tavix (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


I would like to propose the deletion of this redirect. When you select your hometown in Facebook it shows Sampernandu instead of the official name San Fernando, Pampanga. This creates a confusion among those who live in San Fernando, Pampanga which results in complaints about the said name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2015‎ (UTC)

  • Delete per nominator. This is a page move redirect which is not from an old name but from a failed experiment by Thenonhacker to rename the page to affect the way that Facebook operates, which we have little control over. The same user created the page on Kapampangan Wikipedia, however the interlanguage link from here is to pam:San Fernando Lakanbalen, Pampanga, which does not mention "Sampernandu" at all. I think this is in good faith and not vandalism, but it should be deleted. Ivanvector (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not our problem if Facebook puts a city under a random unknown name, "Sampernandu" on Google seems to bring up Facebook, Instagram and surname crap but nothing of relevance, "Sampernandu" isn't even mentioned in San Fernando, Pampanga so seeing as it's not a referred term for the area I'm personally not seeing any reason for keeping. –Davey2010Talk 22:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - This redirect mess was created by the same user back in January 2015 as he was creating "aliases" for the city. I'm not sure if Facebook captured the title he created, but I know that user created this fictitious title which started this mess.--RioHondo (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as a very unlikely misspelling. I can't recall a Philippine language or dialect that pronounce the name that way. --Lenticel (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the best story[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 deleted by Ponyo: (CSD G5: Mass deletion of pages added by Jovovich has the best story ever.) (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this should be deleted, because I don't see what this redirect (created from a page move) has to do with the article. Adam9007 (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I have no knowledge of why the content was originally at that page. Iamahashtag (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

  • DELETE (Radera) This redirect is a question, and "best" is not clearly defined and subjective. Wikipedia should be a neutral encyclopedia, shouldn't it? User:Andra Datormolnet Talk
    10:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • How bizarre! New user Jovovich has the best story ever made the target article, along with a few other taxonomy stubs—and thanks for that, Jovovich. But the Agrochola schreieri was originally made under this title, despite otherwise being a normal taxonomy stub. And this is the user's most recent creation, so it seems strange if meant as a test. --BDD (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense. Very strange creation, but since it was only created yesterday there's no need to keep it as a page move redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 15:24, 25 June 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.